Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

And how you view it personally.

I dont know how many people know this but Atheism was initially used to describe early Christians during the Roman Empire. I like to know what exactly was its original definition and how did it come to have its modern meaning.

if anyone can answer that, i would be very grateful.

I also like to discuss if you think Atheism is an absolute belief in no deity whatsoever or do you just think it is default position going neither way.

I often tell certain ppl of certain beliefs that I am an atheist in regards to their specific religion and god.

I dont consider myself an agnostic I just try not to speak on a religious subject I dont know about. I try to explain that me not having an opinion on their obscure religion or their definition of their god does not make me agnostic in the same way I am not anti certain animals that i am not aware of that may exist.


If a religion says their religious leader who is flesh and blood is a god than he is your god not mine and I dont think I am going to argue semantics b/c of what your religion constitutes a god.


On the other hand if your religion states what your god must be and he, she or it fails to meet its own criteria than I will say that is not a god even by your standard let alone me worshiping it if did exist.

okay, i think i ranted long enough.. i like to hear your opinion and views.
discuss...

You know, we have an atheism thread. Just saying.

Not much clue on the historical stuff. You'd probably have a better time on wikipedia or google.

Especially because there isn't a coherent doctrine or official group, there's not one definition of atheism. I'd contend that there's no one anything because belief is individual, but that's a philosophical argument, not a societal one.

There's varying degrees. In some rough order of severity we have:
1 - "I don't know"
2 - "I don't know, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "I don't know, but I believe there is no God"
4 - "There is no God"
5 - "I know there is no God"

Most atheists would be 2-4. #1 is pretty clear agnosticism, not atheism, and #5 is pretty irrational extremism. My own definition would probably be #3, and is also what I happen to be, but there's contention on which is the most standard depending on who you're talking to.

Originally posted by Digi
You know, we have an atheism thread. Just saying.

Not much clue on the historical stuff. You'd probably have a better time on wikipedia or google.

Especially because there isn't a coherent doctrine or official group, there's not one definition of atheism. I'd contend that there's no one anything because belief is individual, but that's a philosophical argument, not a societal one.

There's varying degrees. In some rough order of severity we have:
1 - "I don't know"
2 - "I don't know, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "I don't know, but I believe there is no God"
4 - "There is no God"
5 - "I know there is no God"

Most atheists would be 2-4. #1 is pretty clear agnosticism, not atheism, and #5 is pretty irrational extremism. My own definition would probably be #3, and is also what I happen to be, but there's contention on which is the most standard depending on who you're talking to.


Good scale.


I'd be

0 - "I don't know, but I believe there is a God."

Well, we could split hairs...I'd probably make you -1 (sticking to the same number scale), with 0 being "I believe in a creative force, higher intelligence, etc." before we get into omniscient or at least monotheistic gods. But yeah, same idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good scale.


I'd be

0 - "I don't know, but I believe there is a God."

I believe that's sometimes called agnostic theism.

It's not a position I would include in definitions of atheism. To put it in the broadest possible terms atheism is the position that "it is more reasonable to say that god does not exists than to say god does exist". Any scale is ultimately going to leave people out. Where do you put someone like Pojman who's position is, crudely, that we should believe in god even if we know god doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe that's sometimes called agnostic theism.

Indeed and it is what I labeled myself in the other atheism thread in my discussion with Digi.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a position I would include in definitions of atheism. To put it in the broadest possible terms atheism is the position that "it is more reasonable to say that god does not exists than to say god does exist". Any scale is ultimately going to leave people out. Where do you put someone like Pojman who's position is, crudely, that we should believe in god even if we know god doesn't exist?

Well, "0" hardly counts as being on a numbered system (when making a bulleted or numbered list, you don't start with "0"...at least I don't think you do). That was intended to be mildly amusing for Digi.


Pojman? He'd clearly be a "third" kind. He'd be the Fascist of the Politcal Specturm.

Originally posted by Digi
4 - "There is no God"
5 - "I know there is no God"

it might just be semantics, but what is the meaningful distinction between these positions?

I would be 3 on that scale.

I consider myself Agnostic but when people ask i just say Atheist as to not have to explain myself or get into a never ending debate with theists. I believe, based on facts, that there is no God, but i can't be completely sure and remain open to the idea and would have no problem praying to a deity if evidence that one existed is presented to me.

Originally posted by Digi
There's varying degrees. In some rough order of severity we have:
1 - "I don't know"
2 - "I don't know, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "I don't know, but I believe there is no God"
4 - "There is no God"
5 - "I know there is no God"



I'm a 3 as well. Since there is no real way to prove whether there is or isn't a God, I'll have to stick with "I believe there is no God".

Atheism is believing there is no God. A side has been picked. I don't equate it with agnosticism, where one is still "on the fence."

Whether one says, "I don't believe in God," or "There is no God," is a difference of expression, as belief is implied in the latter. IMO, the statements differentiate atheists.

To say "I don't know, but I don't think there is a God," is someone with one leg on the fence and the other foot on the (atheist) ground.

Originally posted by inimalist
it might just be semantics, but what is the meaningful distinction between these positions?

Technically there may not be one. Just seemed like there was another level of extremism beyond "There is no God" in terms of how people approach it. I'd happily concede that only 4 rough levels exist instead of 5.

Well, for me athiesm has to be "I know there isn't a god, upper deity, or someone that's generally running the whole show." Because there are other words that apply to other things on that 1-5 scale. Like agnosticism, spiritualist , pagan , etc.

And also, I think there is something to address in the way of Athiests who proselytize their atheism, just like there are fanatics of every religion. Bible thumpers, Muslim terrorists, incredibly strict Hasidim, etc. Except of course, that atheism is like apolitical - you don't participate in any religion because you know none of them are true...

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Well, for me athiesm has to be "I know there isn't a god, upper deity, or someone that's generally running the whole show." Because there are other words that apply to other things on that 1-5 scale. Like agnosticism, spiritualist , pagan , etc.

And also, I think there is something to address in the way of Athiests who proselytize their atheism, just like there are fanatics of every religion. Bible thumpers, Muslim terrorists, incredibly strict Hasidim, etc. Except of course, that atheism is like apolitical - you don't participate in any religion because you know none of them are true...

Pagan and spiritualist don't describe anything I listed on my 1-5 scale. How is, "We don't know, but I have no belief in any god" pagan or spiritualist?

Your "has to be" definition of atheism is not compatible with actual uses of it.

Level of proselytizing has little or nothing to do with level or type of belief, and is a different matter. If you want to steer the discussion that way, cool, but it has no bearing on my points.

Sorry, I broadened out with that second paragraph, didn't mean to assign it to your list.

Re-looking it over, I guess just number one is the one I'm not sure about. Just "I don't know," without any mention of religion itself [I don't know if there's a Christian-Judeo god," "I don't know if anything is looking after me..."

I wonder if that would be more just doubt than a total Atheistic statement?

Presumably, if someone said "I don't know" with no qualifiers, we'd have to assume it applies to all gods, not just the Christian one. If someone believes in a god, but not necessarily the Christian one, their stance is no longer "I don't know," even if it's only to say something as vague as "I don't know for sure, but I believe in something." Your spiritualist/pagan/etc. would be 0, -1, etc. on my scale if I chose to continue it into theistic beliefs. Because even those are theistic, however vague the deity or force may be that they believe in.

As opposed to atheism, agnosticism is rather purely a noncommittal position (i.e. I/we don't/can't know). Where the confusion comes is that in everyday usage, it's often used to mean "I believe in a God or a higher power" even though that represents a type of theism. Most "nonreligious" people remain theists in a loose sense; belief is deeply ingrained into us, both biologically and societally.

Ah! Thank you for the explanation.

Originally posted by Digi
Presumably, if someone said "I don't know" with no qualifiers, we'd have to assume it applies to all gods, not just the Christian one. If someone believes in a god, but not necessarily the Christian one, their stance is no longer "I don't know," even if it's only to say something as vague as "I don't know for sure, but I believe in something." Perhaps, then, instead of 'atheist', something like 'materialist' or 'reductive materialist' would be more inclusive / less ambiguous: a (reductive) materialist simply does not believe in any sort of transcendent (ie, spiritual, nonphysical) reality. There is nothing beyond matter: no deity, no independent consciousness, nothing.

This is generally what I have meant: either there's something there or there isn't.

Originally posted by Digi
As opposed to atheism, agnosticism is rather purely a noncommittal position (i.e. I/we don't/can't know). Where the confusion comes is that in everyday usage, it's often used to mean "I believe in a God or a higher power" even though that represents a type of theism. Most "nonreligious" people remain theists in a loose sense; belief is deeply ingrained into us, both biologically and societally.
I'd be a 1 on your scale, but it's often eaiser to claim atheism in conversation for that reason. Some people can't understand or can't accept "I don't know."

Person 1: So like.....you believe in a higher power but not specifically Allah or something right?
Me: No, I-
Person 2: He believes the universe is god you 'tard.
Me: What? No-
Person 3: You don't worship trees do you?
Me: Trees are great but no, I-
Person 1: Then what?
Me:...I'm saying I don't know.
Person 3: But how can you just....not know.
Me: ermm

It's meant to be humorous, but I've had conversations not far from this.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'd be a 1 on your scale, but it's often eaiser to claim atheism in conversation for that reason. Some people can't understand or can't accept "I don't know."

Person 1: So like.....you believe in a higher power but not specifically Allah or something right?
Me: No, I-
Person 2: He believes the universe is god you 'tard.
Me: What? No-
Person 3: You don't worship trees do you?
Me: Trees are great but no, I-
Person 1: Then what?
Me:...I'm saying I don't know.
Person 3: But how can you just....not know.
Me: ermm

It's meant to be humorous, but I've had conversations not far from this.

If I need to, I tend to just try to be proactive in such conversations and take the lead. If they're interested enough to ask, I'm giving them the full answer. My early "debates" as an atheist were largely reactive messes where I felt like I was being stereotyped or put on trial. Just taking charge of the situation when asked is a big step.

The short answer to that particular scenario, though, is that any statement of belief begins with "I don't know for sure, but..." but it's just often omitted. So "I believe in God" has that silent modifier as well. Unless they're willing to say "I know God exists," and few are, then they'll see your point.

But if you see no good evidence or reason for a God but also don't think we can reliably rule it out, ambivalence is the proper approach. We "don't know" and are content with that about an infinite number of things...it's just none of those things are as crucial to modern life as the concept of God, so we don't make a big deal out of them.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps, then, instead of 'atheist', something like 'materialist' or 'reductive materialist' would be more inclusive / less ambiguous: a (reductive) materialist simply does not believe in any sort of transcendent (ie, spiritual, nonphysical) reality. There is nothing beyond matter: no deity, no independent consciousness, nothing.

This is generally what I have meant: either there's something there or there isn't.

At that point you start getting far too academic with terms for regular use, so it stops having usefulness. It might be less ambiguous to a select few, but would undoubtedly require more explanation for most...and those same people would likely try to ascribe a common label at that point anyway.

I think my distinctions are fairly unambiguous. Once you explain the one or two differences available to an atheist, it's pretty easy to understand.

Originally posted by Digi
At that point you start getting far too academic with terms for regular use, so it stops having usefulness. It might be less ambiguous to a select few, but would undoubtedly require more explanation for most...and those same people would likely try to ascribe a common label at that point anyway. Yeah, you're right. I felt I was drifting in that direction as I was writing it. But I figured, for KMC, it wouldn't be any problem.

Originally posted by Digi
At that point you start getting far too academic with terms for regular use, so it stops having usefulness. It might be less ambiguous to a select few, but would undoubtedly require more explanation for most...and those same people would likely try to ascribe a common label at that point anyway.

Peach and I had this discussion in another thread (OTF).

My position was: Actually using the correct label may make the person (because they will most likely be ignorant of it) have to shutup and listen to you explain what it means in 2 or 3 sentences. That can be advantageous for people like Styletime who are more soft-spoken or timid.

Her position was the same as yours because people just don't know and may blow you off/pretend to know what it means but not really know/think it means one thing but it's wrong.


I say stick with the best labels possible.


Let's try it both ways and report back. lol

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Define Atheism

Not believing in God so firmly that one is just as annoying as a Christian fundamentalist.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not believing in God so firmly that one is just as annoying as a Christian fundamentalist.

I'd argue that it's stereotypes like this that are just as annoying.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not believing in God so firmly that one is just as annoying as a Christian fundamentalist.

I agree.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd argue that it's stereotypes like this that are just as annoying.

To me, he was referring to the extreme poles in his quote, not all atheists or theists (he's an atheist, IIRC).

I dislike both poles as they are both annoying. I like the people closer to the center ... at at LEAST the people that can admit "I don't know".

Originally posted by dadudemon
To me, he was referring to the extreme poles in his quote, not all atheists or theists (he's an atheist, IIRC).

The face means he was being completely non-serious.

Your reading of his answer wouldn't make sense anyway since it's dependent on him answering a request that wasn't actually made.

A "Describe an apple."
B "It's a thing you drive."
A "No, that's wrong."
C "To me he's refering to cars so I'd say he's right."
A *shoots C*

Originally posted by dadudemon
I dislike both poles as they are both annoying. I like the people closer to the center ... at at LEAST the people that can admit "I don't know".

The poles are much less of a problem than the stereotype that the poles are all that exist since that forces people closer to the center in the director of their favored pole out of what they think is self defense.

Radicals and fundamentalists of most philosophies and movements are problematic and/or annoying.

They are, however, not all equally problematic and annoying due to differences in severity and mass.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Radicals and fundamentalists of most philosophies and movements are problematic and/or annoying.

I agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are, however, not all equally problematic and annoying due to differences in severity and mass.

I also agree, here. How many extreme atheists do you know that are white supremacists?

BAM!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The face means he was being completely non-serious.

Your reading of his answer wouldn't make sense anyway since it's dependent on him answering a request that wasn't actually made.

A "Describe an apple."
B "It's a thing you drive."
A "No, that's wrong."
C "To me he's refering to cars so I'd say he's right."
A *shoots C*



I actually don't understand your logic at all, here.

It doesn't make sense.


Here's what really happened:

A: Describe an apple.
B: It's a thing you can make only pies with.
A: No, that's wrong.
C: I agree with B.
A: I...uhhhh...lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
I dislike both poles as they are both annoying. I like the people closer to the center ... at at LEAST the people that can admit "I don't know".

Precisely. There's kind of a Buddhist/Zen idea that you answer any question that is secular with a more spiritual response and any spiritual question with some mundane or secular response. Kind of illustrates that a "Religion of No Religion" is ideal.. not being vehemently for OR against the idea of God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The poles are much less of a problem than the stereotype that the poles are all that exist...

Well said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Radicals and fundamentalists of most philosophies and movements are problematic and/or annoying.

They are, however, not all equally problematic and annoying due to differences in severity and mass.

Exacly! Well said.

For example, the more radical and fundamental Muslim you are the more everyone should be scared and worried.

The more radical and fundamental Jainist you are, the less the rest of us have to worry about you.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The more radical and fundamental Jainist you are, the less the rest of us have to worry about you.

I dunno, ever gotten a hug from Digambara monk?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The poles are much less of a problem than the stereotype that the poles are all that exist...

It's mainstream media that doesn't usually acknowledge different and more subtle perspectives. But we smarter--or rather more enlightened--types know better.

I was thining...500 years from now, will we universally look back and laugh at our religiosity? Like, "Man, I can't believe or forefathers believed this stuff." I know there are some people that do it now but the majority of us don't.

Believing religiosity literally, yes. I hope that day does come, but proper spirituality will never die and shouldn't. And proper spirituality can reside within all religions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thining...500 years from now, will we universally look back and laugh at our religiosity? Like, "Man, I can't believe or forefathers believed this stuff." I know there are some people that do it now but the majority of us don't.

That's hard to answer. Sitting here in 2012 in a very secular corner of the world I want to say "Yes, absolutely. We're on the cusp of exactly that." but looking back at history it seems less likely. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all lasted for more than a thousand years each and all still have large sects of very strict adherents.

Howard Taylor once said:

I certainly hope that withing 500 years most people will look back at modern religiosity and say "Man, I can't believe our forefathers acted that way." even if they retain the same beliefs.

I'm a 1 or 2 on Digi's scale

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Believing religiosity literally, yes. I hope that day does come, but proper spirituality will never die and shouldn't. And proper spirituality can reside within all religions.

Of this, I agree. I am studying this very subject right now, in school.

"spiritual" vs. "spirituality".

The former is necessary for health, wellness, and even recovery (medical) while the latter can fulfill both the spiritual and provide positive purpose in one's life.

However, the latter means one will often rely on a 'higher power' so it is basically theism of sorts.


As long as we have the genes that we do, we probably will continue to be spiritual.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's hard to answer. Sitting here in 2012 in a very secular corner of the world I want to say "Yes, absolutely. We're on the cusp of exactly that." but looking back at history it seems less likely. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all lasted for more than a thousand years each and all still have large sects of very strict adherents.

Howard Taylor once said:

I certainly hope that withing 500 years most people will look back at modern religiosity and say "Man, I can't believe our forefathers acted that way." even if they retain the same beliefs.

That's how I am now: I look back and loathe the extreme majority of the world's religions. I still think religion will have a place 500 years from now (hopefully, we are all still around to discuss this). There will certainly be room for a belief in a higher power even if we conquer all information to be known from this universe.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm a 1 or 2 on Digi's scale

hmm

It would seem Digi has become a minor celebrity in the religion forums due to his ability to articulate what many of us could not.


That scale should probably be bookmarked or stickied for us to refer back to.

Digi...expand that scale to include theism. Then make a "third kind" for that scale that people like Symmetric Chaos and I talked about: pretty please?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would seem Digi has become a minor celebrity in the religion forums due to his ability to articulate what many of us could not.


That scale should probably be bookmarked or stickied for us to refer back to.

Digi...expand that scale to include theism. Then make a "third kind" for that scale that people like Symmetric Chaos and I talked about: pretty please?

Lol. Anyway, I probably shouldn't. The number of discussions I've had about the intricacies of atheism and its definition far outnumber those for theism. I fear any scale I might make would be far less authoritative and open to criticism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I dunno, ever gotten a hug from Digambara monk?

All sorts of lol there...and all sorts of no.

Although...I can't quite decide if I'd like to see a lot more of them or a lot less. Probably less. I'll meditate on that.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'll meditate on that. Speaking of which...

Likely, we're not going to see any major changes regarding how Man practices his spirituality/religion, and for that matter his politics, economics, science, etc, until Man himself changes first, changes involving how he sees himself in relation to the universe, reality, his very consciousness. And this is probably not going to happen for a very long, long time.

I'm pretty sure that the old definitions of "atheism" would tick off just about every atheist there is. I'm guessing that that's why the definitions have been changed.

on digi's scale (digi scale? oh man... lol) I'm a 4 - 5, depending on the distinction. I'm certainly as sure of the non-existance as I am of anything else.

Originally posted by zoom3
I'm pretty sure that the old definitions of "atheism" would tick off just about every atheist there is. I'm guessing that that's why the definitions have been changed.

you mean the old definitions where some christians called other christians atheists?

lol at my scale getting such play. I'm flattered in a weird, self-depricating manner.

Still trying to reconcile a difference between #4 and #5 in my head, though. I really want to keep it, only because it represents a difference in severity of tone, not in the technical aspects of the belief itself.

Gonna try to expand on this here. Failure incoming.

Notes:
- Idk = I don't know (with certainty)
- This deals only with the "ultimate reality" question. "Lesser" gods (Thor, for example) would not qualify on this scale, because they don't represent an ultimate cause. This list only deals with positions on an "ultimate" deity.
- I tried to allow room for, say, Buddhists, who can be classified as atheists toward their beliefs on God, but certainly have mystic or spiritual beliefs that most atheists don't. #6 is for them.
- It's generally assumed that for 6-10, each number encompasses most or all of the beliefs of the numbers below it (a person who believes in God, for example, will in almost all cases believe in souls, transcendent realities like heaven, etc.)
- The difference between 1-2 and 9-10 is in tone only. No meaningful distinction can be made in the belief itself, but in the approach of the individual. I've left 1 and 10 there to denote the most adamant of militants. Obviously degrees exist within categories (I believe strongly or somewhat strongly), but one must draw the lines somewhere.
- Criticism is welcome.

10 - I know there is a God
9 - There is a God
8 - Idk, but I believe there is a God
7 - Idk, but I believe there is a creative force/higher intelligence/guiding power/deistic god that controls or created reality but isn't an entirely omniscient/omnipotent God or isn't God as defined by any religion
6 - Idk, but I lack belief in gods, and believe in spiritual forces (transcendent realities, souls, reincarnation, etc.)
5 - I don't know (true agnosticism)
4 - "Idk, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "Idk, but I believe there is no God"
2 - "There is no God"
1 - "I know there is no God"

...

I also struggled with a category between 5-6 of "I believe in something, but it is undefined" which is neither true agnosticism nor as pointed as #6. You could also qualify 9 and 10 with "and I know which God it is that exists" to make it stronger. Still, we can subdivide these until we're blue in the face. Gotta say no at some point.

I see it somewhat like a bell curve. 3-8 represent probably 95% of the population of Earth. Though the curve would peak somewhere above agnosticism, so it wouldn't be a symmetrical curve.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Digi
Gonna try to expand on this here. Failure incoming.

Notes:
- Idk = I don't know (with certainty)
- This deals only with the "ultimate reality" question. "Lesser" gods (Thor, for example) would not qualify on this scale, because they don't represent an ultimate cause. This list only deals with positions on an "ultimate" deity.
- I tried to allow room for, say, Buddhists, who can be classified as atheists toward their beliefs on God, but certainly have mystic or spiritual beliefs that most atheists don't. #6 is for them.
- It's generally assumed that for 6-10, each number encompasses most or all of the beliefs of the numbers below it (a person who believes in God, for example, will in almost all cases believe in souls, transcendent realities like heaven, etc.)
- The difference between 1-2 and 9-10 is in tone only. No meaningful distinction can be made in the belief itself, but in the approach of the individual. I've left 1 and 10 there to denote the most adamant of militants. Obviously degrees exist within categories (I believe strongly or somewhat strongly), but one must draw the lines somewhere.
- Criticism is welcome.

10 - I know there is a God
9 - There is a God
8 - Idk, but I believe there is a God
7 - Idk, but I believe there is a creative force/higher intelligence/guiding power/deistic god that controls or created reality but isn't an entirely omniscient/omnipotent God or isn't God as defined by any religion
6 - Idk, but I lack belief in gods, and believe in spiritual forces (transcendent realities, souls, reincarnation, etc.)
5 - I don't know (true agnosticism)
4 - "Idk, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "Idk, but I believe there is no God"
2 - "There is no God"
1 - "I know there is no God"

...

I also struggled with a category between 5-6 of "I believe in something, but it is undefined" which is neither true agnosticism nor as pointed as #6. You could also qualify 9 and 10 with "and I know which God it is that exists" to make it stronger. Still, we can subdivide these until we're blue in the face. Gotta say no at some point.

I see it somewhat like a bell curve. 3-8 represent probably 95% of the population of Earth. Though the curve would peak somewhere above agnosticism, so it wouldn't be a symmetrical curve.

Thoughts?


You're much better at this than I am so I cannot really criticize what I would never have been able to quantify. I tried to do it today, to a friend at school and it just did not flow very well. Yours is much better than mine (I was focusing on a theistic scale).

I would be an 8 or a 7. Some of both. I think that almost all main religions don't have God quite right, including Mormonism, but they have many aspects of "Him" fairly close.

He can't be truly omni-everything as that creates all sorts of problems.


This is the problem of using a sliding scale.


But here is a real suggestion that you MAY find interesting: Your scale would probably work better as a two axis plot.


Maybe a 4 point plot of the following:

X axis:

-5 = Strong Atheism
5 = Strong Theism.

Y axis:

-5 = Strong mysticism

5 = Strong Naturalism.


A truly agnostic person would be plotted as (0,0). These types would be the frustratingly absurdist types: "I cannot know for sure if this glass of water is even real, or if I am even real. Nothing is real and everything is real, at the same time and no one can be sure of that, either. The only known truth is that nothing can be truly known."

A 5,5 type would be a strong evangelical Christian: "God created everything and God is in every aspect of our lives down to silly decisions like 'green tie or red tie'? Nothing is a coincidence and everything is directly influenced by God."

A -5, -5 would be: God definitely does not exist and I know this for a fact. There is nothing mystical at all about the universe: only the mystical persistence of ignorance. Everything is knowable. There is nothing transcendent (spiritually) about anything.

That's an interesting concept. I haven't given it enough thought to identify potential weaknesses of it as a descriptive construct, but thanks for suggesting it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A -5, -5 would be: God definitely does not exist and I know this for a fact. There is nothing mystical at all about the universe: only the mystical persistence of ignorance. Everything is knowable. There is nothing transcendent (spiritually) about anything.

bingo

I think you have your Y-axis backward, dadude.

Originally posted by dadudemon

A -5, -5 would be: God definitely does not exist and I know this for a fact. There is nothing mystical at all about the universe: only the mystical persistence of ignorance. Everything is knowable. There is nothing transcendent (spiritually) about anything.
The Steven Hawking demographic.

Originally posted by Mindship
Speaking of which...

Likely, we're not going to see any major changes regarding how Man practices his spirituality/religion, and for that matter his politics, economics, science, etc, until Man himself changes first, changes involving how he sees himself in relation to the universe, reality, his very consciousness. And this is probably not going to happen for a very long, long time.

You did the meditating for me.

Now go reach the enlightenment and when you do, come back here and bestow it on me. Plzplzplzplzplz.

...

But on a serious note, I believe you're absolutely right. Also, we're all products of indoctrination to a certain degree. Problems lie in that some are more indoctrinated than others...

But as you said, we won't see any change for a long time. Kind of depressing.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You did the meditating for me.

Now go reach the enlightenment and when you do, come back here and bestow it on me. Plzplzplzplzplz.I'd make a lousy bodhisattva; I'm way too selfish.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But on a serious note, I believe you're absolutely right. Also, we're all products of indoctrination to a certain degree. Problems lie in that some are more indoctrinated than others...

But as you said, we won't see any change for a long time. Kind of depressing. Could be worse: we could've been born 1000 years ago. At least we're this much closer.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'd make a lousy bodhisattva; I'm way too selfish.

Could be worse: we could've been born 1000 years ago. At least we're this much closer.

I like your staunch optimism. It makes me that little bit more optimistic.
Yes, 1000 years ago would suck - everywhere in the world.

Originally posted by inimalist
bingo

My bias is clarly showing.

But, that is how I think, sometimes. If you remember my arguments with a banned member form years back (Devil King), I am sometimes extremely atheistic.

Feel free to reword my suggestion to not be so abrasive/rude to the other categories.

What I'd really like is Digi's feedback because he's better at this category stuff.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you have your Y-axis backward, dadude.

You are correct, sir. It was after a long day (6 quizzes and 2 tests later. Waaah, I know).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Steven Hawking demographic.

Really? I still thought Stephen Hawking held that there is room for God in human lives? Just that...this God seems more like (Thanks Sym for the suggestions) Clarke's strong God with a "deist twist".

Originally posted by dadudemon
My bias is clarly showing.

But, that is how I think, sometimes. If you remember my arguments with a banned member form years back (Devil King), I am sometimes extremely atheistic.

Feel free to reword my suggestion to not be so abrasive/rude to the other categories.

What I'd really like is Digi's feedback because he's better at this category stuff.



You are correct, sir. It was after a long day (6 quizzes and 2 tests later. Waaah, I know).



Really? I still thought Stephen Hawking held that there is room for God in human lives? Just that...this God seems more like (Thanks Sym for the suggestions) Clarke's strong God with a "deist twist". The last I heard from him he released a statement out of the blue a half year ago that God didn't exist and that an afterlife was "impossible" because brains are like computers and when a computer shuts down its programs and memory doesn't go to a higher place.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I like your staunch optimism. It makes me that little bit more optimistic.
Yes, 1000 years ago would suck - everywhere in the world.
The Middle East and Polynesia may have actually been better off then than now.

Maybe. I can't say as I didn't live back then and I've never been to the Middle East or Polynesia :P

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The last I heard from him he released a statement out of the blue a half year ago that God didn't exist and that an afterlife was "impossible" because brains are like computers and when a computer shuts down its programs and memory doesn't go to a higher place.

AHA!

Sounds like he is becoming jaded and cynical in his old age. He used to talk about God in everything. And from my observations, even atheists, as they get older, turn into theists...they just start to hope in things as they face mortality. The exact opposite is true of intellectuals, though (again, from my own observations).

Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA!

Sounds like he is becoming jaded and cynical in his old age. He used to talk about God in everything. And from my observations, even atheists, as they get older, turn into theists...they just start to hope in things as they face mortality. The exact opposite is true of intellectuals, though (again, from my own observations).
I believe he said he's had to deal with the possibility of imminent, sudden death for decades now and so it's been a natural urge to want to believe in a second life.

AJ Ayer was an interesting case, a few years before his death he had a NDE and had a vision of heaven...he told his son that his unfaith was shaken but that he still didn't believe in an afterlife.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The last I heard from him he released a statement out of the blue a half year ago that God didn't exist and that an afterlife was "impossible" because brains are like computers and when a computer shuts down its programs and memory doesn't go to a higher place.


The Middle East and Polynesia may have actually been better off then than now.

Maybe. I can't say as I didn't live back then and I've never been to the Middle East or Polynesia :P

Oh God, that's actually pretty weird when thinking about it. It probably was a lot better 1000 years ago.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh God, that's actually pretty weird when thinking about it. It probably was a lot better 1000 years ago.
Those darn Mongols ended the Arab Golden Age when they sacked Baghdad and destroyed its library and killed its thinkers.

I don't think the Middle East or the Arab World ever recovered from that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And from my observations, even atheists, as they get older, turn into theists...they just start to hope in things as they face mortality. The ol' "no atheists in foxholes" thing?

Originally posted by dadudemon
The exact opposite is true of intellectuals, though (again, from my own observations). Intellectuals, as in cynics?

I wonder if which way you go depends on how much anger you carry with you toward the end.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My bias is clarly showing.

But, that is how I think, sometimes. If you remember my arguments with a banned member form years back (Devil King), I am sometimes extremely atheistic.

Feel free to reword my suggestion to not be so abrasive/rude to the other categories.

What I'd really like is Digi's feedback because he's better at this category stuff.

no, I just meant that is an apt description of how I feel about things

The graph probably works well, and it's a field instead of a linear progression, which is cool. The problem is simply in usage. A number line is far simpler, and thus has more easy applications in discussion. I can't create a hypothetical graph in a friend's mind without some mental gymnastics, but I can easily list a bunch of things and say "which are you?" Descriptive power often sacrifices practicality in discussions of any sort.

However, if you convert my numbers into graph points, making axes for spirituality and the God question, I do think it holds greater descriptive value.

Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA!

Sounds like he is becoming jaded and cynical in his old age. He used to talk about God in everything. And from my observations, even atheists, as they get older, turn into theists...they just start to hope in things as they face mortality. The exact opposite is true of intellectuals, though (again, from my own observations).

I'd contend there's probably some heavy confirmation bias going on here. History has shown us unequivocally that people want to interpret their rivals' behaviors and beliefs as secretly endorsing their own. The litany of (nearly always false) deathbed conversions is a great example.

I'd also retort with the idea that belief can't be faked or decided upon, you either believe or you don't. It would take some pretty hardcore self-delusion for a lifelong atheist to suddenly start believing near death.

Of course, your use of "hope" makes things murky as well. I HOPE there's an awesome afterlife, and I'm nowhere near death. I'll probably hope for it even harder when I am. I also hope I gain super powers at some point. Doesn't mean I believe it though. Two different ideas entirely.

f8U_JveHS8E

Worth a chuckle.

Maher is almost always hilarious.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd contend there's probably some heavy confirmation bias going on here. History has shown us unequivocally that people want to interpret their rivals' behaviors and beliefs as secretly endorsing their own. The litany of (nearly always false) deathbed conversions is a great example.

I'd also retort with the idea that belief can't be faked or decided upon, you either believe or you don't. It would take some pretty hardcore self-delusion for a lifelong atheist to suddenly start believing near death.

Of course, your use of "hope" makes things murky as well. I HOPE there's an awesome afterlife, and I'm nowhere near death. I'll probably hope for it even harder when I am. I also hope I gain super powers at some point. Doesn't mean I believe it though. Two different ideas entirely.

So you've never run across the type that changes their mind because death is closer? It seems fairly common from my observations. Not all atheists are the "raging lonely" types that people like to characterize them as. Some are quite casual and it only takes a single experience for them to change their mind.

One of my highschool friends just recently switched from atheism to evangelical christianity...and he's not past 60. Edit - That was worded in a humorous manner. I mean, he was one of the last people I would suspect to turn to an extreme form of theism. I do not see the problem for non-academic old people (I do see intellectuals being set in their ways, though).

Why are older people more theistic than their younger counterparts, as well?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
f8U_JveHS8E

Worth a chuckle.



The unbaptism ceremony was hilarious.

I also like his point about nachos and cheese into bread and fishes. Point well taken. Imagine how many righteous supporters (former atheists) God could get on His side IF something like that happened?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you've never run across the type that changes their mind because death is closer? It seems fairly common from my observations. Not all atheists are the "raging lonely" types that people like to characterize them as. Some are quite casual and it only takes a single experience for them to change their mind.

One of my highschool friends just recently switched from atheism to evangelical christianity...and he's not past 60. Edit - That was worded in a humorous manner. I mean, he was one of the last people I would suspect to turn to an extreme form of theism. I do not see the problem for non-academic old people (I do see intellectuals being set in their ways, though).

Why are older people more theistic than their younger counterparts, as well?
I would say its more like as you get older you become more entrenched in whatever you believe in when you're younger.

Atheists are probably no different.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would say its more like as you get older you become more entrenched in whatever you believe in when you're younger.

Atheists are probably no different.

I thought people leaned more towards theism, as they got older?

This is only based on personal observation. I don't know if there's a study.


Edit - It would not appear that I am not full of shit (this time? lol).

http://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/Religion_and_Health_All_August09.pdf

"It is almost universally true that the elderly and women are more religious, and I find evidence in favor of a genuine aging effect, not simply a cohort effect associated with secularization."

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you've never run across the type that changes their mind because death is closer? It seems fairly common from my observations. Not all atheists are the "raging lonely" types that people like to characterize them as. Some are quite casual and it only takes a single experience for them to change their mind.

One of my highschool friends just recently switched from atheism to evangelical christianity...and he's not past 60. Edit - That was worded in a humorous manner. I mean, he was one of the last people I would suspect to turn to an extreme form of theism. I do not see the problem for non-academic old people (I do see intellectuals being set in their ways, though).

Why are older people more theistic than their younger counterparts, as well?

Conversion stories are not proximity-to-death stories. I'd say your friend doesn't count as evidence of your point at all because it's merely a story of conversion, not of conversion because he's nearing death. I don't doubt that conversions happen. And they also happen the other way, of course, perhaps in greater numbers given statistical trends in census data for religious/non-religious. I simply doubt that death is a prime motivating factor for turning actual atheists (1-4's on my scale on this page) into theists.

And have I run into anyone who has changed to that once they get older? No. I've seen apathetic theists become devout theists later in life, but that always just seemed disingenuous to me. I think a lot of what you're talking about is people who lead secular, non-religious lives, don't have stated beliefs, but aren't actually atheist.

I'd contend that anyone capable of becoming theist simply from proximity to death couldn't have been an atheist to begin with, except in extremely rare cases. Think about it. Hope doesn't equal belief, however strong. We're all capable of realizing this; it's why no one actually believes in unicorns or Santa Claus. Anyone capable of "hoping" their way into theism, was probably agnostic or vaguely theistic to begin with, even if they lived their life in a secular manner.

Along those lines, you're also dangerously close to suggesting something akin to Pascal's Wager, which we know is flawed for a number of reasons. If fear of death drives them to belief, can it actually engender belief? Or just the facsimile of belief, which wouldn't constitute actual theism?

Lastly, it's a convenient story, one I've already heard dozens of times in my relatively young life. "Oh, you know, believe tend to believe in God as they get older. Have to make peace with the creator before they visit him..." etc. etc. The foxhole cliche, as well as the fabricated deathbed conversion story cliche, are other examples of this as a popular, yet totally unproven argument. In many cases, as with the deathbed conversions, we've debunked them entirely. To be fair, this also happens both ways...accusations of religious figures changing their views near death is just as infested into the false stories propagated by those with an agenda. But it further enhances my point. Lacking empirical evidence of any sort, what's more likely:
- Confirmation bias
- Small sampling data on your end
- They aren't actual atheists to begin with (#1-4's)
- Misinterpretation of hope for belief
- Misinterpretation of Pascal's Wager belief for true belief
- Some combination of those above
- Actual atheist-to-theist conversion as a result of proximity to death, without other causes playing a significant factor

Burden of proof and, imo, Occum's Razor both favor me.

If you have evidence of higher levels of theism later in life, one, I'd love to see it, and two, I wouldn't be surprised. But it's because lapsed Christians become devout Christians later in life...that makes sense. Retirement, kids leaving, death approaching WITH a belief in a deity already in place (just untended for years). Atheists 1-4's, doesn't.

Originally posted by Digi
If you have evidence of higher levels of theism later in life, one, I'd love to see it, and two, I wouldn't be surprised. But it's because lapsed Christians become devout Christians later in life...that makes sense. Retirement, kids leaving, death approaching WITH a belief in a deity already in place (just untended for years). Atheists 1-4's, doesn't.

Yeah, see what I replied to Omega with.


I still hold that some switch, later in life, from atheism to theism. We will both, obviously, bring a confirmation bias from our own anecdotes: that's why I was careful to say "from my experience" because I did not know if it was true, for sure. If it were possible, you would be entertained if you came to church (my local one) and talked to a couple of old men that decided upon theism (Mormonism, of all things) after decades of atheism (devote). Again, more anecdotes, but actually on topi (unlike my high-school buddy who, as an example, was almost entirely irrelevant to my point).




While you're there, I'll baptize you and ordain you to the priesthood using my Mormon powers.





On a side note: one of my friends (he was a solid 5 on your 1-5 atheism scale) switched to theism. He goes to church now, and everything. He's more like a 0 (like me) now, so he's not truly a full-fledged idio...I mean Christian evangelical. He was the most shocking switcheroo I have ever heard of or seen. He's also an intellectual and it was his studies of Kant that sparked his change (I have no idea why...).

I know some people that have switched from theism to atheism, as well. None of those people are good examples, however. This other friend (might as well use a name to differentiate from that highschool friend), we'll call him Larry, is one of the few "pure" conversions to belief from total disbelief I have ever seen. He wasn't pesuaded by a death in the family, a personal sickness, a life hardship, or anything. He was genuinely converted. My theist turned atheist peers do not have such stories to share: theirs is the classic story of overbearing Christian evangelical parents and an oppressive age-group (you know the types: "OMG, did you see the dress Sarah was wearing? Such a whore! She's going to hell" Yeah, those types).

I prefer the conversions (from theism to atheism or from atheism to theism) which are more pure and were genuinely spurred by untainted thoughtfulness and contemplation. Yours is a good example of a gentle and smooth conversion from theism to atheism (I think).




Where were we? What I am talking about, now? I don't know what this was really about. Is it that I am accusing both sides of having emotionally charged reasons for "changing teams"? Well, yes. That's part of my point, I think.

Holy water burns my skin. You better not try that sh*t.



Your opinion makes intuitive sense, which is why it's hard to shake. But my rational faculties have taught me to mistrust such instincts because they are very often wrong, in numerous fields where we can and have proven their wrong-ness.

Shocking switches happen both ways. I don't doubt your friend's conversion at all, but it's also just one guy. Census data suggests that while total theists are increasing due to population size, percentaged-wise they're dropping slowly, and have been for decades. There's also a church that you go to where you can interact with these converts....there's no congregation of atheists to point to all the theism-to-atheism conversions. So there's definitely some sampling bias in your observations.

And yeah, I don't know if my experience was entirely gentle, but it was definitely gradual and intellectual, not emotional or sudden.

Originally posted by Digi
Holy water burns my skin. You better not try that sh*t.



Your opinion makes intuitive sense, which is why it's hard to shake. But my rational faculties have taught me to mistrust such instincts because they are very often wrong, in numerous fields where we can and have proven their wrong-ness.

Shocking switches happen both ways. I don't doubt your friend's conversion at all, but it's also just one guy. Census data suggests that while total theists are increasing due to population size, percentaged-wise they're dropping slowly, and have been for decades. There's also a church that you go to where you can interact with these converts....there's no congregation of atheists to point to all the theism-to-atheism conversions. So there's definitely some sampling bias in your data.

And yeah, I don't know if my experience was entirely gentle, but it was definitely gradual and intellectual, not emotional or sudden.


Did you read that long ass paper I posted? It feels like it is confirming exactly what I was saying about old people.

I would note that it says "religion" and "religious practices" instead of "secular to theistic views on life". However, it says much of what I was stating.

I would not dare try to convert you, btw. Besides, baptism for the dead!



Originally posted by Digi
And yeah, I don't know if my experience was entirely gentle, but it was definitely gradual and intellectual, not emotional or sudden.

One of my atheist friends turned me onto an idea about "true conversions": it is difficult to call someone's conversion truly genuine unless it was independently undertaken of life's bullshit.


He was talking about someone like "Larry" not having any reason to change his entire approach to life. He was talking about people like you that had no reason to shed a very strong conviction in a belief system (well, I thought your conversion was one of those smooth types that came from simple intellectual enlightenment. I would prefer to think yours was that way).

I missed the link amidst the conversation. It does seem to focus on the word "secular" which is indeed something else entirely. You're talking about non-practicing 5's and 6's (on my page 3 list), not atheists per se.

As sometimes happens with us, we seem headed toward some common ground (which I actually think is more our willingness to search out the common ground than actual agreement on a lot of this stuff, but meh). I was opposing that age converts a significant number of atheists, and I stand by that. Secular agnostics or secular theists are a different subset entirely (and also much larger, so frequent conversions would be more common).

Someone needs to make a tl;dr version of that paper though. It seems interesting, but I was mega-browsing it. Way too long for full consumption.

I saw a confirmation* in what I was saying due to the old men at my ward (what we call our "parishes" or "congregation". I will freely admit that this would build a strong confirmation bias. The only group of old people I have seen a "strict" adherence to atheism is the intellectual/academic side of things. Those types seem to be quite stubborn (the same types exist on the theistic side, quite frequently, but you were already aware of that type).

*My confirmation bias that you referenced.

Confirmation bias, no, that was wrong. That implies you misinterpreting their conversions incorrectly. I spoke too soon there. But sampling bias, yes. You're in a position to see converts to theism, not as much vice-versa. Theists in general are in this position more, since atheism doesn't have weekly gatherings. The conversions you mention exist in spades. Even atheist-to-religious. But so do their foils. That's the point really.

And the death argument I think has more bearing on non-practicing theists, not atheists, for reasons mentioned.

Atheism - to me means someone free from rule. Someone who has come to terms that we are alone in the universe, not so much as being the only planet inhabited by species but more so, the idea that we control are own destiny.(without the help of a higher power controlling us).

Originally posted by Digi
And the death argument I think has more bearing on non-practicing theists, not atheists, for reasons mentioned.
Indeed. That paper got into it. Those that have been exposed to a "hell" type of religion when they were young are more likely to turn to religion when they get older for quite obvious reasons.


Originally posted by rudester
Atheism - to me means someone free from rule. Someone who has come to terms that we are alone in the universe, not so much as being the only planet inhabited by species but more so, the idea that we control are own destiny.(without the help of a higher power controlling us).

I hope we humans create God, literally. pained

This is how I define atheism:

http://atheismandme.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/atheism.jpg

Heh. Straw men are made of straw.

That's a response to the various "similar" anti-theist posters that popped up on 4chan. There's dozens of the anti-theist ones floating around using the same type of language and "tone". They are amusing.

I'd say that's fairly spot on, too. It just sucks when you rephrase the arguments from each side in demeaning ways.

Lemme see if I can find the anti-theism ones... BRB.


Edit - Here's one from a while back that made me laugh

http://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ 40425_10100152160850256_2511083_56203662_7321421_n
.jpg


Double Edit - This is the one my Heathen friend likes (he believes in Thor, Odin, and all that)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/04/keep_this_in_mind_on_your_happ/thor.jpeg

So dudemon, where are you on this whole posthumous baptism thing?

I realize this isn't the thread for it, but I didn't feel like doing a search and I think we rode the original topic for all it was worth.

Originally posted by Digi
So dudemon, where are you on this whole posthumous baptism thing?

I realize this isn't the thread for it, but I didn't feel like doing a search and I think we rode the original topic for all it was worth.

That's easy to address for the most part:

If you're an atheist (as far as any form I am aware of including Buddhism), posthumous baptism wouldn't and shouldn't mean jack shit to you.

If you're a religion that thinks Mormons are evil, wrong, wicked, or something negative, you'll obviously despise baptism for the dead ESPECIALLY if it is for one of your family members.


As the Mormons do it (and the official stance): you must get permission from the remaining family members. That has not always happened so there is a rigorous system in place that is designed to catch "sneaky" bastards trying to baptize people. I believe that this is how Hitler got his baptism done: someone snuck it past some old dude or dudette in one of our temples.

Also, some people keep trying to baptize on behalf of Anne Frank. Seriously...

Like I said: there's idiots in all religions and non-religions.


But, and here's another problem: we're not supposed to do baptism for the dead for non-family members unless moved upon by the Spirit and AFTER prayerful consideration. I strongly suspect that the problems that have arisen are due to a lack of both of those: they were neither prompted nor did they prayerfully consider it.



I'll share a personal story: my brother recently did "the work" for our deceased great uncle. Our great uncle was just that: a great uncle (RIP, Bill ). But he refused baptism into the Mormon church...but he believed much of it be to true/right. My brother was working in his store late one night and he said he got a strong feeling that our Uncle Bill was there with him. He said the feeling was so strong that he looked to his side because he could have sworn our uncle Bill was next to him trying to talk to him. My brother went into the office and prayed and he got the epiphany that our uncle was wanting to be baptized into the church because he was wanting to work in the next life (he was a very hard worker in this life). So my brother consulted Uncle Bill's only living relative (our Uncle Larry...his younger brother...the only living member of his direct family :"( ) and Uncle Larry was perfectly okay with it (he is not a Mormon, however). My brother said that on his way home, Bill visited him (in thought and feeling) in the passenger seat trying to thank my brother.

Do I believe my brother?

*takes a deep breath*

Part of me really does. Part of me says it was all in his head and it was part of his mourning process for a good man that was close to us. Another part of me says that we may be interpreting the wills of the deceased slightly off-base (meaning there is an afterlife and the deceased can and do communicate with us on very subtle levels, but it is not as my brother interpreted it).


Mormons are not afraid of the backlash other people give us about posthumous baptism: it will all get done...all 20-35 billion people...in the Millennium. Some are so convinced of this that they devote themselves to genealogy like madmen during their retirement. That confuses me: if it will all get done and "all will be known that was lost", then what is the point to do our genealogy now? God will just tell us what we need to know, right? Well, some say that the research has nothing to do with actually uncovering our ancestors: it is the hard work and dedication to serving our family that is important. It is supposed to be a better use of our mortal stewardship in this plane. In the end, we are all one big GIANT family (to the Mormons). All of us are spiritual brother's and sisters. The "lesson", dedication, devotion, and pure love of doing this work is supposed to be preparatory for our greater stewardship: Godhood.

Sounds crazy, disturbing, or like a very high-level game of D&D that we play...but it jives with me. I like it. It makes me happy knowing that I can do something for someone that they want really badly but cannot do it for themselves. I like helping people and serving others. Not for their gratitude but because it is the right thing to do. I subscribe strongly to virtue ethics, obviously...and it is what I think God really is: a being of pure virtue.



Now, to get off track, some atheists say that God is an evil cruel bastard for creating this plane and torturing us with it. This life IS quite miserable, for sure...depending on your station and how things go for you. However, Mormons scoff at that argument from atheists: WE ourselves chose to come here. God didn't send us here. We could have easily chosen another station such as a herald angel (I kid you not), guardian angel, or one of probably an almost infinite number of other ways to serve. Instead of choosing those, we chose a mortal trial to help us grow and develop to prepare for godhood. Of course, outside of time, we have always desired and will desire it for an eternity. This is the difference between the Christian that thinks our spirit is created at the moment of conception, by God, and the Mormon perception of the spirit: our intelligence has always existed (by our perception of time) and will continue to exist. Maybe this is part of why many other Christians despise us: add in that we baptize their dead relatives, don't pay our clergy, and are self-righteous (many Mormons become self-righteous...which was foretold of by their own scriptures...facepalm).



Anyway, hope that addressed your questions and some of the ones surrounding it.


On another note, I am blood related to Hitler. Distant, but still related. Not proud, but that's what you get for doing your genealogy.

Your post seems to gloss over a lot of important sticking points.

First, I dislike the implication that something "shouldn't" mean anything to me. In an afterlife sense, no it doesn't. In a "I value my freedom and personal choice" sense it means a ton to me. It's condescending and inhibiting to suggest that some church knows better than an individual what they should be, or what should matter to them. And, fact is, the reason it's in the news is because they ARE targeting those of other religions...people who have very valid reasons for being upset. Of course atheists have less reason to care (though they still have reason) but those of other faiths should be (and are) furious.

A Jewish Holocaust survivor recently spoke out publicly against Mormons baptizing several who died in the Holocaust. Days later, his name showed up on an official list to be baptized posthumously. There was no revelation or consulting with relatives: it was a vindictive display of petty power. This got a lot of news coverage, and should still be easily google-able.
{edit} here ya go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/proxy-baptism-elie-wiesel_n_1274271.html
...with some interesting historical notes at the end: Posthumous baptism of all dead people is not one of the original beliefs of Mormonism. At the start it was limited to ancestors and perhaps close relatives and friends. In 1918, the President of the Church had a revelation that it should be extended to the entire human race.

Similarly, Anne Frank has actually been baptized several times already according to most accounts, and submitted for baptism dozens of times. Seriously, if that isn't some sort of heinous memory desecration, I don't know what is. It's only a few steps short of digging up a corpse to sprinkle holy water on it, imo.

You must also know I find your brother's story tragically self-serving. I'm sure your uncle was a great guy. But if something meant so much to him, he would have taken care of it or at least expressed the desire during life. I'm sure he'd forgive your brother, were he alive, or be indifferent to the decision or ok with it, but I'm equally sure that what your brother did was wrong.

People are dumb in any religion, sure. But sometimes it seems more institutionalized than others. You might want to hope that Mitt Romney doesn't get the Republican nomination. As soon as he's in the general election, this is all going to hit the fan in a big way. I'm generally pretty indifferent to odd religious practices, but this actually smacks as something quite nefarious to me...people who think they're doing something "good" while oblivious to the unmitigated ego and ignorance of personal choice required to make such a decision. The hubris required to perform such an action seems downright scary to me.

Originally posted by Digi
Your post seems to gloss over a lot of important sticking points.

First, I dislike the implication that something "shouldn't" mean anything to me. In an afterlife sense, no it doesn't. In a "I value my freedom and personal choice" sense it means a ton to me. It's condescending and inhibiting to suggest that some church knows better than an individual what they should be, or what should matter to them. And, fact is, the reason it's in the news is because they ARE targeting those of other religions...people who have very valid reasons for being upset. Of course atheists have less reason to care (though they still have reason) but those of other faiths should be (and are) furious.

A Jewish Holocaust survivor recently spoke out publicly against Mormons baptizing several who died in the Holocaust. Days later, his name showed up on an official list to be baptized posthumously. There was no revelation or consulting with relatives: it was a vindictive display of petty power. This got a lot of news coverage, and should still be easily google-able.
{edit} here ya go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/proxy-baptism-elie-wiesel_n_1274271.html
...with some interesting historical notes at the end: Posthumous baptism of all dead people is not one of the original beliefs of Mormonism. At the start it was limited to ancestors and perhaps close relatives and friends. In 1918, the President of the Church had a revelation that it should be extended to the entire human race.

Similarly, Anne Frank has actually been baptized several times already according to most accounts, and submitted for baptism dozens of times. Seriously, if that isn't some sort of heinous memory desecration, I don't know what is. It's only a few steps short of digging up a corpse to sprinkle holy water on it, imo.

You must also know I find your brother's story tragically self-serving. I'm sure your uncle was a great guy. But if something meant so much to him, he would have taken care of it or at least expressed the desire during life. I'm sure he'd forgive your brother, were he alive, or be indifferent to the decision or ok with it, but I'm equally sure that what your brother did was wrong.

People are dumb in any religion, sure. But sometimes it seems more institutionalized than others. You might want to hope that Mitt Romney doesn't get the Republican nomination. As soon as he's in the general election, this is all going to hit the fan in a big way. I'm generally pretty indifferent to odd religious practices, but this actually smacks as something quite nefarious to me...people who think they're doing something "good" while oblivious to the unmitigated ego and ignorance of personal choice required to make such a decision. The hubris required to perform such an action seems downright scary to me.


I find the position that it is insulting or damaging to posthumously baptize people extremely stupid, ridiculous, petty, and dishonest.

I will never ever ever concede that it is offensive to a "classic" atheist to have a family member posthumously baptized. Why would they even care? There is not legitimate reason in my eyes to oppose that baptism. It means nothing to the atheist and to the atheist family. "My memories will be offended!!!" Bullshit. You believe they will just fade, anyway, into oblivion, as will the baptism. The deceased is no longer around to object. You don't believe in that religion crap, anyway. The rite is for an afterlife which you don't believe in, anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

I do, however, find the religious objections to posthumous baptism legitimate: they actually do believe they are directly impacting a "conscious" entity still "living" somewhere. They also think it is evil (or negative) for the person.

And I already covered the petty, stupid, and ridiculous actions of idiotic Mormons. With 14 million members, it will be near impossible to stop the "works" from being done by vindictive ***holes within my faith. They are everywhere in every facet of society: even in atheism.

As fact, hundreds of thousands of names have been removed from our posthumous "works" records because they were not done with permission or violate a directive (such as: leave holocaust victims alone unless a surviving family member wants it or is doing the work).

And, no, I do not think what my brother did was wrong. My uncle was a virtual catechumen to Mormonism. My brother also claims that he was asked to by our Uncle: hardly offensive to Uncle Bill when he asked for it, right? From an atheist perspective who does not think there is a literal subsistence after death, of the consciousness, you'll obviously have a different perspective.





But, to sum up...let me make it clear that you will never ever ever ever ever ever ever convince me that it is offensive to posthumously baptize an atheist for an atheist family (the offense is only one of pettiness and is not legitimate in my eyes. This does not mean, however, that I encourage or even support the posthumously baptism of people when the surviving family objects to it...the exact opposite. I just find their reasoning eye-rolling worthy and intellectually offensive...for me, they are doing it because they obviously have an vendetta against religion). For very similar reasons, it will never offend me if an atheist unbaptizes one of my deceased family members: I'm no hypocrite.



Why do you ask, though? Do you want me to ensure your work is done when you die JUST in case there is a small chance out of the millions of possibilities that the Mormons are right? I half jest...but I'm half not.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find the position that it is insulting or damaging to posthumously baptize people extremely stupid, ridiculous, petty, and dishonest.

I will never ever ever concede that it is offensive to a "classic" atheist to have a family member posthumously baptized. Why would they even care? There is not legitimate reason in my eyes to oppose that baptism. It means nothing to the atheist and to the atheist family. "My memories will be offended!!!" Bullshit. You believe they will just fade, anyway, into oblivion, as will the baptism. The deceased is no longer around to object. You don't believe in that religion crap, anyway. The rite is for an afterlife which you don't believe in, anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

Then you lack some fundamental understand of the nature of human autonomy and dignity, and our ability to be offended by something that is possible or that is planned even if it hasn't happened yet. The idea that someone can exert control over any aspect of our lives, which we do not allow willingly, is deeply offending to many on a purely non-religious level. That you can't see this disturbs me somewhat.

I also believe that an intent can be inherently wrong even there is no offended party. It doesn't make the act wrong, per se, but certainly doesn't bode well for the person's mindset.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do, however, find the religious objections to posthumous baptism legitimate: they actually do believe they are directly impacting a "conscious" entity still "living" somewhere. They also think it is evil (or negative) for the person.

And I already covered the petty, stupid, and ridiculous actions of idiotic Mormons. With 14 million members, it will be near impossible to stop the "works" from being done by vindictive ***holes within my faith. They are everywhere in every facet of society: even in atheism.

I'm not accusing you here, dudemon, just getting your take.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As fact, hundreds of thousands of names have been removed from our posthumous "works" records because they were not done with permission or violate a directive (such as: leave holocaust victims alone unless a surviving family member wants it or is doing the work).

Something's wrong with the system and theology that they happened in the first place. Something tells me most of the retractions are going to happen due to backlash, not due to introspective analysis.

Also as fact, this sort of controversy has been in the news this week. It hasn't been eradicated yet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, I do not think what my brother did was wrong. My uncle was a virtual catechumen to Mormonism. My brother also claims that he was asked to by our Uncle: hardly offensive to Uncle Bill when he asked for it, right? From an atheist perspective who does not think there is a literal subsistence after death, of the consciousness, you'll obviously have a different perspective.

Yes, I will. I'll leave this, however, since I don't want to get into what is probably a very personal anecdote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, to sum up...let me make it clear that you will never ever ever ever ever ever ever convince me that it is offensive to posthumously baptize an atheist for an atheist family (the offense is only one of pettiness and is not legitimate in my eyes. This does not mean, however, that I encourage or even support the posthumously baptism of people when the surviving family objects to it...the exact opposite. I just find their reasoning eye-rolling worthy and intellectually offensive...for me, they are doing it because they obviously have an vendetta against religion). For very similar reasons, it will never offend me if an atheist unbaptizes one of my deceased family members: I'm no hypocrite.

I'm not either. I think either would be equally unconscionable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you ask, though? Do you want me to ensure your work is done when you die JUST in case there is a small chance out of the millions of possibilities that the Mormons are right? I half jest...but I'm half not.

I'm not an advocate of Pascal's Wager. It's in the news, I was curious, and you're the only Mormon I speak to on a regular basis. Is that not reason enough to bring it up?

Also on point, you don't have any of my personal information. And thank goodness, apparently, since the implication of your question literally give me the creeps.

Edit - I know where the disconnect is and why it seems we largely disagree (when we probably don't):

The baptism and other ceremonies done on behalf of the dead are not binding nor do they make them members of our church. They are recorded as having been completed but that does not make them members or even Mormons. The decision to accept the work done for them is entirely on the deceased individual. That person chooses to accept it or reject it. This is why I am unable to understand what the big deal is. It is part of why I am so thick-headed about it. It just seemed like others knew this but I did not think that the clarification needed to be made...until I thought about it while eating my delicious California Style cheeseburger from Freddy's.

Here's the reasoning behind the work not being binding UNLESS the individual accepts it: we believe it to be satanic to remove the ability of one to accept or reject the gospel. We believe it was Satan's original plan to force the gospel and obedience to the gospel, upon the billions (maybe even trillions) of God's spiritual children. In other words no choice, no free-will: strict obedience. So by removing an individual's ability to accept or reject the rites done on their behalf, we would become "Satanic". When I say objections to the works are quite absurd, it's due to the fact that they aren't binding UNLESS the individual accepts them. Not even our "Church Records" show that they are members: only that their work as been completed to prevent duplication if possible.


This is also why it doesn't bother me if "atheistic unbaptisms" are done: the person doing it neither has the authority nor is it forced on the individual because they can choose to reject it (if the person doing the unbaptism even had the authority to do so). Instead, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to: being blasphemous, entertaining, and humorous. Who doesn't enjoy all of the above?

Originally posted by Digi
Then you lack some fundamental understand of the nature of human autonomy and dignity, and our ability to be offended by something that is possible or that is planned even if it hasn't happened yet.

No, you simply lack (lacked? you know, now, I believe...if you need more explanation, I could assist) an understanding of what it means or entails. Also consider that you are generally wrong about my stance because I said the following:

"This does not mean, however, that I encourage or even support the posthumously baptism of people when the surviving family objects to it...the exact opposite."

I think my strong words against the Mormons who do so should be indicative enough of how I feel about their actions. Sure, I object to the anti-posthumous rites positions on rhetorical grounds , but not literally.

Just to settle things concerning that topic: I would never ever ever ever do the rites for a person when their family did not want it done. Just because I argue that it is virtually pointless whether or not it is done does not mean that I would actually do or encourage doing it against families' wishes.


Originally posted by Digi
The idea that someone can exert control over any aspect of our lives, which we do not allow willingly, is deeply offending to many on a purely non-religious level. That you can't see this disturbs me somewhat.


You demonstrate that you misunderstand the rite if you think any form of control is exerted over any aspect of another's life. I could say that by some perspectives, it is extremely and horribly offending to think an atheist should demand the rites not be performed: you neither believe they are binding nor do you believe in the subsistence of life after death. Your objections can only be petty, mean, cruel, and vindictive...again, from some perspectives on it. To some Mormons, you are depriving your family members of extreme blessings and privileges: among the highest in the eternities. They would consider that cruel, vindictive, and petty. I partially agree...but then I can easily remind them, "You believe in the millennial reign, right? Keep your shirts on because their work will get done anyway."

Also, I'd like to point out that since the rite is not actually binding, it is actually an exertion of control by the existing family to preventing it from getting it done.

Why?

The deceased still gets to choose, according to Mormon belief. They are not counted as members. So a family member objecting because they are atheist is actually the person exerting control, not the Mormons wanting to do the work. What makes you think that you can operate on another person's behalf? Aren't your controlling a person's life decisions? Even if the person put it in their will to keep the dang Mormons away from them...the rites are still not binding and the individual can reject them. If you don't believe the person is alive, it is not binding, anyway, right?

It boils down to, "You're controlling other people against their will." And both parties can claim that of the other. As we believe it, when we die, our pre-existence with God comes back to our remembrance. Many good people would want the works done for them even if they rejected it in the mortal life. So it would be controlling of the living family to try and force their wills upon the individual in the afterlife.

Originally posted by Digi
I also believe that an intent can be inherently wrong even there is no offended party. It doesn't make the act wrong, per se, but certainly doesn't bode well for the person's mindset.

Oh, I agree ENTIRELY, here. This captures the very very basic idea of what Mormonism is at the very center of it all: what is actually intended or desired when doing anything is actually what constitutes righteousness or varying degrees of it.

For example, we believe good works are part of what we are judged on...but a good work done begrudgingly is actually unrighteous.

Any Mormon who tells you otherwise is either:

1. Ignorant of the basic of basics concerning Mormonism.
2. Mixing in other Christian faiths into Mormonism (which happens a lot due to how many converts that make up our members).

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not accusing you here, dudemon, just getting your take.

I know. Both of our opinions are largely the same: don't do it if the family members don't want it. Have some respect for the dead, FFS.

Originally posted by Digi
Something's wrong with the system and theology that they happened in the first place. Something tells me most of the retractions are going to happen due to backlash, not due to introspective analysis.

You mean the system should remove free-will, entirely, to prevent this? I think not. You can't blame the actions of the individuals when it goes against what is taught: you must blame the individuals. I'm not supposed to curse...and I'm supposed to keep my thoughts and language wholesome. Yet, I OBVIOUSLY do not do that on a regular basis. So why is it a fault of my religion when it directly teaches against it? In fact, I got in trouble and was almost "released" from a calling as a Sunday school teacher because of how foul my mouth is.

And, yes, most of the retractions are done specifically due to the backlash: since the rites are not considered binding and can still be accepted or rejected by the individual AND mix in that it will all be done, anyway, during the millennium, it can be viewed as a temporary impedance to what will happen anyway. As a general rule of thumb, non-family members cannot do the works unless the person has been deceased for 75 years or more.

Originally posted by Digi
Also as fact, this sort of controversy has been in the news this week. It hasn't been eradicated yet.

I don't think I can make it clear enough: it will be virtually impossible to stop it from being done. The only way I can think of is a type of system similar to the setup in 1984 where nothing can be said, written, or done without "them" knowing.



Originally posted by Digi
Yes, I will. I'll leave this, however, since I don't want to get into what is probably a very personal anecdote.

No problem. I only shared that personal story because I like you as a person and thought you'd be interested to see how close to the border some of the decisions can be. In retrospect, I probably should have shared that via PM but it's okay.



Originally posted by Digi
I'm not either. I think either would be equally unconscionable.

But but...Maher's skit was hilarious!

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not an advocate of Pascal's Wager.

I am, as I have openly admitted directly to you in the past. But as I will openly admit, God could be more like the deist God. He could be like the petty super grumpy God that many Christian Evangelicals believe in. He could be the FSM. He could be like what Marius believes: so far beyond our comprehension as to make it useless to even contemplate, worship, or believe in (which I sort of agree with). There's so many possibilities that is it difficult to decide so I settle on Pascal's wager.

Originally posted by Digi
It's in the news, I was curious, and you're the only Mormon I speak to on a regular basis. Is that not reason enough to bring it up?

Being a Mormon, I am exposed to this stuff quite often. Yes, I heard about the Mormon douches, trying again, to do the rites for Anne Frank. I believe I brought it up in my very first post on this topic (but I'm too lazy to go back and look).

Originally posted by Digi
Also on point, you don't have any of my personal information. And thank goodness, apparently, since the implication of your question literally give me the creeps.

I was partially jesting because it is what I would call "so absurd that it's funny".

However, the portion that is not jest is IF you really wanted me to, just in case you did subscribe to Pascal's wager even if slightly. It would be rather douchy of me not to assist with a request like that...if you had it.

If you were indirectly requesting that, it is not the first time an Atheist has asked me to do the work for them: both of my old workout buddies asked me to do it for them if they died (one of them is the fella I told you about that made a "miraculous" conversion to Christianity despite his extremely staunch opposition to religion).




Edit - Forgot to mention that this stuff still happens because many thousands to even millions of Mormons are not even aware of this type of stuff. The directives from "the first presidency" are covered at the beginning of our "sacrament" meetings but the news stories are not covered. I do remember a meeting from over a decade ago that had all the local Bishops read to the congregation about not doing works for people that are non-family members unless it has been a long ass time or we get permission from the living family. However, I'm an exception because I remember what most people forget.

I'm sure if a person is consistently submitted "bad" names, their temple recommend would be removed. This temple recommend allows them to go to the temples and do works. If they abuse it, they will lose it. I could ask my bishop if he has seen this done to a particularly insidious member.

Originally posted by Digi
Gonna try to expand on this here. Failure incoming.

Notes:
- Idk = I don't know (with certainty)
- This deals only with the "ultimate reality" question. "Lesser" gods (Thor, for example) would not qualify on this scale, because they don't represent an ultimate cause. This list only deals with positions on an "ultimate" deity.
- I tried to allow room for, say, Buddhists, who can be classified as atheists toward their beliefs on God, but certainly have mystic or spiritual beliefs that most atheists don't. #6 is for them.
- It's generally assumed that for 6-10, each number encompasses most or all of the beliefs of the numbers below it (a person who believes in God, for example, will in almost all cases believe in souls, transcendent realities like heaven, etc.)
- The difference between 1-2 and 9-10 is in tone only. No meaningful distinction can be made in the belief itself, but in the approach of the individual. I've left 1 and 10 there to denote the most adamant of militants. Obviously degrees exist within categories (I believe strongly or somewhat strongly), but one must draw the lines somewhere.
- Criticism is welcome.

10 - I know there is a God
9 - There is a God
8 - Idk, but I believe there is a God
7 - Idk, but I believe there is a creative force/higher intelligence/guiding power/deistic god that controls or created reality but isn't an entirely omniscient/omnipotent God or isn't God as defined by any religion
6 - Idk, but I lack belief in gods, and believe in spiritual forces (transcendent realities, souls, reincarnation, etc.)
5 - I don't know (true agnosticism)
4 - "Idk, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "Idk, but I believe there is no God"
2 - "There is no God"
1 - "I know there is no God"

...

I also struggled with a category between 5-6 of "I believe in something, but it is undefined" which is neither true agnosticism nor as pointed as #6. You could also qualify 9 and 10 with "and I know which God it is that exists" to make it stronger. Still, we can subdivide these until we're blue in the face. Gotta say no at some point.

I see it somewhat like a bell curve. 3-8 represent probably 95% of the population of Earth. Though the curve would peak somewhere above agnosticism, so it wouldn't be a symmetrical curve.

Thoughts?

I would then have to go with two. I believe there is no God, but there is no real way I can prove it. I mean, how can you honestly be a 1?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am, as I have openly admitted directly to you in the past. But as I will openly admit, God could be more like the deist God. He could be like the petty super grumpy God that many Christian Evangelicals believe in. He could be the FSM. He could be like what Marius believes: so far beyond our comprehension as to make it useless to even contemplate, worship, or believe in (which I sort of agree with). There's so many possibilities that is it difficult to decide so I settle on Pascal's wager.

As a philosophical pragmatist I find that very difficult position to fathom. When Pascal's Wager is allowed to be that diluted it loses its proscriptive power entirely. It becomes an irrelevant statement.

There are an infinite number of potential gods that will give me an infinite reward for doing exactly what I'm doing. No choice improves my standing in any way. Even if I follow the greatest possible number of non-contradictory religions my odds don't go up since there are an infinite number of potential gods that will damn me for such behavior.

I'm not quite done with our baptism talk, dudemon, but I'm taking a short break. I don't actually think we're going to get to a "we actually agree on this" this time, but I always appreciate the perspective.

Originally posted by socool8520
I would then have to go with two. I believe there is no God, but there is no real way I can prove it. I mean, how can you honestly be a 1?

There's a few ways to answer that. But the short answer is, probably the only people who would label themselves as 1 haven't thought it through entirely. There's more complex justifications for #1, mostly revolving around human subjectivity, but it's rare to encounter them in practice. Though that same subjectivity can be used as evidence that no one could be a lower number than a 3. The nuances of philosophy are stupid, I think is the moral here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As a philosophical pragmatist I find that very difficult position to fathom. When Pascal's Wager is allowed to be that diluted it loses its proscriptive power entirely. It becomes an irrelevant statement.

I find your implied position to be exactly the opposite of what Pascal's wager actually means.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are an infinite number of potential gods that will give me an infinite reward for doing exactly what I'm doing. No choice improves my standing in any way. Even if I follow the greatest possible number of non-contradictory religions my odds don't go up since there are an infinite number of potential gods that will damn me for such behavior.

Incorrect: you must combine things I have said in the past to arrive at what I'm saying. This is part of why I referenced my conversation with Digi about this, in the past. In fact, some of these arguments were had directly with YOU so I am not sure why you would post those words at me.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless of your interpretation, it is not falsifiable because the definitions of "benevolent God" can be changed to meet any argument thrown at it.


"Pain and suffering in the world" - "benevolent God needs you to go through that in order to grow as a spiritual and eternal entity. It is for your benefit and you are much "older" as a being than just this crude hell-hole of a life."


Originally posted by dadudemon
Just be a good person and the benevolent God will not give a damn (pun?) about what religion you were. That's almost superfluous.


Originally posted by dadudemon
God exists because the universe/multiverse exists.

Because it exists, God is benevolent.

God is definitely not tied to any specific ritual or dogma.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is it so hard to believe that a benevolent Creator gently and elegantly created this universe and used evolution to get us there? We certainly are still in need of an actual prime mover. We have theories...




What is the underlying principle?

Regardless of the type of God you are looking for, I obviously believe that it all leads back to some sort of benevolent Creator NO MATTER how many different flavors you can come up with. By extension, "be good, human". Yes, FSM counts, too.

And therein lies my "Pascal's wager".

"...a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly)."

From teh wikeez.


And what do I label myself as? That's right: agnostic theist.


It is not as though the "evil God" wasn't thrown at me already: King Kandy explored that route, already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
...Or maybe when you pray, the one answering is actually a malevolent demiurge bent on leading you astray...



As I have discussed with Digi in the past about this, I am not saying that a very specific kind of Christian God be the answer to Pascal's wager. I am only suggesting a vague "benevolent" God be the goal of Pascal's wager. In this instance, Digi is already living a great life (he has nothing to be ashamed of or fear IF there is an afterlife).

That's why I said this to him in the past:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Awesome.

It's for people like you that I hope there is a God and some form of Transcendent reality. You deserve it more than most.




Now, I'm okay that you didn't memorize every conversation you, Digi, and I have had in the past: that would be fairly lame of me. This is why I did the exact opposite of what I usually do when people bring up stuff I have already addressed (which is tell you to use the search feature which is an indirect way of saying "STFU, Newb".




Edit - And ONE LAST THIIIING....

If God turns out to be that petty immature God many Christian Evangelicals believe in, I told Digi I'd march out of heaven with him. That's just not the type of Deity I could ever stand.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In this instance, Digi is already living a great life (he has nothing to be ashamed of or fear IF there is an afterlife).

Awww.

But seriously, I'm trying to work on putting some skeletons in my closet for a change.

biscuits

Also, anything I do that's altruistic is because the person, people, or cause is awesome, not for cosmic karma points. If the Christian God greets me when I die (which, mind you, I consider a laughable proposition, but for argument's sake) I'd probably end up getting myself sent to hell for telling him what a horrible job he's doing, and arguing with him in general.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not quite done with our baptism talk, dudemon, but I'm taking a short break. I don't actually think we're going to get to a "we actually agree on this" this time, but I always appreciate the perspective.

Well, I think we largely agree. If you were a 10 on this topic, I'd be a 7. I cannot fully commit, if only for rhetorical reasons, that it is completely bad for an atheist's family member to be posthumously baptized...but I'd never go down the road of doing it against their wishes.

If I run into the Mormon that is the pushy type, I'll be sure and let them know to stop being a douche. There's our middle ground.




Originally posted by Digi
Awww.

But seriously, I'm trying to work on putting some skeletons in my closet for a change.

biscuits

Also, anything I do that's altruistic is because the person, people, or cause is awesome, not for cosmic karma points. If the Christian God greets me when I die (which, mind you, I consider a laughable proposition, but for argument's sake) I'd probably end up getting myself sent to hell for telling him what a horrible job he's doing, and arguing with him in general.


Indeed. I think you and I had this conversation, already: the point of life is not to do it to please God...it's to do it because it is the right thing to do (virtue ethics) and only for that reason. In fact, I'm almost sure we talked about this.

Because I'm Mormon, we believe we become Gods. How can you become like God if you constantly have to try and appease your Creator? You really can't. You have to grow beyond the immature need to please "daddy" and grow into your own godly existence.


But, yes, I like virtue ethics with a dash of pragmatic ethics.

Atheism is for people who are dead inside.

Originally posted by rudester
Atheism is for people who are dead inside.

Awww.

Surely you don't believe that.

Some of the kindest most awesomest people I know are atheists.

If someone claims they don't support the idea of God and also claims they don't support the idea of no God. What are they?

Because I asked him what idea does he claim himself to be.

He then told me that I can label him the word to choose for him. I then told him, that I think your agnostic.

And then he replied. So you say. After that I just simply didn't ask him anymore about it.

Was I right?

Originally posted by Daredevil1
If someone claims they don't support the idea of God and also claims they don't support the idea of no God. What are they?

Because I asked him what idea does he claim himself to be.

He then told me that I can label him the word to choose for him. I then told him, that I think your agnostic.

And then he replied. So you say. After that I just simply didn't ask him anymore about it.

Was I right?

It all depends on what is meant by the word "God".

Originally posted by rudester
Atheism is for people who are dead inside.

That's pretty heavy judgment!

It's not hard to understand. Atheism means its peoples don't believe in any higher beings that control or alter our lives. Science is the basis of their beliefs and what's proven is real. simple.

I myself am caught in the middle. I will not affiliate myself with a major religion. But for many reasons I just believe in more. Science isn't darkness and a lonely isolated death. I guess I'm a romantic with a big imagination who has witnessed many a beautiful thing.

But one thing I know for sure most heavy Atheists I know have high morals and do good because it is simply the right thing to do and not because someone told them to do it. Yet many religious people I've known do bad things knowing they'll be forgiven by their God because of their devotion.

Originally posted by rudester
Atheism is for people who are dead inside.
What an ignorant statement.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what is meant by the word "God".


Well I did not define the word God. I'm pretty sure he knew what I meant. He just didn't really seem to care for the topic so I dropped it immediately. I just got this vibe about him.

But lets say it was the definition of God as being eternal and forever and God who created everything.

Was I correct in labeling him agnostic?

Originally posted by Daredevil1
Well I did not define the word God. I'm pretty sure he knew what I meant. He just didn't really seem to care for the topic so I dropped it immediately. I just got this vibe about him.

But lets say it was the definition of God as being eternal and forever and God who created everything.

Was I correct in labeling him agnostic?

OK, I will give you an abstract example:

What if there was a person who did not believe in the god defined above? Lets say this person does not believe in a creation or a creator. However, what if this person believed in a natural god, like the universe as a living being? This person would be a theist, but not believe in a conventional god. To another theist, that person could seem to be an atheist, but not claim to be.

This person would not be an agnostic, they would be a theist.

Lets change my definition to yours on about God. Was my label correct?

Originally posted by Daredevil1
Lets change my definition to yours on about God. Was my label correct?

I don't know. I was just trying to open your mind to possibilities.

Anyone know if my label towards him was right?

Originally posted by Daredevil1
If someone claims they don't support the idea of God and also claims they don't support the idea of no God. What are they?

Because I asked him what idea does he claim himself to be.

He then told me that I can label him the word to choose for him. I then told him, that I think your agnostic.

And then he replied. So you say. After that I just simply didn't ask him anymore about it.

Was I right?

He didn't really provide enough information. So, probably you were, but we don't know for sure.

A lot of people are against labels. They feel it's somehow limiting, or don't want some societal label on them (correct or not). He'd probably resist you trying to label him. The fact remains, however, that a lot of our labels are nuanced enough that yes, they do in fact describe a person's beliefs accurately, even if it's just in general terms.

Because when it comes down to it, we need words to describe or even think about our beliefs. Words, phrases, and descriptions are just longer, drawn-out labels. Most times they can be boiled down to a key word or idea.

If you want more answers, ask him to describe his beliefs and philosophy at more length to you. He'll probably be more receptive to that.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What an ignorant statement.

Hatred and ignorance exists toward atheism, and due to low numbers it's not something that needs to be hidden most times like racism. I see anti-atheist sentiments pop up in my Facebook news feed occasionally, for example. It's usually not an overt attack - though those can be found as well - but embedded in some flowery Christian message that uses a strawman of "godlessness" to bolster its position. And while my work means I'm "friends" with an eclectic bunch on FB, it's far from the most conservative group of people.

What gets me is that, while granting that people of any religious persuasion can be stupid and hateful, no one seems to be able to point to an evil that groups or individuals have done specifically in the name of atheism. It's just incredibly basic in-group programming that manifests as fear. There's almost no rational backing for it. We can argue for hours about whether or not religion is a net positive or negative in the world, but it's undeniable that there have been and still are many instances we can point and say that evil was done not just by religious people but because they were religious.

My mom and sister still get approached about my atheism. I want to punch those people, because they're too spineless to talk to me, and it's awkward for my family.

Originally posted by Daredevil1
If someone claims they don't support the idea of God and also claims they don't support the idea of no God. What are they?

Because I asked him what idea does he claim himself to be.

He then told me that I can label him the word to choose for him. I then told him, that I think your agnostic.

And then he replied. So you say. After that I just simply didn't ask him anymore about it.

Was I right? like someone said it depends what u define as god.

also many would say they are neutral.
If someone doesn't know about a real life cosmic anomaly in space and has no opinion on it does it mean he is against it or pro?

Originally posted by Nietzschean
like someone said it depends what u define as god...

What jerk could that have been?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What jerk could that have been? you?

I always laugh or get really annoyed when ppl cant understand or wont accept the sentence mention above, it isnt that hard.

If God is some weird asian cult leader that wants everyone to drink the kool aid and blow up subways obviously if he is accepted by his followers as God. He is God to them.

I would say that is your god and if he is your definition of god, sure why not, he is god. he is just not my god. Its the same way with guys like the Caesars, emperors who were worshiped as gods.

Than u got guys like Einstein who was a Pantheist at least I think that is what it is called. He didnt believe in the judeo/Christian god or any other personal god. he was pretty much an atheist in that sense. but, he called nature god, the order, the chaos the universe as a whole was god to him right down to its mathematics.

i don't know & don't believe in a god.

how could anyone believe in something off faith? :l

i'll believe in god if i see an afterlife.
which I doubt i will

Originally posted by Nietzschean
you?

...
Than u got guys like Einstein who was a Pantheist at least I think that is what it is called. He didnt believe in the judeo/Christian god or any other personal god. he was pretty much an atheist in that sense. but, he called nature god, the order, the chaos the universe as a whole was god to him right down to its mathematics.

Well, at least Einstein was talking about something real. And yes it was me, and I was joking.

The other part of your post, made no sense to me. I don't really know what you were talking about.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, at least Einstein was talking about something real. And yes it was me, and I was joking.

The other part of your post, made no sense to me. I don't really know what you were talking about. what ppl call or define god.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
what ppl call or define god.

I'm sorry, what do people call or define god?

All I said was "It all depends on what is meant by the word "God"." The word god is a power word that means many different things to different people. Last I could tell, you were agreeing with me.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i'll believe in god if i see an afterlife.

I'd believe in an afterlife if I experienced an afterlife. That wouldn't be sufficient for me to believe in God, at least in a traditional Western sense of the word. All it would provide evidence for is the existence of a reality outside our own universe.

Also, that lack of an afterlife does not disprove every god; just some.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i don't know & don't believe in a god.

how could anyone believe in something off faith? :l

i'll believe in god if i see an afterlife.
which I doubt i will

1) I believe in God. And I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I've never seen God, and I don't need to. I know He's there. I didn't see Jesus die and rise from the dead, and I don't need to see it. I know it happened, and I know that because it happened I can be with God forever in heaven. The Bible says this about faith:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

2) If you wait that long it'll be too late.

Jesus said that 'Kingdom of Heaven is within you, not here or there'.


Team Eastern-Mystic-Buddha Jesus :1 - Team Church Jesus: 0.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd believe in an afterlife if I experienced an afterlife. That wouldn't be sufficient for me to believe in God, at least in a traditional Western sense of the word. All it would provide evidence for is the existence of a reality outside our own universe.
I think it's this kind of goalpost moving that pushes me toward Humean views on beliefs

Originally posted by Digi
I'd believe in an afterlife if I experienced an afterlife. That wouldn't be sufficient for me to believe in God, at least in a traditional Western sense of the word. All it would provide evidence for is the existence of a reality outside our own universe.

Bam.

This is kind of how I'm leaning towards, today.

Even those super interesting and "unexplained" NDEs do not confirm Judeo-Christian God's existence. If anything, I think the "best" NDE cases prove Buddhism to be correct...especially the part about reincarnation.

And what are Buddhists? That's right...atheists.




The only thing I really desire from the eternities is a continuation of consciousness without all of the biological drawbacks the brain-body creates. If I live long enough to witness the true transhumanist movement, cool. If there is an afterlife, cool. Mormonism is the best explanation, personally, so far.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it's this kind of goalpost moving that pushes me toward Humean views on beliefs

There's definitely nothing wrong with that approach. He still demands evidence for anything which fits nicely into a Humean empiricism. It is more like he is agnostic towards an afterlife...which pretty much everyone should be as there is not clear-cut evidence for it besides dying and finding out. There is some evidence for and against it.

1. For: Compelling cases where people shouldn't be remembering shit or recalling details they had no way of knowing (based on our understanding of the situation).

2. Against: the mind ends and is fully contained and explainable within the construct of the brain. Brain dies, your consciousness (soul) dies. Aristotelian approach, basically.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Jesus said that 'Kingdom of Heaven is within you, not here or there'.


Team Eastern-Mystic-Buddha Jesus :1 - Team Church Jesus: 0.

Where exactly did He say that?

Quote Bible book, chapter and verse, or your statement is 100% false.

Its from Luke 17, you should know this man.

The KJV translates it as follows: And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Haha, everyone knows that Bible quote. Seriously, google searches before calling people out tend to eliminate a lot of embarrassment.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think it's this kind of goalpost moving that pushes me toward Humean views on beliefs

Who moved the goalpost? I simply form my beliefs to the evidence. Another reality would no more prove a God than this one does.

Originally posted by Digi
Haha, everyone knows that Bible quote. Seriously, google searches before calling people out tend to eliminate a lot of embarrassment.



Who moved the goalpost? I simply form my beliefs to the evidence. Another reality would no more prove a God than this one does.
Perhaps a poor way of putting it, it just seems like there isn't anything that would convince you of the existence of God.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Perhaps a poor way of putting it, it just seems like there isn't anything that would convince you of the existence of God.

This is not necessarily an unreasonable position. Much of it depends on the definition of god.

In many forms of Christianity God is claimed to be actively removing all evidence of his existence. In that case any proof that God is real must be fake.

More generally there is the question of how you prove that you are omnipotent to a person who is not. There's no obvious way to do so. Just to start with a creature able to perfectly deceive my senses can seem to perform any physical miracle that God can while being vastly less powerful.

Even if we come up with a method there's the question of how you can truly prove your particular identity. God isn't going to hand over a driver's liscence and passport for us to analyze.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is not necessarily an unreasonable position. Much of it depends on the definition of god.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In many forms of Christianity God is claimed to be actively removing all evidence of his existence. In that case any proof that God is real must be fake.

How utterly irritating.

How can He be an egotistical God (Jealous God) while simultaneously be removing evidence of His existence?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More generally there is the question of how you prove that you are omnipotent to a person who is not. There's no obvious way to do so. Just to start with a creature able to perfectly deceive my senses can seem to perform any physical miracle that God can while being vastly less powerful.

Bam!

Hey wasn't there a movie kind of like that? Maybe I'm thinking of Matrix 1.

Anyway, that's part of why I think it is necessary to transcend and becomes gods ourselves. We will never appreciate God until we can reach that point. Maybe that's the point of existence to begin with? To better understand the Creator?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even if we come up with a method there's the question of how you can truly prove your particular identity. God isn't going to hand over a driver's liscence and passport for us to analyze.

BAM! You're on a roll: any assessment will automatically be anthropic and subjective.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More generally there is the question of how you prove that you are omnipotent to a person who is not. There's no obvious way to do so. Just to start with a creature able to perfectly deceive my senses can seem to perform any physical miracle that God can while being vastly less powerful.Two responses:

1. Yep.
2. Unless it's true what the mystics say: His Omnipotence is radiantly self-evident, ie, we recognize Him because He is our own True nature.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
God isn't going to hand over a driver's liscence and passport for us to analyze. Actually, He tried something like that in "Oh God." Didn't work.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Perhaps a poor way of putting it, it just seems like there isn't anything that would convince you of the existence of God.

There's plenty of things that would convince me to believe in "a" God. Maybe not an omniscient, omnipotent God, for reasons Sym mentioned. But a God who is sufficient to have done anything in the world's major religions need not be those things.

But really, an afterlife is a ridiculously poor example of evidence for a creator. It's like the people who invoke the anthropic principle of physics. The argument, as it's classically used, doesn't hold up logically. However, for argument's sake, even if they were right, there's then a massive leap in their thinking. It amounts to "Fine tuned universe, ergo the Christian God" and it's almost always their God. The only thing it could reasonably provide evidence for is "Fine tuned universe, ergo something we don't yet understand." It doesn't even suggest "a" God, just something beyond our understanding of the universe so far.

I dislike leaps in logic. "Afterlife, ergo God" is another one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is not necessarily an unreasonable position. Much of it depends on the definition of god.

In many forms of Christianity God is claimed to be actively removing all evidence of his existence. In that case any proof that God is real must be fake.

Which raises some questions on Christian God's sanity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

In many forms of Christianity God is claimed to be actively removing all evidence of his existence. In that case any proof that God is real must be fake.

I did not know this. This is actually an interesting idea, since yes, any proof would in fact be fake.

Not sure if convenient or philosophical...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I did not know this. This is actually an interesting idea, since yes, any proof would in fact be fake.

Not sure if convenient or philosophical...
Creepy, it makes God sound like a serial killer leaving one small clue (the Bible) behind.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I did not know this. This is actually an interesting idea, since yes, any proof would in fact be fake.

Not sure if convenient or philosophical...

Its based on the idea that you must have faith so God can't leave any proof or you'd end up believing based on facts. I don't think its an idea that can survive for very long.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I did not know this. This is actually an interesting idea, since yes, any proof would in fact be fake.

Not sure if convenient or philosophical...

Yes, logic is also considered to be the work of the devil.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its based on the idea that you must have faith so God can't leave any proof or you'd end up believing based on facts. I don't think its an idea that can survive for very long.
There's a reason there are so few religious epistemologists.

It doesn't seem like a new concept, nor one that's hard to understand. Faith as a meme encourages belief without evidence, and sometimes even in spite of contrary evidence. And this idea is deeply embedded in many individuals. So it's little wonder that offshoot ideas would spring up, like the one Sym is talking about. So long as there's no cognitive dissonance resulting from disagreement with preexisting beliefs, it has every chance to stick with a person or entire sect of theists.

Originally posted by Digi
It doesn't seem like a new concept, nor one that's hard to understand. Faith as a meme encourages belief without evidence, and sometimes even in spite of contrary evidence. And this idea is deeply embedded in many individuals. So it's little wonder that offshoot ideas would spring up, like the one Sym is talking about. So long as there's no cognitive dissonance resulting from disagreement with preexisting beliefs, it has every chance to stick with a person or entire sect of theists.

Not all theists believe in blind faith.

all honest ones do

Originally posted by inimalist
all honest ones do

That is not true at all. There are other religions in the world other then Christianity.

Originally posted by inimalist
all honest ones do

I disagree. Lots of people believe in God because they believe they see evidence for it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. Lots of people believe in God because they believe they see evidence for it.
Well unless we're talking about spontaneously-generated beliefs (Idk if such a thing actually exists though), ALL beliefs have some basis (usually an experience paired with prior beliefs), it's just a question of whether the belief is a justified/epistemically rational one (which gets into a lot more confusing distinctions and if-thens/if-nots)

Originally posted by inimalist
all honest ones do Gotta disagree. The lazy / stupid / fearful do. The honest ones, I think, don't believe blindly.

Originally posted by Mindship
Gotta disagree. The lazy / stupid / fearful do. The honest ones, I think, don't believe blindly.

...and you blindly believe this?

Originally posted by Mindship
Gotta disagree. The lazy / stupid / fearful do. The honest ones, I think, don't believe blindly.
I'd point out that there's still a difference between believing based on an experience/observation and having an actually justified belief.

For example, my good friend Kyle once told me that he believed in God based on the beauty of a sunset he once observed, his belief forming process being that such beauty and the ability to apprehend that beauty could not develop without the existence/action of a higher power.

He's not blindly believing, he has formed this belief based on observation and antecedent beliefs...he's just horribly unjustified

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree. Lots of people believe in God because they believe they see evidence for it.

I'm not so sure. I imagine few of those people would claim that illusory motion seen in optical illusions is actual motion. They have a blind faith that God was responsible in situations where it confirms their beliefs, yet feel no need to use their own experience as evidence for reality when it would make them look objectively foolish.

That isn't a standard of evidence, it is a post hoc rationalization and special pleading.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd point out that there's still a difference between believing based on an experience/observation and having an actually justified belief.

For example, my good friend Kyle once told me that he believed in God based on the beauty of a sunset he once observed, his belief forming process being that such beauty and the ability to apprehend that beauty could not develop without the existence/action of a higher power.

He's not blindly believing, he has formed this belief based on observation and antecedent beliefs...he's just horribly unjustified

the problem with that, imho, is more that the standard being used isn't consistent, unless he also assumes anything that he perceives as being ugly is evidence that God doesn't exist.

otherwise, it is special pleading again, ie: In situation A my subjective appraisal of beauty is a standard of evidence for the existence of the divine (largely because it confirms my prior held beliefs) but in situation B my subjective appraisal of beauty is not a sufficient standard of evidence (presumably because the outcome would be to assume God does not exist)

Originally posted by Mindship
Gotta disagree. The lazy / stupid / fearful do. The honest ones, I think, don't believe blindly.

I really disagree. People who assume they aren't believing blindly have almost, tautologically, adopted a standard of evidence based on a special pleading fallacy.

There is blind faith in that the person blindly believes that in some situations their subjective experience of reality can be taken as proof about some quality of the universe, though there are countless other comparable situations where they would not hold this.

Just a note: blind faith is not restricted to religion. Science also uses blind faith. For example: it is believed that there is a particle called an electron. However, none of the information we have to support the idea of an electron is direct. We have faith there is an electron because we have theories that make predictions that match observations, but no one really knows if what we think is an electron is real. We have blind faith. The difference is, the scientific method dictates that if there is information that proves an electron does not exist, then we must cast away that belief. While many religions do not want to change.

^That's not "blind faith", that's providing a theory that coheres with your system of beliefs and observations better than any current competing theory. Conversely it's no more rational or irrational to believe in Vishnu over Allah or vice versa. However it is more rational to believe in electrons over older models.
Originally posted by inimalist


the problem with that, imho, is more that the standard being used isn't consistent, unless he also assumes anything that he perceives as being ugly is evidence that God doesn't exist.

otherwise, it is special pleading again, ie: In situation A my subjective appraisal of beauty is a standard of evidence for the existence of the divine (largely because it confirms my prior held beliefs) but in situation B my subjective appraisal of beauty is not a sufficient standard of evidence (presumably because the outcome would be to assume God does not exist)

You're not actually disagreeing with me.

A belief need not be rational to be a belief. So far as I know there is no such thing as a completely unfounded belief, one that a person holds "just because".

And I'm willing to believe that shown enough horrors my friend could be brought to the opposite conclusion as many people who lose their faith due to severe hardship and traumatic experiences do.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^That's not "blind faith", that's providing a theory that coheres with your system of beliefs and observations better than any current competing theory. Conversely it's no more rational or irrational to believe in Vishnu over Allah or vice versa. However it is more rational to believe in electrons over older models.

...

I like your blind faith.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I like your blind faith.
How is it "blind faith"?

Did you even read what I wrote?

It ceases being "blind faith" when it becomes justified to believe something.

Unless you want to go the skeptic route and say that we can't have justified non-basic beliefs, in which case there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Edit: I made a mistake though on my last post by saying "your system of beliefs" which makes it sound like I'm talking from an individual standpoint. I'm actually talking from a social perspective.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is it "blind faith"?

Did you even read what I wrote?

It ceases being "blind faith" when it becomes justified to believe something.

Unless you want to go the skeptic route and say that we can't have justified non-basic beliefs, in which case there's no point in continuing this conversation.

At the fundamental level of science is an uncertainty. To say anything about science involves a level of blind faith. However, it is not stagnate, and that is the difference. I'm just pointing out that we are talking about the wrong thing. The problem is not blind faith alone, but stubbornness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At the fundamental level of science is an uncertainty. To say anything about science involves a level of blind faith. However, it is not stagnate, and that is the difference. I'm just pointing out that we are talking about the wrong thing. The problem is not blind faith alone, but stubbornness.
I've read a few papers recently that propose that while individual scientists can be and often are irrational, science as a whole is a rational process and in fact benefits from the irrationality of its scientists.