New Research Says That Analytic Thinking Decreases Religious Beliefe - Page 4

Zulthus · 2012-05-17, 07:03 PM

Yeah, I must not be stating my position clearly, Figment is doing a better job than I am.

Vash02 · 2012-05-17, 07:08 PM

I wouldn't say that an Atheist has to be convinced there is no god, belief is a binary position and you can in the middle and still be called an atheist as soon as you cross the line.

An agnostic is someone who does not know of any evidence for or against a god. Agnosticism may be the home of the fence sitters but the word isn't defined by them.

Figment · 2012-05-17, 07:23 PM

Well, since I'm channeling Zulthus right now!

Yet they're not quite atheists, since they have taken no real position.

It is true that a lot of atheists await the "oh so heralded" evidence of the faithful, but do not actually expect any serious evidence to ever arive. Why? Most would argue they have already come to the conclusion that if there was any, it'd been known by now since these people are so anxious to come up with evidence.

You could call that agnostic atheists as you did before, but that's basically just a debate reason. A truely agnostic simply has not been convinced by evidence against or in favour, most don't even think it is actually possible to come up with evidence in favour or against (!). Either way, they fall under the skeptics. Zulthus probably argued the same and is therefore bored with all the heathens, faitful and heretics argueing about something they'll never find an answer to or agreement on anyway.

Zulthus · 2012-05-17, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Zulthus probably argued the same and is therefore bored with all the heathens, faitful and heretics argueing about something they'll never find an answer to or agreement on anyway.

That's exactly what I'm saying... but no, someone always has to be right

p0intman · 2012-05-17, 08:18 PM

an extra-ordinary claim requires extra-ordinary evidence. In this case, the claim that "There is a god, it is all knowing, all loving and created the earth and the stars and the moons, and us in its image" requires some rather mighty extra-ordinary evidence.

The only evidence that I think that would suit everyone is if a god were to return and explain, in a clear and consice manner all of the laws of physics and the universe and then have the global scientific community prove it all.

Until then, I'll be over in this corner watching porn and doing other "sinful" things.

Baneblade · 2012-05-17, 08:23 PM

Zulthus, would this fit?

Figment · 2012-05-17, 08:27 PM

Yes, but then I'll stop channeling Zulthus there, since there's people who enjoy that because it flexes the brainmuscles.

Personally, I enjoy the debates as long as they don't get too repetitive, then they get frustrating. But as was stated before, it's often not even about being right in divine manners, but indicating that not being able to assert being right should mean you should not make politics that influence the lives of those that do not agree with someone else's views of life.

The thing is, typically atheists and other groups are in favour of policies of individual freedom, whereas the religious favour policies that force people to conform to their religious, typically arbitrary and in many cases even obsolete ideas.

Zulthus · 2012-05-17, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Zulthus, would this fit?

I can honestly say I haven't actually heard of that until now. Just from skimming it quickly it seems like a better description.

Figment · 2012-05-17, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

I can honestly say I haven't actually heard of that until now. Just from skimming it quickly it seems like a better description.

Not sure if it does, you don't sound like the type who wants to sit down and babble with all the folks just what the definition of a god (and which version) it is.

Maybe you're a Fedupdiscussionist.

Baneblade · 2012-05-17, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Zulthus

I can honestly say I haven't actually heard of that until now. Just from skimming it quickly it seems like a better description.

Yeah, giving a shit or not really doesn't alter the convictions or beliefs, just the way you approach discussion of them

I'm ignostic, but I also enjoy religious debat... lol religious table tennis.

Zulthus · 2012-05-17, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Not sure if it does, you don't sound like the type who wants to sit down and babble with all the folks just what the definition of a god (and which version) it is.

Maybe you're a Fedupdiscussionist.

Oh no, definitely not. I'm just sick of all the fighting and hostility over some damn big guns upstairs that might or might not even exist at all. Like I said, I just skimmed it, didn't care to read into the article at all.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-18, 07:52 AM

Just to clear something up about definitions, the idea that atheists are 'convinced there is no god' is generally false. There are, in effect, two general breeds of atheist: Strong and Weak atheism.

Strong atheism makes the claim that there are not, and can be no gods.

Weak atheism (to which I subscribe) rejects all of the god claims, and any other claim for that matter, until sufficient evidence is proposed.

Think of it this way. In our court system, we try suspects and judge them as either 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. We do not judge them 'innocent' and there is a good reason for it. It is very difficult to prove a negative, and so forcing the defendant to prove themselves innocent would be unfair. So the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and all the defense needs to do is punch holes in the credibility of the positive 'guilty' claim.

In the case of gods, weak atheists like myself consider gods, ghosts, and magical powers as being 'not guilty' of existing. There isn't sufficient evidence to support that they exist, so we cannot subscribe to them. Strong atheists, however, feel they can prove god 'innocent' of existing; that they can somehow demonstrate with evidence that it is not the case.

While I can see the logic in some of such claims, I believe it's a waste of time, really. A 'not guilty' verdict is not only easier and more practical, but it is also more scientific. Science allows for the possibility of anything that can be backed up with sufficient evidence. That's why things like Gravity and Evolution are 'theories' and not, say, laws that are carved into granite to stand for all time. We know that as we learn we need to adjust our understanding of the universe.

I will say, however, that I don't think we're likely to get any evidence soon of there being any supernatural forces at work in the universe, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Warborn · 2012-05-18, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Not quite. An atheist is convinced there is no god as the lack of evidence and the incongruity of it all is put forth as evidence of the contrary.

An agnostic has not decided and can lean either way.

A theist believes in a god, any god.

A deist believes, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelations.

*edited for clarity*

As Sheppy said, atheists can either feel certain or be uncertain about their lack of belief in god(s). I'd say most atheists are probably weak/agnostic atheists, not believing in a god or gods but also not being able to say with any certainty that they're correct. It's the most honest position, intellectually.

Also, lets not forget pantheism, which is the god of Spinoza and Einstein and others. The belief that the universe itself is god, that it is not sentient and has not feelings or desires or plans, but expresses its divinity through the harmony of its natural laws and the grandeur of its being.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-18, 08:14 AM

I always thought pantheism was just hippy chaff. It sounds like something you'd say after smoking too much weed and listening to the Doors.

"Man, it's like... it's so BIG, man, you know? It's like our MOTHER, but... it knows we gotta do our OWN thing, you know? But like... can you imagine if gravity went UP, man? Like... nothing would work, right? Fuckin' aye, man. I bet, like, god is the whole UNIVERSE, man, and we're like like bacteria that LIVES in it. Pass the bowl, man, don't hog it, haha."

Warborn · 2012-05-18, 08:19 AM

Well, I guess it helped these guys reconcile their belief that human religions are obviously horseshit with the inherent wonder and mystery that is existence and, especially for Einstein, the universe and its inner workings.