Atheism Not A Religion?

[mfbukowski]

Trying to understand where someone is coming from is not the same as telling them what they believe. If that's what you think I have been doing, I apologize.

Sigh.

 

Nope.  Guess again.

 

When you re-state what someone has said, it is always a distortion, so you should not re-state what someone has said.

Edited November 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Agreed.  But that is a little too abstract for this thread.  I don't have a dictionary.

Define "dictionary."

[Analytics]

In response to my saying:

 

For the sake of argument....

 

I believe there are an infinite number of beings in the universe. I also believe that the beings can be ranked, and that the rankings go infinitely high. By this I mean that for any being you idenity, I can identify a higher being. Since there is no being without a superior, there is no supreme being. Thus I'm an atheist.

 

Bukowski replied:

 

What evidence do you have for all this??  Who made up the rankings?

 

It's simply a mind experiment designed to deconstruct a proof that God exists.

 

I don't really think any of that is true.  That is why I said, "For the sake of argument."

 

I was told that all human beings should logically recognize that God exists, because there are beings out there that can be ranked.  It follows, from his logic, there must be a being at the top of the rankings who is, by definition, the supreme being, or God. 

 

I was pointing out a subtle hole in his proof.  In theory, there could be an infinite number of beings all with different rankings, but no "supreme being" that has the highest ranking. 

 

As an exercise in logic, I was simply assuming that the rankings exist in an objective way. 

[mfbukowski]

In response to my saying:

 

For the sake of argument....

 

I believe there are an infinite number of beings in the universe. I also believe that the beings can be ranked, and that the rankings go infinitely high. By this I mean that for any being you idenity, I can identify a higher being. Since there is no being without a superior, there is no supreme being. Thus I'm an atheist.

 

Bukowski replied:

 

 

It's simply a mind experiment designed to deconstruct a proof that God exists.

 

I don't really think any of that is true.  That is why I said, "For the sake of argument."

 

I was told that all human beings should logically recognize that God exists, because there are beings out there that can be ranked.  It follows, from his logic, there must be a being at the top of the rankings who is, by definition, the supreme being, or God. 

 

I was pointing out a subtle hole in his proof.  In theory, there could be an infinite number of beings all with different rankings, but no "supreme being" that has the highest ranking. 

 

As an exercise in logic, I was simply assuming that the rankings exist in an objective way. 

OK

 

I am glad nobody re-stated it for you 

[mfbukowski]

Well, thank heavens there are people around like you to tell people what they really believe.

[jkwilliams]

Sigh.

 

Nope.  Guess again.

 

When you re-state what someone has said, it is always a distortion, so you should not re-state what someone has said.

Of course it is. I'm not sure why you think it should never be done.

[Analytics]

Looks to me like you understand now.  So the question to you is if you're still on the fence or have you decided?

 

And yes you can change your mind later if you want to.

 

I'm glad I finally understand.

 

Personally, I don't see myself as being "on the fence," because I don't understand the question well enough to even be on the fence. Various definitions of "God" are imprecise, nonsensical, vague, implausible, unlikely, not testable, or trivial.  Many of these conceptions of God contradict each other, and some contradict themselves (e.g. big enough to fill the universe, but small enough to dwell in your heart!).

 

The universe is full of things I’m unaware of and things I don’t understand.  Is “God” somewhere in the parts of the universe I don’t understand and of which I’m not aware?  Maybe.  I don’t feel like I’m in the jury box and on the fence about whether or not the defendant did it.  Rather, I simply don’t understand the question because the subject is so vaguely and inconsistently defined.

 

I believe in people.  I believe in goodness.  I believe in love.  I have no opinion about “God.”

[mfbukowski]

As an exercise in logic, I was simply assuming that the rankings exist in an objective way. 

Which I presume you do not believe actually.

 

The next step is to convince you that NOTHING "exists objectively" 

 

There is always an observer mucking around with the "evidence"

 

 

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.^[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

I guess these dummies didn't know that all they needed was a good dictionary.  Go figure! 

[mfbukowski]

 

Personally, I don't see myself as being "on the fence," because I don't understand the question well enough to even be on the fence. Various definitions of "God" are imprecise, nonsensical, vague, implausible, unlikely, not testable, or trivial.  Many of these conceptions of God contradict each other, and some contradict themselves (e.g. big enough to fill the universe, but small enough to dwell in your heart!).

Kind of like being in love, huh?

 

Maybe it's not supposed to be "rational" the way you think it is.

 

That's what Rorty says in that video.  Did you really watch it 3 times?

Edited November 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

Which I presume you do not believe actually.

 

The next step is to convince you that NOTHING "exists objectively" 

 

There is always an observer mucking around with the "evidence"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

I guess these dummies didn't know that all they needed was a good dictionary.  Go figure! 

 

I don't see a contradiction between saying "objective reality exists" and saying, "quantum mechanics does a very good job of describing the fundamental nature of reality.”

 

Call me naive, but I think objective reality is out there.  I have no illusions about the ability of human beings to actually grasp objective reality, but I still think it exists.  Human thought consists of models.  And I believe George Box was quite right when he said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree with that.  It's like asking if somebody supports Immigration reform.  If they say yes, it means they support it.  If they say no, it means they don't support it.  Not supporting immigration reform is a lack of positive support for immigration reform.  But it doesn't imply that they oppose immigration reform. 

 

Likewise, if somebody says no, they don't believe in God, it means they are an atheist, but all they said is that they don't have a positive belief in God.  They didn't say that have a positive belief that God doesn't exist.

YOu know, just to make the rounds again, and no analogy is perfect and stuff, but not supporting the reform would make you more agnostic towards it. But what ever, I think I am just posting to make a silly point. I should stop but........

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sigh.

 

Nope.  Guess again.

 

When you re-state what someone has said, it is always a distortion, so you should not re-state what someone has said.

I am going to disagree wtih you on this. I think an honest effort to restate what some one has said is very key in the communication process is quite effective at understanding what some one has said.  If I understand you correctly you think that to restate some one is always a distortion?

[Analytics]

Kind of like being in love, huh?

 

Maybe it's not supposed to be "rational" the way you think it is.

 

That's what Rorty says in that video.  Did you really watch it 3 times?

 

I've really watched it all the way through once, and have watched segments of it two or three times.

 

I have no problem with what he says. Something about my own beliefs that I’ve left out of the discussion until now is that my lack of belief isn’t based solely on the (hopefully) rational things I’ve been discussing on this thread.  Other questions I’ve considered is whether believing would be subjectively satisfying for me, and whether believing would make me personally a better person.

 

I’m quite open to the possibility that better people than me believe because their superior reasoning faculties figured out the truth.  And I have no problem with people believing because they find it satisfying.

 

The video talks about a biology professor who is a church-going believer on Sunday.  Certain people she knows at church don’t approve of her scientific conclusions, and certain scientific colleagues don’t approve of the mythology she subscribes to on Sunday.  She shrugs her shoulders and finds both her religious life and professional life meaningful and satisfying, and feels no need to reconcile the two.  Rorty’s position is that it’s fine for her to live her life that way.  Isn’t that the main point?

 

If that floats her boat, I am totally fine with it too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

If that floats her boat, I am totally fine with it too.

Quite honestly that ends up being my position on a whole host of things. What ever floats your boat. Of course there are certain limitations to that. BUt I really don't want to get into that.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Ahab]

Sigh.

 

Nope.  Guess again.

 

When you re-state what someone has said, it is always a distortion, so you should not re-state what someone has said.

Believe it or not, it is possible to restate what someone has said without any distortion.

 

For example, if you were to state that nobody should restate what another person has said I could say the same thing, exactly.

 

Or I could just tell you that there are times when we should, or times when it's okay to do that, and thus disagree with what you have said.

 

We're not just a bunch of yes-men around here, as if we can't disagree with what someone has said.

 

You can say what you think,and I can say what we think, even if we don't agree with each other.

 

And the fact that you can say something doesn't mean that what you are saying is true.

 

... applied to everyone, not just to you, mski.  You should know I usually agree with you more than I disagree with you, or rather, you usually agree with me.

[thesometimesaint]

 

I've really watched it all the way through once, and have watched segments of it two or three times.

 

I have no problem with what he says. Something about my own beliefs that I’ve left out of the discussion until now is that my lack of belief isn’t based solely on the (hopefully) rational things I’ve been discussing on this thread.  Other questions I’ve considered is whether believing would be subjectively satisfying for me, and whether believing would make me personally a better person.

 

I’m quite open to the possibility that better people than me believe because their superior reasoning faculties figured out the truth.  And I have no problem with people believing because they find it satisfying.

 

The video talks about a biology professor who is a church-going believer on Sunday.  Certain people she knows at church don’t approve of her scientific conclusions, and certain scientific colleagues don’t approve of the mythology she subscribes to on Sunday.  She shrugs her shoulders and finds both her religious life and professional life meaningful and satisfying, and feels no need to reconcile the two.  Rorty’s position is that it’s fine for her to live her life that way.  Isn’t that the main point?

 

If that floats her boat, I am totally fine with it too.

 

When all is said and done. Me too.

[Ahab]

In response to my saying:

 

For the sake of argument....

 

I believe there are an infinite number of beings in the universe. I also believe that the beings can be ranked, and that the rankings go infinitely high. By this I mean that for any being you idenity, I can identify a higher being. Since there is no being without a superior, there is no supreme being. Thus I'm an atheist.

 

Bukowski replied:

 

 

It's simply a mind experiment designed to deconstruct a proof that God exists.

 

I don't really think any of that is true.  That is why I said, "For the sake of argument."

 

I was told that all human beings should logically recognize that God exists, because there are beings out there that can be ranked.  It follows, from his logic, there must be a being at the top of the rankings who is, by definition, the supreme being, or God. 

 

I was pointing out a subtle hole in his proof.  In theory, there could be an infinite number of beings all with different rankings, but no "supreme being" that has the highest ranking. 

 

As an exercise in logic, I was simply assuming that the rankings exist in an objective way. 

Now seems like a good time to point out that your mind exercise applies only to our imaginations, because while it is theoretically possible for there to be an infinite number of kinds of beings with there always being a being more supreme than any other, that theory is not true in reality.

 

In reality, based on what we can see in reality independent of our imaginations, we can all see there is a supreme being on this planet.  You may not see that now, but with a little intelligent reflection I know you can see that.  And doesn't that mean that based on reality you can admit there is a supreme being?  I suppose you could still say you don't believe there is, but that would only be based on your imagination, I think.

[Analytics]

Now seems like a good time to point out that your mind exercise applies only to our imaginations, because while it is theoretically possible for there to be an infinite number of kinds of beings with there always being a being more supreme than any other, that theory is not true in reality.

 

In reality, based on what we can see in reality independent of our imaginations, we can all see there is a supreme being on this planet.  You may not see that now, but with a little intelligent reflection I know you can see that.  And doesn't that mean that based on reality you can admit there is a supreme being?  I suppose you could still say you don't believe there is, but that would only be based on your imagination, I think.

 

What is the "supreme being" on this planet?  Is it Barack Obama because he controls the most powerful military force?   Is it Michael Phelps because he has the supreme cardiovascular system?  Carlos Slim because he has the most money?  Is it Diana Ross because she is the supreme Supreme?

 

Does identifying the most "supreme" being on this planet get us closer to identifying God?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Analytics

[Ahab]

What is the "supreme being" on this planet?  Is it Barack Obama because he controls the most powerful military force?   Is it Michael Phelps because he has the supreme cardiovascular system?  Carlos Slim because he has the most money?  Is it Diana Ross because she is the supreme Supreme?

 

Does identifying the most "supreme" being on this planet get us closer to identifying God?

The supreme being on this planet, as a kind of being, among all other kinds, is us.  We are the supreme being on this planet.

 

Yes, individually, we're all over the map with some of us being better than others of us, but as a kind of being there is no other being which is better than us on this planet.

 

And yes knowing that does help us to know which kind of being is the most supreme among all other kinds everywhere, because out there in space what we'll find is just a lot more of the same with some of us still being better than others of us.  This is reality.

[pmccombs1]

Does identifying the most "supreme" being on this planet get us closer to identifying God?

 

Maybe it does. 

 

Supremacy suggests what people are willing to worship, or their view of what is good and worthy. 

[jkwilliams]

The supreme being on this planet, as a kind of being, among all other kinds, is us.  We are the supreme being on this planet.

 

Yes, individually, we're all over the map with some of us being better than others of us, but as a kind of being there is no other being which is better than us on this planet.

 

And yes knowing that does help us to know which kind of being is the most supreme among all other kinds everywhere, because out there in space what we'll find is just a lot more of the same with some of us still being better than others of us.  This is reality.

I guess I don't understand why we are "better" than other beings. We're more intelligent, obviously, and we have been able to use that intelligence to do some amazing things. But we're also easily the most destructive beings on the planet and do the most damage to ourselves and the earth.

[thesometimesaint]

What is the "supreme being" on this planet?  Is it Barack Obama because he controls the most powerful military force?   Is it Michael Phelps because he has the supreme cardiovascular system?  Carlos Slim because he has the most money?  Is it Diana Ross because she is the supreme Supreme?

 

Does identifying the most "supreme" being on this planet get us closer to identifying God?

 

In a way yes. Take all the good of everyone, and toss out all the bad, then you have identified God.

[jkwilliams]

In a way yes. Take all the good of everyone, and toss out all the bad, then you have identified God.

That's assuming that we have a full understanding of good and bad. If Joseph Smith was right, what we see as "bad" might actually be "good" in God's sight.

Sometimes I think our perception of God is simply a projection of our own values.

[Ahab]

I guess I don't understand why we are "better" than other beings. We're more intelligent, obviously, and we have been able to use that intelligence to do some amazing things. But we're also easily the most destructive beings on the planet and do the most damage to ourselves and the earth.

You're missing the obvious.  There are 2 sides to the coin. We're able to do the most amazing things AND the most destructive things.  No other kind of being can do what we can do better than us, or worse than us.  We can build, and we can destroy.  We can love, and we can hate.  We have the power to do both good and evil and all other beings are subject to what we do among them.  And there are the ultimate "good" guys as well as the ultimate "bad" guys among us.

[jkwilliams]

You're missing the obvious.  There are 2 sides to the coin. We're able to do the most amazing things AND the most destructive things.  No other kind of being can do what we can do better than us, or worse than us.  We can build, and we can destroy.  We can love, and we can hate.  We have the power to do both good and evil and all other beings are subject to what we do among them.  And there are the ultimate "good" guys as well as the ultimate "bad" guys among us.

I'm just saying that's a rather arbitrary way to define "supreme."