Herein I store essentially disparate reference material for my main blog socialistdystopia.blogspot.com CONTENTS OF THIS 'COGNATE' BLOG MAY BE REGULARLY INDEXED OR COMMENTED UPON IN THE 'DYSTOPIA" BLOG, MAKING IT EASIER TO READ.
This site could have value for casual readers: certainly context / purpose may or may not be obvious.
#################### Geoff Seidner
Great article. I like the "Evolutionary theory and science offer marvellous explanations of how, they offer no explanations of why." Might I insert "who" before "why", both are valid points.
@Catherine What an interesting point! How would an atheist go about reaffirming a belief which is actually a disbelief or a non-belief. How does one re-affirm a negative? Sorry Catherine, but as Pauline would say, please explain!
@CatherineIn big print this time Catherine in the vain hope it might get through. ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF BELIEF IN THEISM. IT IS NOT A BELIEF IN ITSELF, although it may include supporting reasons that do in fact include respect for the rules of argument, reason and the nature of evidence. It therefore does not need ‘reaffirmation’ as a 'belief'.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Then atheism is NOT a religion. Atheism does not involve belief or faith. It is the intellectual rejection of man made propositions that lack evidence or rationality.
@Catherine Not the case Catherine. FYI, there atheists 500 years before Christianity. Lack of belief in something is not the inverse of a postive belief in something.
Admittedly [although it really depends on how terms are defined] agnostics are a bit of a wimpy cop-out and like to have a bob or two each way without actually laying a bet. That involves some mental gymwere nastics I can do without.
@CatherineOnce more Catherine, a lack of belief is not a positive belief. I do not believe in Spaghetti Monsters. That does not make me a positive believer in the religious practice of non-belief in Spaghetti Monsters.
@Graeme@Richard- I only make the observation that saying “I don’t know” is different to saying “I know- KNOW- beyond any and all doubt”.
“Leaving the gate open” is the difference between doubt and faith. Faith-or belief- is manifest at opposite of the spectrum of religiosity and anti-theism.
@Catherine Atheism leaves the gate open to evidence. Inference to the best explanation is always inference it is not deduction; it is not the deceptive attraction of deductive certainty and it is not a priori religious faith that already has all possible answers and by definition nothing rational will shake.
A-theism is just not anti-theism, You simply don't understand the various concepts Catherine,
@Richard- really? Hitchens asserted that he was an anti-theist (... encompassing atheism).
As you note, inference is not the same as evidence. If absolute evidence is required to prove the existence of God, it is also required to disprove the existence of God. I’m waiting for atheists to prove the basis of their beliefs. That is all.
@Catherine. You appear to have respect for the "agnostic" position. I would like it explained to me, but from the tenor of you previous posts you don' t seem capable of putting forward any reasoned statement.
You seem to imply though, that an Agnostic admits they do not know. Well that is precicely what an atheist says.
I put it to the forum that any difference between the two words is purely semantic and even then so fine a distiction as to be effectively meaningless. Both words start with 'a' implying "not" as in "asexual" or "apolitical" . The suffixes are "theist" meening believing in god in the same was as say "communist" to mean believing in communism ; and "gnostic" meaning "religeous" in the same way as Toxic means "poisonous" (no connection implied of course!)
So one word means "not believing in god" and the other means "not religeous". I cant sopt much diffence but can anonyone enlighten me?
@Richard IV Agnostics are essentially a sub-set of Atheists. They are atheists who say they don't accept the proposition that there is a god AND that they don't know, one way or another, whether there is a god.
In fact "gnosis" means "to know". The Gnostics were people who made claims to special secret "knowledge" about the nature of the world and god.
So Agnostics - those who claim no special knowledge - are in fact also Atheist; rejecting the position that there is a specific god.
Sorry Greg. Your rather convoluted attempts to establish the existence of a god by using pseudo logical argument falls well short of the mark. On the contrary it is far more logical, common sense and scientific to believe in evolution rather than creation. To suggest that the default position of the brain is blind, unchallenged believe rather than to use our brains to figure out the truth is total nonsense. In fact that is what all religions and all of their respective gods rely on, dumb belief in a particular religion and god usually resulting from indoctrination (radicalisation) from an early age. You describe atheism as a faith. This is a misnomer. Call it a lack of faith if you like but it is merely the result of the thought process arriving at a conclusion.
@Donald Yes, Donald, Greg's delusional description of atheism as a faith, though not unusual from believers, says much about their own insecurity and need to attack and insult the objectivity of atheists.
@Rolfe@Donald Do people publish books on why not collecting stamps is more rational than stamp collecting? Do you have non-stamp collectors arguing that stamp collectors are too irrational to be permitted to enter university? Seems like Atheism requires a high degree of evangelism rather than a nil degree of faith.
@Donald Really, Donald? You mentioned "is far more logical, common sense and scientific to believe in evolution rather than creation". If that is the case, show me example of transitional fossils of the evolutionary chain? Which are the fossils which are half monkey and half human? What about those which are half reptile and half bird?
So out of nothing, came everything without intelligent and powerful intervention? You've got to be kidding me!
Look into it and you will find out that evolution is a theory desperately lacking of scientific validation.
Back around 100-200 years BCE, the orbits of the earth, moon and known planets were known with an extraordinary degree of accuracy, even to the period of the earth being 365 1/4 days, AND that knowledge had been translated into a machine that could predict eclipses and the locations of these bodies - Google the antikythera mechanism for the details.
How then did the "fundamental preconditions for modern science" come about that this knowledge was lost for 1700 years until Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci etc challenged the Pope at risk to their lives?
Did not the church so value the elimination of knowledge amongst non clerics that it even forbade the publication of the Bible other than in Latin?
Please tell us how the Inquisition led to modern scientific knowledge?
@Russ@Nico Not quite fair, Russ, the studious habits and institutions established by Christians (after being given a push from Islam, which hurriedly backed away from science once the fantasy parts of their beliefs came under threat) were consequential in establishing many of the basics which led to the scientific revolution.
That is not to say Christianity, as a whole, supported the outcomes of the studies for much of the time, however. Much of the church (both clergy and lay) opposed such investigations. Many still do (with far less excuse).
The Catholic Church resisted scientific analysis including the persecution Galileo, one of the world's greatest physicists for heresy for suggesting that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and that the Earth revolved around the Sun. This was because scientific analysis was contrary to Scripture, and to be contrary to Scripture meant heresy and burning at the stake.
In 1600 Bruno Giordano was burnt at the stake in Rome for heresy for advocating a similar proposition. The Inquisition drove a stake through his face pinning his tongue so he couldn't speak before he was burnt alive. In 1415 the Inquisition burned similar heretics including Han Hus and Jerome of Prague in a similar fashion.
Contrary to your proposition, the preconditions for modern science to flourish can be traced back to the Epicureans and Lucretius 2000 years earlier, and the church did everything in its power to suppress such knowledge. Any advance in science has been to drag a church kicking and screaming in denial including the fierce opposition to Darwin. Science has succeeded despite the best efforts of the Christianity as represented by the Church.
@Argus The scientific establishment sought the persecution of Galileo, the Catholic Church merely meekly acquiesced.
Giordano was punished for his theological heresy - arguing for pantheism for instance, not for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy. The likes of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague were likewise punished for their rejection of Catholicism.
As for opposition to Darwin, there was actually a lot of support amongst churchmen who rejected the Bible. Nothing has really changed there.
@Richard@Nico Richard just because you though a remark with abandon it does not make you erudite or intelligent.
It only make you ignorant of history and that I admit provides the self assurance you require.
Here is a short syllogism to make you ponder but you also have to read more than the God Delusion.
Greek Philosophy culminates in the work of Plato, which then his student Aristotle creates into different fields(we use his classification today on Uni Departments).
Neo Platonist and the Greek church Fathers steeped in Greek learning integrate much of Greek thought into the Christian Faith (they make it essentially what it is). Augustine does the same in the West later on.
The Arabs take from the Greeks and have a brief interlude of wonderful science but it is back to the Christian lands that its flourishes.
You know why because like Plato Christianity has an unfaltering belief that the Universe is intelligible and without that belief studying philosophy or science would have being a fools errand. Now if you read Plato you will see in his dialogues that his world system was identical with the Christian one. Read the Timeaus but even in the Republic it stand there starring you in the face.
Now I am shortening the history quite a bit as it passed through people like Aquinas Berkeley Newton Galileo (all Christians) and heaps more.
The atheist proclaims that there s no God because he/she has examined all known data and cannot find God. All possible knowledge includes what the atheist knows and what is not yet known. Therefore to state that God does not exist implies that the atheist knows what he/ she does not know yet. Hence the dogmatic statement that God does not exist is most illogical. At best the doubter could take an agnostic viewpoint.
@Aubrey A fail on logic Aubrey. All known knowledge [odd term] does not by definition include all possible knowledge past present or future.The atheist simply states a lack of belief based on present knowledge; the claim does not entail future knowledge. Your argument is unsound and invalid.
At what point do religious people accept that we have looked far enough. We have looked to the heavens, through the time of distance to the beginning of the universe without finding God. We have looked into the fabric of matter, the building blocks of the subatomic and not found God. We have three milenia of history and no corobable historical evidence for gods existance.
The logical concussion is god is a construct of humanity. It is no more than an idea. But humans being as we are religion has evolved to supprt and protect the corporal wealth of the priesthood and the states that suport them.
@Aubrey "No god until the existence of such a being is proved". That seems logical and sound as a position. That means not believing now, and not believing until the evidence appears.It is not the non-believer's task to prove a negative - that there is no god. An atheist can say, "I see no evidence of such a being, so I do not believe." End of story - until the evidence is found, or god gives one a clip over the ear, whichever comes first.
@Aubrey I think the problem that theists have is that they don't have the capacity to contemplate that there is no God. Therefore they tend to assume that an atheist is necessarily arguing against the existence of God. This is the reason I don't call myself an atheist, because it's too easily to be labelled.
What I can say for my own part is that based on the knowledge I have, I see no reason to posit the existence a God
@Richard@Aubrey My claim is far from illogical because the atheist proclaims there is no God revealed in history or in the future. Current facts include those we know about as well as those we do not know. Clearly then for the atheist to declare there is no God implies knowledge of what is yet unknown.
@Aubrey Show me proof of your God that doesn't involve the words "faith" or "belief" or "feeling" and you'll have a convert but until then, I'll remain a heathen.
" Make a joyful noise unto the Lord all ye lands, serve the Lord with gladness, come before his presence with singing..." Mr Sheridan cites the "strange phenomenon of joy, the even stranger delight of humour..." and so on in support of the existence of some sort of god. Why is it then that new or re-born religions seem to be so co-existent with a complete lack of joy and a rigid humourlessness. I don't mean just the obvious puritans of the English revolution or early America, but it seems to happen also with other religions, both theistic and non-theistic. Compare, for example, the reborn mullahs of present day Iran, with Omar Khayyam of the Rubiayyat - full of a love of life, wine, women and good times. I now I'd rather spend time with the mediaeval Persian than the contemporary Iranians.
Then there's the modern progressives, with their identity politics - seen so well just this week with some Mother Grundy (as my mother would have called her) going ape at another mother for letting her daughter dress up for Halloween as a Disney Polynesian character. Not much joy there.
Then there are the Marxists - all lacking much in the humour field, which is strange, seeing that old Karl was known as a great comedian in his day. I remember reading a history book back in my high school days which ranked him as the funniest of the Marx brothers, though I don't know why they didn't give him a part in A Day at the Races. At least the kulaks in communist Russia thought he was a great joke.
Greg, I agree with you totally. There has to be a God. I've read the first few books of the old testament and the representation of God as a cruel, sadistic, unforgiving blood spilling monster to all but "his chosen" proves it. All the pain and suffering that is in the world today especially against children has to be intentional and directed from above, below or wherever he hides. It cannot be happening by chance. Remember the words of The Lord's Prayer "....thy will be done on earth..." well, it's being done every second of every day and children are suffering and dying.
There seems to be in the article, and many of the comments, that "God" is religion, or at least Christianity. God is a word we use to describe the indescribable. Religions, over the thousands of years of researched history and anthropology, have existed in their multitudes with all believers believing theirs is the truth, or real, and superior to others. God is a concept which we have tried to explain via many different modes, from sacrificing virgins to killing pigs, from believing in afterlife in heaven to being recycled in a different form. Gods have been created from objects, animal worship, places, and mysterious nothingness. Greg has tried to be objective, but his christianity shines through. I see God as the enormity of the universe, the wonders of the world, the thoughts that enable me to think in a rational manner. I do not see organised religion in the hands of emirs, priests, shamans, monks and their followers as god or it's representative. They profess their multitude of truths as being the only truth and have used these truths in the course of known history to fight opposing truths to the death. They are using the word god to narrow the discussion to a finite view whereas god is infinite and can never be understood. God is a concept that people try to rationalise via beliefs to the exclusion of other beliefs, usually incorporating power over others to conform and reject opposing dogma. To believe in god, not someone else's idea of god, is not atheism, but merely accepting that no one can explain the unexplainable, especially priests, journalists and those who declare comments like mine to be heretical and agnostic. In my simple world view, god is in my children and grandchildren's eyes, in the life choices I have taken, in the world around me. It is not the Torah, Koran, Bible or Budda's many missives on how we understand the universe.They have many fine messages, like many other books. They also have terrible messages of anger, hate and inhumanity. They were written and have been interpreted by men of different times and views to me.They were blind to my time and beliefs. To grasp their "truths" blindly, is to allow the blind to lead.
What a mixup - this rambling, irrational, intellectually vapid exegesis was surely meant for The Catholic Weekly. Sad, even so, that the writer evidently has never shared in - or chooses to ignore - the Enlightenment, aka The Age of Reason.
The enlightenment culminated in Wi and WII. It was clear delusion where European countries far outpaced their knowledge of man ('anthropos') with their ability to control nature and became efficient killing machines.
Greg's article shows that he has much more erudite and full understanding of history than you exhibit in your opinion.
@Nico No, Nico, the article says infinitely more about the effectiveness of Greg's (probably childhood) indoctrination - and perhaps your own? - than any erudition or understanding of history.
@Anne NWhat? Anne N, are you serious? Or is this a satire?
First, atheists do not try to prove God/gods/goddesses exist. The simple position is that they have no belief in the claim. The usual position is lack of evidence for the existence of God/gods/goddesses or Spaghetti Monsters.
Second, are you actually claiming that a calendar naming convention explicable historically proves the existence of God? In which case, does the replacement of BC/AD by BCE and CE disprove the existence of God?
(Review of “Miracles“): CS Lewis challenges the rationalists, agnostics, and deists on their own grounds and makes out an impressive case for the irrationality of their assumptions by positing:
"Those who assume that miracles cannot happen are merely wasting their time by looking into the texts: we know in advance what results they will find for they have begun by begging the question."
@Catherine Those who assume the miracles cannot happen, are not wasting their time in testing the underlying assumptions, because inevitably they are subjective and delusional. I for one would be happy to see a miracle or a glass of water was change into a Shiraz or or a Cabernet, and on that basis I would convert to Christianity tomorrow.
Needless to say nobody is even tried to do this on Penn and Teller so you will be unlikely to see any example of it other than the febrile ramblings of early Christians written well after the event by people who are not there.
Having read the statement attributed to CS Lewis 3 times, I see no logical inference other than the self-justification of a position already established in advance.
@Argus@Catherine Since when were the disciples not present with Jesus and documented what they heard and experienced. Miracles are events which the human mind cannot comprehend in its natural world. Believers acknowledge miracles through faith, unbelievers mock.
@Barrie@Argus@Catherine Miracles are events which violate the laws of science. Science allows us to distinguish things that are miracles, it cannot comment on whether miracles can occur.
My one responsibly as a Christian is to live a fruitful life in the simplicity that is in Christ which is summed up so clearly and so simply by the prophet Micah: 'To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.' [6 v 8]. So simple, yet so sublime.
@JohnNot Pascal's wager again. The probability is not 0.5 John. The more alternative gods and goddesses, and the list is very very long, the less likely you are to win your bet. And the greater the chance of picking the wrong god, and therefore the more chance you have of losing very badly and finding yourself punished for gambling on the wrong horse/golden calf or whatever.
Go with the evidence instead and there is no evidence, plausible argument or even good odds for your choice of Pascal's god.
What does BC and AD mean?
How do you intend to remove all traces of either out of your lives?