I think a big problem is that many people aren't switching from irrational belief in irrational ideas to rational belief in rational ideas because of their education, they're switching to irrational belief in rational ideas. This is a step backward in disguise. One of the reasons snake oil salesmen are so effective nowadays is because they have mastered the ability to mimic all the trappings of real medicine, and it is the existence or non-existence of those trappings that people have come to rely on markers of legitimacy, rather than rational investigation of the thing itself. This is just as true in science and technology.
Ok, I was with you up till this point, but that's just bullshit. You own your car, but provided it broke down and all types of stuff inside it got fucked up, would you (personally) be able to fix it? If you can, kudos...but I really doubt that there is NOTHING that you've paid for that you don't know how to fix....and by your logic, you therefore don't own it.
I think a big problem is that many people aren't switching from irrational belief in irrational ideas to rational belief in rational ideas because of their education, they're switching to irrational belief in rational ideas.
You'd be surprised. Kids at my school (even the dumb ones) are turning away from God because they think the idea of a higher being is ridiculous, and the entire story of Jesus is too complicated to understand and/or be true. If and when they have a family, will they turn back to God? Who knows? But for the time being, uneducation doesn't seem to correlate to belief in God or not....and frankly, the people at school with 4.0 gpas* seem to be the biggest Jesus freaks in school.
*- in b4 the gpa ≠being smart argument. Again, I realize that it doesn't. But for the time being, it's the only tangible object I can use to measure how smart someone is.
Ok, I was with you up till this point. That's just bullshit. You own your car, but provided it broke down and all types of stuff inside it got fucked up, would you (personally) be able to fix it? If you can, kudos...but I really doubt that there is NOTHING that you've paid for that you don't know how to fix....and by your logic, you therefore don't own it.
It's not meant to be taken literally. Jeez. It's just a witty saying.
So yes, if you buy a car, you own it in a legal sense. However, if you can't fix it yourself, and you need the car, you are at the mercy of the mechanics. You can not take full control of the car into your own two hands. You may have the title to the car, but you aren't its master. In a way, it is the master of you.
Ok, I was with you up till this point. That's just bullshit. You own your car, but provided it broke down and all types of stuff inside it got fucked up, would you (personally) be able to fix it? If you can, kudos...but I really doubt that there is NOTHING that you've paid for that you don't know how to fix....and by your logic, you therefore don't own it.
It's not meant to be taken literally. Jeez. It's just a witty saying.
So yes, if you buy a car, you own it in a legal sense. However, if you can't fix it yourself, and you need the car, you are at the mercy of the mechanics. You can not take full control of the car into your own two hands. You may have the title to the car, but you aren't its master. In a way, it is the master of you.
Regarding the first part- sorry. I've never heard that saying before.
uneducation doesn't seem to correlate to belief in God or not
I've seen several studies showing a clear correlation (not necessarily causation) between level of education lack of religiosity nationwide. (I'll link to them when I dig them up again). Of course, this is in terms of high school, undergraduate degree, masters degree, doctoral degree, etc., and not necessarily in terms of competence or intelligence directly.
Ah, it's so useless to argue about religion and beliefs. The most difficult part of human reason is that it's based on human reason, but then again, so is everything else. I do see that advancement in an individual's education leads to a more atheistic approach, but it may be more due to conviction that one has correct reasoning or the simple act of trying to fit in.
Say there is a giant black curtain. Everyone can see the curtain, but the things hidden behind it are unknown. Each person can either firmly belief that there is nothing behind the curtain or that there is something behind the curtain. Those who don't care about the curtain are more prone to fall into the first category from lack of clear evidence. In truth, there is an equal amount of faith in both sides, meaning that there is no clear cut evidence for either side beyond self convictions. Nothing can ever really be absolutely defined because everyone perceives them differently. If you tell a blind person that eyes exist, they would have no way of telling if they could or could not exist. It's impossible to fathom that which is unknown; if I told you there was another color that couldn't be made out of the spectrum as we know it, can you possibly imagine what it would look like?
Okay, back to the curtain. Both sides divide up into camps. Eager to convince the other side, they create random assumptions from previous "common knowledge" (which itself is derived from some sort of assumptions) that they hope to use to argue their point. They argue that, since their assumptions fit in with other assumptions based on an endless cycle of derivative information, they are indeed correct. How much does that actually prove whether there is something behind the curtain or not?
My point is, you can't prove either side. Maybe there is a god, but maybe there isn't. I believe in God because worldly reason cannot possibly explain infinity, being finite and exact. Either way, our assumptions are now our reality because we believe them to be true. You must discover for yourself whether a god exists based on your personal perception.
I may be wordy and I probably contradicted myself, but it was hard not to to say what I believe.
Each person can either firmly belief that there is nothing behind the curtain or that there is something behind the curtain.
False dichotomy. One may make no assumptions (and thus requiring no faith) until evidence is discovered.
if you tell a blind person that eyes exist, they would have no way of telling if they could or could not exist.
Bad analogy. A blind person has eyes. Even if they didn't, there are other eyes in existence, which could be easily observed. And not only can you prove eyes to a blind person, you can prove they work. Thing of the day a while ago.
if I told you there was another color that couldn't be made out of the spectrum as we know it, can you possibly imagine what it would look like?
Color is a perception of a physical quality of light. There are an infinite number of "colors", but we can only see those with wavelengths of about 400-750 nm (or combinations thereof).
I believe in God because worldly reason cannot possibly explain infinity, being finite and exact.
What do you even mean by this? People can reason about infinity. There are even different sizes of infinity.
Wow. Its been a long time since I've seen somebody that throughly owned without physical action. Cheers, Starfox.
uneducation doesn't seem to correlate to belief in God or not
I've seen several studies showing a clear correlation (not necessarily causation) between level of education lack of religiosity nationwide. (I'll link to them when I dig them up again). Of course, this is in terms of high school, undergraduate degree, masters degree, doctoral degree, etc., and not necessarily in terms of competence or intelligence directly.
Quite right; Intelligence is not dependent on a formal degree. I have a friend who dropped out of high school to help support his family who is very intelligent and is clear about his atheism.
False dichotomy. One may make no assumptions (and thus requiring no faith) until evidence is discovered.
But how long can anyone really do that? Besides, if they don't take interest, they'll still naturally fall into one of the two sides (probably the atheist side).
Bad analogy. A blind person has eyes. Even if they didn't, there are other eyes in existence, which could be easily observed. And not only can you prove eyes to a blind person, you can prove they work.Thing of the daya while ago.
True, that was a bad analogy. I came up with the analogy on the spot, so I didn't think it through completely. The point was that if someone lacks something, they cannot directly observe it, they may only observe the effects of it. You can't see a black hole, but you can see the effects it has on celestial bodies and gravitational forces.
Color is a perception of a physical quality of light. There are an infinite number of "colors", but we can only see those with wavelengths of about 400-750 nm (or combinations thereof).
Okay, again, not the best example. If you put a red filter over a childs eyes when he or she was first born, so that they lived life for ten years without ever seeing anything but the color of red, they can imagine another "red" existing, but they cannot imagine what it would look like.
What do you even mean by this? People can reason about infinity. There are evendifferent sizesof infinity.
By "infinity", I guess I wasn't so clear. I didn't mean mathematical infinity, I meant the infinity of time. Science doesn't explain what started the Big Bang, nor can they explain what started that or what started the thing before that. God doesn't either, but it at least comes closer.
I'm not sure why I even went into all of this because these sort of debates serve no purposes.
But how long can anyone really do that? Besides, if they don't take interest, they'll still naturally fall into one of the two sides (probably the atheist side).
Um, they can do that forever. If you don't know something, you don't know something. If you answer the question "what is behind the curtain?" with "I don't know" that is the atheist answer, whether you want to be labled atheist or not. It is also the only acceptible answer.
Science doesn't explain what started the Big Bang, nor can they explain what started that or what started the thing before that. God doesn't either, but it at least comes closer.
So completely making up an answer based on nothing is "closer" to the truth than saying you don't know? Ok, the next time you ask me a question, and I don't know the answer, I'll just make something up because that's closer than saying I don't know.
If you don't know something, you don't know something. If you answer the question "what is behind the curtain?" with "I don't know" that is the atheist answer, whether you want to be labled atheist or not. It is also the only acceptible answer.
I have always understood the answer "I don't know" to be the agnostic answer. The atheist answer is "Nothing, until proven otherwise." Other fun answers include the ignostic "I don't care." and the solipsist "Something I made up."
I have always understood the answer "I don't know" to be the agnostic answer. The atheist answer is "Nothing, until proven otherwise." Other fun answers include the ignostic "I don't care." and the solipsist "Something I made up."
No, they're the same answer. If you don't know, you don't believe, thus you are a-theist. Agnostic just a word people use when they are atheist, but they don't want to start a fight.
I have always understood the answer "I don't know" to be the agnostic answer. The atheist answer is "Nothing, until proven otherwise." Other fun answers include the ignostic "I don't care." and the solipsist "Something I made up."
No, they're the same answer. If you don't know, you don't believe, thus you are a-theist. Agnostic just a word people use when they are atheist, but they don't want to start a fight.
If you don't know, you neither believe nor disbelieve.
If you don't know, you neither believe nor disbelieve.
No, you disbelieve. There is no middle ground.
Let's say I don't know if I have 35 cents in my pocket. I might, I might not. I don't believe I have 35 cents in my pocket, but that does not necessarily mean I believe I don't have 35 cents in my pocket. In the same vein, if I don't know if God exists, I don't believe that God exists, but I don't necessarily also believe that God doesn't exist.
If you don't know, you neither believe nor disbelieve.
So you neither believe nor disbelieve in the tooth fairy? Is that what you are saying?
I may not know 100% that there is no tooth fairy. However, when it comes to everyday life, I do not take the existence of the tooth fairy into consideration. I live my life as if the tooth fairy does not exist. While philosophically and academically I might accept that there is an incredibly small probability that the tooth fairy is indeed real, I live my life as if that probability is zero. The probability is not zero, but it is effectively zero, and I live life as such. Thus, I can say I don't know for sure that the tooth fairy does not exist, but I can also disbelieve tooth fairy.
If you don't know, you neither believe nor disbelieve.
So you neither believe nor disbelieve in the tooth fairy? Is that what you are saying?
I am indifferent to the existence of the tooth fairy, because I lose teeth so rarely that it doesn't concern me.
I may not know 100% that there is no tooth fairy. However, when it comes to everyday life, I do not take the existence of the tooth fairy into consideration. I live my life as if the tooth fairy does not exist.
Then this means that you believe the toothfairy does not exist. This is different than claiming that you don't know if the tooth fairy exists or not.
Then this means that you believe the toothfairy does not exist. This is different than claiming that you don't know if the tooth fairy exists or not.
NO IT ISN'T!!! GOOD GOD!
I'm not 100% sure the sky is blue. There is a chance the sky isn't blue. Do I believe it is blue? Yes, yes I do because there are mountains of evidence suggesting that it is blue. I am 99.9999% sure that the sky is blue, so I believe it is blue. If you ask me if the sky is blue, I say yes.
I'm not 100% sure the tooth fairy does not exist. There is a chance the tooth fairy exists. Do I believe it exists? No, no I do not because there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that it exists, and plenty of evidence to suggest it does not. I am 99.999999% sure that the tooth fairy does not exist, so I don't believe in it. if you ask me if the tooth fairy exists, I say no.
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall! What part of this do you not understand?
Take a formula with an unsolved variable a. Without solving the formula, can you tell if a is greater than zero? No. Therefor you cannot say that a is greater than zero. However, does this require that you say that since you cannot say that a is greater than zero, it must be equal to or less than zero? No, it does not. a is unsolved, so one may choose to hold no belief about it's solution.
Giving it some further thought, I can see how there might be a misunderstanding. Let me correct me original statement and say the agnostic says, "I hold no belief on the existence of God", the atheist says "I believe God doesn't exist, until proven otherwise." and the ignostic and solipsist still say "I don't care", and "I can't prove that I'm not making it all up."
Take a formula with an unsolved variablea. Without solving the formula, can you tell ifais greater than zero? No. Therefor you cannot say thatais greater than zero. However, does this require that you say that since you cannot say thatais greater than zero, it must be equal to or less than zero? No, it does not.ais unsolved, so one may choose to hold no belief about it's solution.
What if you examined the equation a little bit, and you found out there was a 99.9999% chance that a is greater than 0 and a .00001% chance that a was less than or equal to zero. Would you still say you are agnostic and hold no belief either way?
Comments
I think a big problem is that many people aren't switching from irrational belief in irrational ideas to rational belief in rational ideas because of their education, they're switching to irrational belief in rational ideas. This is a step backward in disguise. One of the reasons snake oil salesmen are so effective nowadays is because they have mastered the ability to mimic all the trappings of real medicine, and it is the existence or non-existence of those trappings that people have come to rely on markers of legitimacy, rather than rational investigation of the thing itself. This is just as true in science and technology.
If and when they have a family, will they turn back to God? Who knows? But for the time being, uneducation doesn't seem to correlate to belief in God or not....and frankly, the people at school with 4.0 gpas* seem to be the biggest Jesus freaks in school.
*- in b4 the gpa ≠being smart argument. Again, I realize that it doesn't. But for the time being, it's the only tangible object I can use to measure how smart someone is.
So yes, if you buy a car, you own it in a legal sense. However, if you can't fix it yourself, and you need the car, you are at the mercy of the mechanics. You can not take full control of the car into your own two hands. You may have the title to the car, but you aren't its master. In a way, it is the master of you.
Second part- true enough.
Say there is a giant black curtain. Everyone can see the curtain, but the things hidden behind it are unknown. Each person can either firmly belief that there is nothing behind the curtain or that there is something behind the curtain. Those who don't care about the curtain are more prone to fall into the first category from lack of clear evidence. In truth, there is an equal amount of faith in both sides, meaning that there is no clear cut evidence for either side beyond self convictions. Nothing can ever really be absolutely defined because everyone perceives them differently. If you tell a blind person that eyes exist, they would have no way of telling if they could or could not exist. It's impossible to fathom that which is unknown; if I told you there was another color that couldn't be made out of the spectrum as we know it, can you possibly imagine what it would look like?
Okay, back to the curtain. Both sides divide up into camps. Eager to convince the other side, they create random assumptions from previous "common knowledge" (which itself is derived from some sort of assumptions) that they hope to use to argue their point. They argue that, since their assumptions fit in with other assumptions based on an endless cycle of derivative information, they are indeed correct. How much does that actually prove whether there is something behind the curtain or not?
My point is, you can't prove either side. Maybe there is a god, but maybe there isn't. I believe in God because worldly reason cannot possibly explain infinity, being finite and exact. Either way, our assumptions are now our reality because we believe them to be true. You must discover for yourself whether a god exists based on your personal perception.
I may be wordy and I probably contradicted myself, but it was hard not to to say what I believe.
I'm not sure why I even went into all of this because these sort of debates serve no purposes.
I may not know 100% that there is no tooth fairy. However, when it comes to everyday life, I do not take the existence of the tooth fairy into consideration. I live my life as if the tooth fairy does not exist. While philosophically and academically I might accept that there is an incredibly small probability that the tooth fairy is indeed real, I live my life as if that probability is zero. The probability is not zero, but it is effectively zero, and I live life as such. Thus, I can say I don't know for sure that the tooth fairy does not exist, but I can also disbelieve tooth fairy.
Is this really that hard to understand?
I'm not 100% sure the sky is blue. There is a chance the sky isn't blue. Do I believe it is blue? Yes, yes I do because there are mountains of evidence suggesting that it is blue. I am 99.9999% sure that the sky is blue, so I believe it is blue. If you ask me if the sky is blue, I say yes.
I'm not 100% sure the tooth fairy does not exist. There is a chance the tooth fairy exists. Do I believe it exists? No, no I do not because there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that it exists, and plenty of evidence to suggest it does not. I am 99.999999% sure that the tooth fairy does not exist, so I don't believe in it. if you ask me if the tooth fairy exists, I say no.
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall! What part of this do you not understand?
Giving it some further thought, I can see how there might be a misunderstanding. Let me correct me original statement and say the agnostic says, "I hold no belief on the existence of God", the atheist says "I believe God doesn't exist, until proven otherwise." and the ignostic and solipsist still say "I don't care", and "I can't prove that I'm not making it all up."