Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on September 02, 2007, 03:32:25 PM
-
This is an interesting bit of data:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
The percentage of atheists in prison is quite a bit lower than the percentage in the population.
Any theories?
-
yes it's quite simple religious people commit more crimes. DUH!
-
Yep, you really need to get a life.
:p
-
Here we go again with this Atheist crap...
-
They don't get caught as much?
How does the jailed atheist-deist ratio compare to the public's?
-
It seems more likely that it is just a coincidence.
-
If I were to give an honest answer I'd have to say that somone doing time is usually at there lowest point in life.
When somone is at there lowest and hits rock bottem they tend to turn to somone or something to save them.
You mix that with the fact that they have time on there hands to reflect and think and viola.....
-
Simple: The higher you go in the education and socio-economic ladder, the higher the percentage of atheists gets.
-
Or
"I found jesus christ in prison. He has helped me in my life."
-
Inmate always get religion after they get locked up, not because they believe but because their trying to fool you into letting them go. The question you should be asking is what are they before they get locked up.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Simple: The higher you go in the education and socio-economic ladder, the higher the percentage of atheists gets.
The more arrogant and self centered a person is, the more distasteful it becomes for them to entertain the possibility that there may be a divine being of unbridled power and wisdom.
:aok
-
Whoa! Some pretty crazilly oversensitive responses, I was just asking what theories folks had. The 'finding religion in prison' sounds interesting, makes me wonder if there's data available yet about what prisoners were before.
Geez, in the meantime, lighten up folks. Perhaps the lady protesteth a bit much....
-
Well, I think, for better or worse, it does take a pretty big commitment following a long thought process to call oneself an atheist, and I'm not sure most prisoners are capable of that.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be, how many people in jail who consider themselves Christians fit the image according to Christians themselves? (Or sub any other religion).
It's just that I think there is a very broad base for being a Christian (I consider myself one - and I'm completely and totally different from many on here, as they'll attest), but there's really not such a broad base for being an atheist.
That in itself would probably skew the data.
-
I work in a prison and am telling you that the ones who are always telling you about how religious they are, are the ones you need to keep an eye on. I had one inmate on death row however that was very quiet and very respectful to everyone. When I was making my rounds he was usually reading his Bible but he never flaunted it. I always felt that he had made his peace with God and was very sad the day we gave him the injection. He killed an eight year old girl in a drive by shooting when he was 17 or 18 I believe.
-
thats what i was just thinking...there are probably some who are preparing themselves for the afterlife. espescially those who are doing life in hell.
-
I'm wondering which religion these people were practicing that landed 'em in the big house? I suspect it was the religion of self worship.
-
You could probably worship yourself religiously in a very healthy way.. so it's not that good a pigeonholing, Iron :)
-
Originally posted by moot
You could probably worship yourself religiously in a very healthy way.. so it's not that good a pigeonholing, Iron :)
argh, too much information ;)
-
i love how people who have never been to prison try to say they know what those people are like,
and being a prison guard does not count you get to go home at night, and you carry the keys.
any time we classify all or some people together, we make a mistake, because every one is different and each and every one of us has our own reasons for doing this or that.
-
i'm a hardened dude man, but ive done ny time and i don't ever want to go back.
(12 hours was enough)
:D
-
Originally posted by ink
i love how people who have never been to prison try to say they know what those people are like,
and being a prison guard does not count you get to go home at night, and you carry the keys.
any time we classify all or some people together, we make a mistake, because every one is different and each and every one of us has our own reasons for doing this or that.
People are people, we all know what they are like. Some do bad things and must be punished. Is it so complicated?
-
When you spend 13 or 14 hours a day watching an inmate stab, rape or steal from another inmate, you get a pretty good idea on what kind of person they are.
Most inmates just want to do their time in peace. Less then 10 percent cause problems.
Most C/Os who work a cell block do NOT have the keys to get out and have to call over the radio to get someone to let them out.
I had my life saved by inmates when I was assaulted by another. You telling me that I don't know what it's like behind bars is total BS.
-
Originally posted by ink
i love how people who have never been to prison try to say they know what those people are like,
and being a prison guard does not count you get to go home at night, and you carry the keys.
any time we classify all or some people together, we make a mistake, because every one is different and each and every one of us has our own reasons for doing this or that.
Well, I've spent enough time hanging around in crack houses and such with a few of my friends that actually have been to prison to feel that I have at least a basic understanding of some of the types that wind up there, but I guess until I rob a bank I'll never know for sure, huh?
Come to think of it... More of my buddies have been to jail than not :huh
Whatever, I'm not a fair weather friend.
-
Sorry Iron but that went oer my vodka'd cephalus.
[Retry] [Ignore] [Cancel]
-
Originally posted by moot
Sorry Iron but that went oer my vodka'd cephalus.
[Retry] [Ignore] [Cancel]
I guess the healthy self worship part led me to think of healthy self abus... er... indulgence. Perhaps it was just my own depravity or at best my warped sense of humor.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The percentage of atheists in prison is quite a bit lower than the percentage in the population.
Christianity has a higher per capita in this country than atheists. The conversion rate in prison may also be of some support.
This does not explain the black prison population since they make up about 13% of the American population. It's a different study with a different set of reasons.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Inmate always get religion after they get locked up, not because they believe but because their trying to fool you into letting them go. The question you should be asking is what are they before they get locked up.
Jeff..................You're Wicked Smart!!!! Seriously, you hit the nail on the head!
-
Originally posted by bozon
Simple: The higher you go in the education and socio-economic ladder, the higher the percentage of atheists gets.
Originally posted by FBplmmr
The more arrogant and self centered a person is, the more distasteful it becomes for them to entertain the possibility that there may be a divine being of unbridled power and wisdom
I'd go with Bozon's suggestion, in general well educated and affluent people are far less likely to end up in prison. They are also far more likely to be atheist.
As for FBplmmr's comment, well arrogance and selfishness is nothing to do with it. If you stop and think about it for a minute, 'a divine being with unbridled power and wisdom' would have done a much better job of the human race. The only revelation worth having is the one where you realise we're on our own. I find it gives me great peace of mind.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
When you spend 13 or 14 hours a day watching an inmate stab, rape or steal from another inmate, you get a pretty good idea on what kind of person they are.
Most inmates just want to do their time in peace. Less then 10 percent cause problems.
Most C/Os who work a cell block do NOT have the keys to get out and have to call over the radio to get someone to let them out.
I had my life saved by inmates when I was assaulted by another. You telling me that I don't know what it's like behind bars is total BS.
i am absolutely telling you, just because you are a guard, you have no clue what it is like to LIVE in prison,
so you watched some inmates get rapped huh? stolen from?
ya im sure you did, more like heard about it.
and you pointing out the fact that not all screws carry keys to get out is lame
you go home right?
thats the point you go home
so no you dont have a clue, you may more so than the general puplic, but untill you have years inside, not hours, dont think you know what its like.
and yes i can say what it means to be locked up, for years, 10 years in fact.
-
If he doesn't know what's on the inmates minds, you don't the guard's.
My informed guess is you don't know enough abouf Xargos to make any accurate predictions.
-
Originally posted by moot
If he doesn't know what's on the inmates minds, you don't the guard's.
My informed guess is you don't know enough abouf Xargos to make any accurate predictions.
thats my point, we as people bunch evry one in classes and dont look at every one as individuals.
-
The terms you keep using are not used in todays prisons. How long ago where you locked up?
20 years as a C/O equals five years behind bars.
-
I would be praying hard every night for sphinctoral integrity.
-
Wish I could post some of my Incident Reports, but they would get Skuzzified.
What's sad though is about 1/3rd of the inmates I've seen die is because of Diabetes. How can you save someone if their unwilling to help themselves?
-
Originally posted by Curval
I would be praying hard every night for sphinctoral integrity.
thats why i slept with a shank in hand
and believe me, i thank god i never had to stick it into any ones eye.
oct, 7 91, was when i last saw the inside of prison.
-
Where you in a FED prison? because thats the only place I ever heard us called Screws.
Shanks scare me more then any gun ever will.
-
no states, and the COs wanted to be called that( CO ) but Screws is what we called em.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Inmate always get religion after they get locked up, not because they believe but because their trying to fool you into letting them go. The question you should be asking is what are they before they get locked up.
There ya go.
That statement is accurate
Having known more then my fair share of people who have done time.
I can say almost without exeption.
They all "found God" when they were locked up.
They just as quickly tended to loose him again once they were out on the street again
I would imagine that the reson so many find god in prison is to give them something to cling onto to help get them through.
Kinda like when you see in the movies somone gets in trouble and they start praying "Oh lord get me out of this and I will never do ---- again"
And some want to make it look good that they are rehabilitating themselves.
And I would imagine some minority actually feel they found god and stick with it
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Wish I could post some of my Incident Reports, but they would get Skuzzified.
What's sad though is about 1/3rd of the inmates I've seen die is because of Diabetes. How can you save someone if their unwilling to help themselves?
this may seem like a dumb question.
But why diabetes?
-
Originally posted by ink
no states, and the COs wanted to be called that( CO ) but Screws is what we called em.
Most inmates simply call me by my last name, I rarely answer to anything else unless they are new. The Convicts however call me Slim, even after I gained 60 pounds...lol
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
There ya go.
That statement is accurate
Having known more then my fair share of people who have done time.
I can say almost without exeption.
They all "found God" when they were locked up.
They just as quickly tended to loose him again once they were out on the street again
thats funny cuz i "found GOD" many years after i was let out.
when i was in i just hated him.
i found GOD because of my daughter . the moment she was born i knew GOD was real.
-
Originally posted by ink
thats funny cuz i "found GOD" many years after i was let out.
when i was in i just hated him.
i found GOD because of my daughter . the moment she was born i knew GOD was real.
And that was you.
I was speaking of the ones I know personally.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The 'finding religion in prison' sounds interesting, makes me wonder if there's data available yet about what prisoners were before.
If Paris Hilton can find Jesus in jail, anyone can.
It's amazing she can find her toothbrush.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
this may seem like a dumb question.
But why diabetes?
There are many reason. Some simply don't take their meds, others drink too many sodas. Another reason is the variety of food in prison is limited because they have a tendency to make "Buck" out of it.
Buck is prison made wine.
I should have added liver failure as well. Many of the meds and the "Buck" can cause that.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If Paris Hilton can find Jesus in jail, anyone can.
It's amazing she can find her toothbrush.
why bother when you can hire a professional?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
There are many reason. Some simply don't take their meds, others drink too many sodas. Another reason is the variety of food in prison is limited because they have a tendency to make "Buck" out of it.
Buck is prison made wine.
I should have added liver failure as well. Many of the meds and the "Buck" can cause that.
"Buck" thats wacked
we called it "HOUCH" and man that stuff will wreck ya.
-
I remember one time when working a cell block I had several younger inmates who where drunk giving me a hard time. That night after lockdown I went into the ceiling and took over 30 gallons of Buck. The next morning after breakfast the Buck Master came up to me and said I cost him over $800. I informed him of the reason I did it and he said I would never have that problem again, and I never did.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I remember one time when working a cell block I had several younger inmates who where drunk giving me a hard time. That night after lockdown I went into the ceiling and took over 30 gallons of Buck. The next morning after breakfast the Buck Master came up to me and said I cost him over $800. I informed him of the reason I did it and he said I would never have that problem again, and I never did.
for some reason i think you are a decent guard and i feel you probably treat them fair.
hope to shoot ya down I MEAN see you in the air.:D
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
The more arrogant and self centered a person is, the more distasteful it becomes for them to entertain the possibility that there may be a divine being of unbridled power and wisdom.
:aok
Jeez they oughta put that comment in the smithsonian, with some of Einstein's and Ben Franklin's.
-
Several theories, heres one:
Being in prison makes a person contemplate his own mortality. As anthropologists have pointed out, people have a desire to believe they continue to live on in some form after death. So, inmates pick a religion in order to satiate this desire.
-
Inmates, just like most politicians, get religious or flaunt their religion to pull the wool over the eyes of the gillible. Be they a parole board or the 'family values' voter. IMO.
-
here we go again chair.. this is another thinly disguised "religion is evil" thread by you.
I will play tho. I think you know the answer. I would say that the majority of "athiests" are more educated than the general public... in fact... many got their views in institutions of higher education by their teachers.
I would also say that athiests are not risk takers as a rule. they do not indulge in risky behavior and are more academic in nature.
And.. why not? if you thought that there was no life other than this.... You would not want to live life to it's fullest would you? not so far as taking risks goes.
I would also say that many in prison who profess religion may be doing so to gain some leverage with a parole board now wouldn't you?
They are not called cons for nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
here we go again chair.. this is another thinly disguised "religion is evil" thread by you.
(http://www.haxed.co.uk/cms/uploads/pics/giant_rolleyes.gif)
-
what about what I said do you disagree with?
Do you think that athiest are not more likely to be found amoung the educated?
Do you think that athiests are more or less likely to be risk takers?
Do you think that convicts telling a parole board about how they have found religion are always telling the truth and not doing it to get out of the hell hole they put themselves in?
It might be helpful if we knew the educational levels of both the athiest population and the convict population.
You have also claimed that you never bring up anti religion thread or start em..
in the strictest sense... you could say this is not anti religion but.. it is surely a thread meant to show the superiority of athiesm over religion.
I don't think that anyone here sees it for anything else.
I admit tho that I have never understood why anyone would bother to proclaim their athiesm. It would seem to be simply an opinion that is faith based and therfore... personal.
you seem to wear it like a badge and wield it like a weapon.
I think that you just don't like to have everything out in the open when it comes to this subject.. which is strange to me since you seem so open on most everything else... A trend I have noticed in most athiests I know and have never understood.
lazs
-
According to the data: atheists are about 8-16% of the US population, but are 0.21% the prison population. That means that religious folks are 40 - 80 times as likely to end up in prison.
OK, so the big question is/are:
Are atheists:
1. Less likely to commit serious crimes (this could have more to do with their likely demographic than a direct association to atheism).
2. Get caught or receive punishment for serious crimes (they don't go to confession) :) .
3. Or is there a huge trend for atheists to "convert" to a religion for some reason including possibly misleading parole committees.
4. Or, do religious folks believe that they will be forgiven for any deed and therefore commit more serious crimes? (Or is that just a Christian idea?)
(Or some combination of the above)
(Or ???)
If #1, what is it about their demographic that makes them less likely to commit serious crimes?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This is an interesting bit of data:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
The percentage of atheists in prison is quite a bit lower than the percentage in the population.
Any theories?
Yes. You have too much time on your hands.
Pollster: Bugsy, do you belive in God.
Bugsy: Yeah, sure.
-
Might start seeing more atheists admit their faith in prison now that the government has recognized atheism as a religion and allowing the pertinent privileges.
-
I think there may have been a survey or two conducted in foxholes in the past, even fewer atheists were found there. ;)
-
Oddly enough, just been having this discussion with a m8 in Illinois....he came through with this video.............bit of food for thought...Atheists (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU)
Wurzel
-
eskimo... I think you said what I said. except for the risk taking thing.. I can't help but notice over the years that the avowed athiests I know are not risk takers and are mostly depressed.
I think that chair is too invested in his faith of athiesm that he puts too much into it. It is like he wants to be a martyr for the faith. Wasn't it you chair who felt a while back that the faithful were on some kind of vandalism rampage and tore a "darwin" magnet (horror of horrors) off a fellow faithfuls car?
lazs
-
Being an atheist still makes you religious. There is no proof that God does not exist so therefor you are depending on faith that He does not exist. If that religion tries to force their beliefs on other people, they are no better then the Church during the Inquisitions.
-
well...yes... that is of course true and it angers athiests mightily... only they are allowed to have a faith based religion and not call it a religion... because....
well... religion is evil and they sure don't want to be evil.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
eskimo... I think you said what I said. except for the risk taking thing.. I can't help but notice over the years that the avowed athiests I know are not risk takers and are mostly depressed.
I think that chair is too invested in his faith of athiesm that he puts too much into it. It is like he wants to be a martyr for the faith. Wasn't it you chair who felt a while back that the faithful were on some kind of vandalism rampage and tore a "darwin" magnet (horror of horrors) off a fellow faithfuls car?
lazs
Huh? I think I mentioned in passing that I knew a few folks who had Darwin placards (not magnets, silly) torn from their car, broken in half, and left on their windshields or on the ground behind the car. What does that have to do with being a martyr? It's just unfortunate.
Lazs, why are you lashing out against me and atheists in this thread? You seem to be posting as if I had written a message that says "Christians eat babies! Look at how evil they are!" or something dumb like that, but I didn't. You seem to be overcompensating in your reply, as if you've been holding a good ol' anti-atheist rant up for so long, that the very mention of the subject throws you into frothy mouthed rage.
Simmer down now, I asked why folks thought the proportions were different, and we were having a nice conversation about in-prison conversions and whatnot before you came in, spraying spittle and pointing fingers like a crazy person.
Deep breaths, Lazs... deep breaths.
-
Chairboy I am still praying for you
-
Originally posted by swoose
Chairboy I am still praying for you
Based on those stats, you should be praying for the Catholics... And Protestants.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
eskimo... I think you said what I said. except for the risk taking thing.. I can't help but notice over the years that the avowed athiests I know are not risk takers and are mostly depressed.
I'm happy and take risks.
You're still confusing science with a belief system. Science, while obviously subject to paradigm shifts and social interference, at heart is still an objective tool.
You can feel God's touch all you want. Hell, people see the Virgin Mary's image in a loaf of moldy bread and garage doors. You may as well believe in Astrology (total BS), that David Copperfield really does make airliners disappear (illusions), and Rosemary Altea really talks to the dead (cold-reading).
refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
If you want to believe in a supreme being... go for it... as a skeptic like Chairboy, you have to prove it to us. "Because I said so" or "Because I felt it" does not make something truth in anybody's head but your own. If somebody can empirically prove it, yay, I'll change my tune and acknowledge whatever diety or creator it happens to be. If you can't prove it, and take it on faith, you're drinking the kool-aid.
-
so then...you are an agnostic indy?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so then...you are an agnostic indy?
lazs
No, because I don't believe in any type of supreme being or deity. I'm pretty skeptical. I haven't seen anything that said "God exists because.." that isn't readily debunked. Especially one that's put forward by any of human's works (bible, koran, etc). It's shennanigans.
I don't discount the possibility, but I'll continue to know that there is not until there's some sort empirical evidence. Just because something is possible, doesn't make it reality. It's not saying "There is no God." It's saying, "There is no empirical proof of a God." The second statement is obviously correct, and the first one simply an assumption (making it the religion you're so found of). So in the end, I'm still an Athiest. Lacking solid evidence, there is no god.
Lets use your feeling as an example... you felt God's touch... but how do you know it wasn't something biological like a seratonin release? I can't measure and test "God's touch". I can measure lots of things that would relate to a change in your body you would interpret as a "feeling". If somebody comes up with solid evidence through empirical study, it will eventually cause a paradigm shift in understanding (has to fight through social controls first, but so did evolution), and Science will accept a diety. Until somebody can come up with those tests, it falls back on feelings & faith, which are junkscience. That's the major fundamental difference between religion and science. Science is at best, a tool to guide to objective understanding and development of provisional truths. Religion claims itself as truth.
-
I'm amazed lazs can poo poo all the global warming stats claiming there is no scientific proof that man is responsible in any way...and yet, on pure faith, is convinced there is a God and that anyone who doesn't feel that he/she exists is part of some religious-like cult.
It's rather funny to me.
...and I am NOT commenting on GW OR atheism...just making an observation.
-
lasz just likes to argue.
he probably made a statement about it seven years ago and has had to argue for it since...
(shrugs)
-
ink,
You have a unique perspective on this. What is your theory on why atheists are underrepresented in prison?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Being an atheist still makes you religious. There is no proof that God does not exist so therefor you are depending on faith that He does not exist.
No, not really. Any scientific experimetal "proof" is based on probability (better defined as confidence level). Being an Atheist means that you consider god to be so improbable, that he is not worth considering. Like the Baal, Thor, Zeus, Peter Pen, Santa, the tooth fairy, pink dragons or magnetic monopoles if you want a more scientific example.
If you insist on calling that agnostic, be my guest, just realize that it means that god is on the same confidence level as the tooth fairy.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If Paris Hilton can find Jesus in jail, anyone can.
Jesus is in jail?!
Well, at least he didn't get crucification this time. Got a better lawyer I guess.
-
No, not really. Any scientific experimetal "proof" is based on probability (better defined as confidence level). Being an Atheist means that you consider god to be so improbable, that he is not worth considering. Like the Baal, Thor, Zeus, Peter Pen, Santa, the tooth fairy, pink dragons or magnetic monopoles if you want a more scientific example.
If you insist on calling that agnostic, be my guest, just realize that it means that god is on the same confidence level as the tooth fairy. - bozon
and so we are now introduced to the new "confidence level" gauge of the probability of humans "knowing" about God...
does this come directly from the hobby section of the atheist forums? along with the sub forum "Questions to pose regarding theories about percentages of atheists in prison" and its ramifications?
I have my beliefs, but I don't endlessly preach them in the form of questions on forums. but then, my beliefs are not my intellectual hobby, nor are they the basis for my political flag waving.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
ink,
You have a unique perspective on this. What is your theory on why atheists are underrepresented in prison?
well i believe someone already said it. i think when you are at your lowest,that is when you look above, ever notice when there is devastation or natural disasters even people who confess they dont believe in GOD will cry out to him.
i also know that in prison alot of the "I found GOD" is just what most believe. its a con,
i also believe that most people want to believe in GOD, because with out GOD then after life is nothing? that cant be so,
life does matter, what we do while we are here does matter, we will all stand before GOD and i just pray he will over look my sins.
-
That's right, Scientist are never wrong. We know everything about the Universe, so there is no reasons for humans to perform anymore experiments.
life does matter, what we do while we are here does matter, we will all stand before GOD and i just pray he will over look my sins.
Amen.
-
also believe that most people want to believe in GOD, because with out GOD then after life is nothing? that cant be so, -ink
i respect your belief, ink (apparently unlike some atheists here) however, even though i believe in God i don't necessarily believe in an afterlife... nor do I believe everything in the bible is literal fact. i agree that there is an attraction between human beings and God... and i believe there is an interaction as well... although it may not be entirely definable. i do get tired of people who go from door to door with their faith, and tired of people who go from forum to forum as well...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i respect your belief, ink (apparently unlike some atheists here) however, even though i believe in God i don't necessarily believe in an afterlife... nor do I believe everything in the bible is literal fact. i agree that there is an attraction between human beings and God... and i believe there is an interaction as well... although it may not be entirely definable. i do get tired of people who go from door to door with their faith, and tired of people who go from forum to forum as well...
i was gonna stop posting to these types of forums but its like a drug just... cant.... stop...
-
ink, you said...
"I don't discount the possibility, but I'll continue to know that there is not until there's some sort empirical evidence. Just because something is possible, doesn't make it reality. It's not saying "There is no God." It's saying, "There is no empirical proof of a God."
This says that you are an agnosic. you admit the possibility... just as we must admit the possibility of bigfoot or aliens.
To proclaim yourself an athiest is to say that it is not possible. no wiggle room.
You can't be an "athiest light" It is a religion... a belief... in fact.. you say the word "believe" and "I believe" often.
A thiest is simply someone who says "I believe that there is a god"
an agonsic is simply someone who says "I don't know if there is a god or not"
An athiest is someone who says "there can be no god"
Otherwise... why have the terms "agnostic" and "athiest" at all?? you make them interchangeble. you make the words meaningless... in your world... since the words are interchangeable.... the only possible reason to use "athiest" over "agnostic" is agenda...shock value or agenda or some deep seated anger type of thing... the throwing away of all possibility based on faith.
This is easily proven... ask any "athiest" what the difference between an agnostic and an athiest is. the answers will be nonsensical and laughable.. the real answer is.. athiests have websites and an agenda.
It is the nose ring of thought.... it is useless but it gets attention.
I also believe that it is mostly a backlash against the imagined and real perversions of belief in god that organized religion fosters.
In that, I sympathize but... I don't want to be a martyr for either of your religions. the evangilist or the athiest.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ink, you said...
First, It's Indy, not Ink. Ink believes. I do not.
Second, I quoted a dictionary to show you the difference.
I'm using a dictionary.
You're making up your own definitions going by what you feel.
You should get your own T.V. show. Stephen Colbert has made a very successful market for himself by going by his feelings instead of facts.
and I'd be pretty interested in what Agenda I have. All I've ever done on here is champion individual freedoms (religion, guns, hobbies).
-
Ok indy... so tell me.. what is the difference between an athiest and an agnostic in your world?
Are there degrees of athiesm? I know some have absolute faith that there can not be a god...
What is your defenition?
here is random house..
a•the•ist (‚thŽ ist) n.a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [1565–75; < Gk áthe (os) godless ( a-A-6 + -theos,adj. der. of theósgod) + -IST]— athe•is‚tic, athe•is‚ti•cal adj.— athe•is‚ti•cal•ly adv. — yn. ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, INFIDEL refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular religious faith. An ATHEIST denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An AGNOSTIC believes it is impossible to know whether there is a God without sufficient evidence.
you will note that you have to deny that it is possible for a god to exist to be an atheist....
This is the only way it makes sense... otherwise you can't define agnostic and atheist in the same breath...
because... by your defenition they are exactly the same.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This is an interesting bit of data:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists
The percentage of atheists in prison is quite a bit lower than the percentage in the population.
Any theories?
Just some thoughts to consider as I consider it somewhat slanted considering the website.
It is based on one year, 1997. Just a snap shot.
What about the trends of every 5-10 years?
Do these include all prisons in the US?
Were these inmates self labeled as atheist when they committed their crime?
Perhaps they changed their label as maybe they are trying to dishonestly get out early on parole?
Are all those listed truly guilty of what they were charged with?
How about the Agnostic population? None were listed.
Budists?
American Indian is a religion? Could some of them be Agnostic or Atheist?
The following religions have a smaller prison population than Atheists, does this make them 'better'?
o Hindu 119 0.159%
o Santeria 117 0.157%
o Sikh 14 0.019%
o Bahai 9 0.012%
o Krishna 7 0.009%
Why did you really start this thread?
-
Originally posted by indy007
No, because I don't believe in any type of supreme being or deity. I'm pretty skeptical. I haven't seen anything that said "God exists because.." that isn't readily debunked. Especially one that's put forward by any of human's works (bible, koran, etc). It's shennanigans.
I don't discount the possibility, but I'll continue to know that there is not until there's some sort empirical evidence. Just because something is possible, doesn't make it reality. It's not saying "There is no God." It's saying, "There is no empirical proof of a God." The second statement is obviously correct, and the first one simply an assumption (making it the religion you're so found of). So in the end, I'm still an Athiest. Lacking solid evidence, there is no god.
snip
Actually your definition fits being an Agnostic. An Atheist denies the existence of God. That includes the 'possibility' of the existence of God. If you don't discount the possibility, that infers that it could be possible. Atheists don't even think it's possible for the existence of God.
-
You're both wrong, don't have time to explain at the moment. I'll jump on it in the morning.
-
Originally posted by indy007
You're both wrong, don't have time to explain at the moment. I'll jump on it in the morning.
Perhaps I am. I'm just looking into your "I don't discount the possibility" part of your statement. I could be wrong in reading too much into it.
-
indy... I don't think that both of us are wrong if you try to define agnostic and atheist in the same breath.
You simply can't do it without a lot of mental tapdancing... have the courage of your faith and admit you are one of the faithful or admit you are an agnostic...
there is no shame in being an agnostic... it just doesn't get the hate or agenda or coolness across as well..
Things go downhill for your defenition of "atheist" pretty quickly too when you look at the numbers....
If only 6% of the population is atheist... and you define atheist in your wishy washy manner as someone who thinks it is possible that there is a god.. then that would mean the you are a very tiny minority... lumping agnostics in with atheists puts theists.. true, faith based believers, in a whopping majority of 94% with the remaining 6% ready to convert at the drop of a hat.
and chair... as subaru points out... Your agenda is pretty transparent so why not have a more honest crusade?
lazs
-
busy morning. found out yesterday I'm moving.
short version, knowledge is provisional. that means it can be wrong. in fuzzy logic, god does not exist would be a .9, so I accept that. Yes, it can be wrong. There are no absolute truths. god existing would be a .1. an atheist accepts that .9 knowing it can be wrong, but is likely not. an agnostic accepts that .1 and takes it to be absolute.
-
An agnostic finds neither .1 nor .9 but a null value. Neither absence nor presence of God is provable nor disprovable, THEREFORE accepting either as true or false to any degree is a leap of faith.
-
Lazs2, I've never tried tapdancing, but if it's anything like having a seizure while trying to stand up (as it looks), I'll pass.
You never clarified the name of your religion that denys that a 6 foot tall anthropomorphic rabbit lays plastic eggs full of candy on Easter. Or are you a believer of the more intellectually honest "Maybe the easter bunny exists" faith?
-
the easter bunny is 5'9. (at least around here he is...)
:cool:
-
Chairboy you keep bringing in those faulty analogies. The spaghetti monster doesn't seem to exist on our Earth, as far as the vast majority of the population has reported, and as far as science has established to a minuscule margin of error, but that doesn't invalidate God. God isn't some freakin easter bunny or any sort of anthropomorphist alegory of the infinite, it's by principle, if it exists indeed, in that last tiniest margin of possibility, which we couldn't prove or disprove until we ourselves were infinite, omniscient.
It's a philosophical notion and obviously it and the cheshire cat from alice in wonderland are not the same thing in nature.
-
Any objective evidence that god is different from the Spaghetti Monster or Easter Bunny would be welcome. That wasn't the reason I started this thread, but y'all keep poking me with a stick, so I guess I'll play.
-
Originally posted by moot
An agnostic finds neither .1 nor .9 but a null value. Neither absence nor presence of God is provable nor disprovable, THEREFORE accepting either as true or false to any degree is a leap of faith.
Depends what dictionary you look in. Look at Dictionary.com or American Heritage, and it tells you an Agnostic accepts that there is definately a God, but that it is impossible for us to know anything about it, or creation in general.
And there's a difference between accepting a provisional truth based on probability than making an unsupported leap of faith. Massive difference.
-
You're trying to tag a finite form of some fancy of the human mind on an infinite notion like God. Maybe you've got the wrong definition of God?
It's not some imaginary friend, not a spaghetti monster, it can't be reduced to any of those or all of them together. It's the infinite. How do you not get it? I'm not poking at you nor intent on derailing your thread, but this has been going on almost every single time religion comes around and it sticks them in the mud because of that semantic disagreement.
Why not get to the bottom of it once and for all?
Indy, like I said, in the agnostic definition that I understand (let's call it moot's agnosticism if it's so important that it have a name dictionaries don't contradict), by principle there can be no proving or disproving God to any degree, which includes probabilities of any proportion.
Otherwise said: unless we reach an infinite rate of learning, we will never know everything, never be infinite, and thus never be in a position to posit god's existence. It will never be known. Zero probability of accurately predicting God's existence or inexistence.
-
Originally posted by moot
You're trying to tag a finite form of some fancy of the human mind on an infinite notion like God. Maybe you've got the wrong definition of God?
It's not some imaginary friend, not a spaghetti monster, it can't be reduced to any of those or all of them together. It's the infinite.
Okay. Prove it. :)
-
Already have.. by principle we finite minds can't posit on an infinite entity or property of it (one and the same I think), it's a divide by zero. I am saying the human mind has limits (or go ahead and prove it doesn't) and that God is beyond them.
That includes all religions.. Taking the thought further to flesh out what this implies, I think it's a waste of time speculating anything about it beyond the recognition that it's beyond our reach. The reality within our reach is all that's worth our attention, at least until we've exhausted its possibilities.
-
Originally posted by moot
Already have.. by principle we finite minds can't posit on an infinite entity or property of it (one and the same I think), it's a divide by zero. I am saying the human mind has limits (or go ahead and prove it doesn't) and that God is beyond them.
That includes all religions.. Taking the thought further to flesh out what this implies, I think it's a waste of time speculating anything about it beyond the recognition that it's beyond our reach. The reality within our reach is all that's worth our attention, at least until we've exhausted its possibilities.
Comes back down to tangible proof. It's your opinion that God is infinate and we can't understand anything about it. That makes you an agnostic even by the definitions I pulled up. You believe humans are inherrently stupid and can't figure things out. I disagree. In the last 2000 years alone we've made phenomenal progress. We used to be the center of the universe.
-
That's like saying one day we will prove that proof disproves proof. God is not a rational idea because even if it is, man is in fact too stupid to understand it until he reaches omniscience.
By principle, no wisdom will suffice to conclude anything about God unless we reach infinity. It's not just my word for it ("my opinion"), it's principle.
2+2 doesn't equal 5. God is not a provable or disprovable notion beyond its being outside the reach of our understanding. No understanding, no prediction.
The last 2000 years of progress is chump change compared to what we could've accomplished if we'd been around since planet earth solidified. That's a drop of water in the ocean compared to the age of the observed universe. Beyond that? It's still just a finite scalar that you're comparing to an infinite.
Sure, we're "smart", but that too is just a pebble of sand on not just a big beach but an infinite one.
"Finite" can never be anything but smaller than "infinite". There's no comparing their respective scales.
I don't know how else to put it. :)
-
Originally posted by moot
Already have.. by principle we finite minds can't posit on an infinite entity or property of it (one and the same I think), it's a divide by zero. I am saying the human mind has limits (or go ahead and prove it doesn't) and that God is beyond them.
That includes all religions.. Taking the thought further to flesh out what this implies, I think it's a waste of time speculating anything about it beyond the recognition that it's beyond our reach. The reality within our reach is all that's worth our attention, at least until we've exhausted its possibilities.
Actually you state a premise that is faulty. You state that if there was an infinite god, then our finite minds would not be able to comprehend, said god. However, this premise requires a couple of assumptions that may or may not be true.
First you assume an infinite god would be beyond our comprehension, maybe, and maybe not. Defining something as infinite does not automatically place it beyond the comprehension of a finite mind. Many believe the universe to be infinite, but it's real and we comprehend its existence. In fact, if a person denies some sort of creator, then they must accept that matter and space are eternal and infinite.
Second, you assume it is beyond the ability or desire for an infinite god, to reveal himself in a way that can be comprehended by our finite minds. If we assume god is infinite, is it unreasonable to also assume that god is omnipotent as well? If so, then it must be within that god's power to reveal himself. So in this regard, you deny an infinite god the ability to be infinite. If one is infinite and without bounds or limits, then we cannot restrict the limit or else they are not infinite.
The point is, if your premise is true, your argument would be true. However, I don't believe your premise is reasonable (meaning, not supported by other reasonable premises) , thus your conclusion is based on a faulty premise.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Well, you can just go check with anyone that teaches philosophy 101. It's part of the basics in that sort of class.
I'd like you to show any clues that an infinite god is within our comprehension right now, as we are, not as we could or should be. Concrete evidence or a proof of principle that it's a possibility.
Calling it a "creator" is already beyond what you can predict with any certainty (speculation).
Many believe the universe to be infinite, but it's real and we comprehend its existence.
Something that may or may not be infinite, that we don't know nearly enough to be able to make reliable predictions about, is a benchmark for how predictible and understandable "infinite things" are?
Whether god reveals himself to you or you're just fancying it is beyond your ability to ascertain. Or go ahead and prove it isn't. Like you said, he may or may not reveal himself, and I never said I thought he did or did not; I'm not deying an infinite god anything "in that regard".
It's sort of like a singularity. You can probe the topology next to it, but nothing beyond. There can be nothing said about something such as God with certainty.
-
well... moot is doing a good job of ripping indies faulty logic a new one sooo...
I will concentrate on my disapointment with chairs dishonesty.
Every single thread we have you ask me about the easter bunny and.... you claim that I have never answered you. yet... every single time I do answer you and I say... in brief.. that I am agnostic on the possibility of some bunny or something resembling a bunny hiding eggs at some time somewhere.
a better question would be... are you an atheist on bunnies that might hide chicken eggs? Do you think it is impossible for an bunny to hide chicken eggs some time in the past or present?
I admit... I have no idea.. I am agnostic on the whole thing. I will also say that I don't give a crap. If someone believes it then it is very easy for me to just say.... "Hmmmmm....interesting"
I certainly won't start dozens of threads on how bunny hiding egg believers are destroying the planet and that egg hiding bunny believers have a higher incidence of convicts in the prison system than those who disavow any such possibility.
simply put... for someone to get all upset about the habits of rabbits or ghosts or bigfoot or god or the big bang theory... that is to admit an agenda.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... moot is doing a good job of ripping indies faulty logic a new one sooo...
Occam's Razor. He makes an automatic assumption about the existence of an omnipotent being. An unprovable assumption is the basis for his entire arguement. Therefore, his theory is inherrently flawed.
That's without even dipping into the rubbish the religious books pass off as their version omnipotent being.
Stick to your feelings Lazs. I'll stick to reason.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Every single thread we have you ask me about the easter bunny and.... you claim that I have never answered you. yet... every single time I do answer you and I say... in brief.. that I am agnostic on the possibility of some bunny or something resembling a bunny hiding eggs at some time somewhere.
I made no such claim in this thread, I merely inquired as to the name of the faith you describe above. You feel that my beliefs in this matter must be labeled as a faith, I ask for the indulgence of a reciprocation.
-
reason is fine until it comes to something that one can have no knowledge of.
At that point you need to take either a scientific or a faith based position.
The scientific would be.... agnostic. you can neither prove nor disprove...
the faith based would be the polars of this... one... you believe based on faith or, the other pole.. that you do not believe based on... yep...faith.
interest in the matter also plays a part since... most likely... the agnostic is the most objective and disinterested of the three... the believer and the atheist both are faith based and thus have strong feelings...agenda if you will... on the subject.
Why declare yourself an atheist for instance? what scientific method would not scoff at such a thing as being illogical? Just as they would scoff at the illogical belief of the theist.
lazs
-
Originally posted by moot
Well, you can just go check with anyone that teaches philosophy 101. It's part of the basics in that sort of class.
I'd like you to show any clues that an infinite god is within our comprehension right now, as we are, not as we could or should be. Concrete evidence or a proof of principle that it's a possibility.
Calling it a "creator" is already beyond what you can predict with any certainty (speculation).
Something that may or may not be infinite, that we don't know nearly enough to be able to make reliable predictions about, is a benchmark for how predictible and understandable "infinite things" are?
Whether god reveals himself to you or you're just fancying it is beyond your ability to ascertain. Or go ahead and prove it isn't. Like you said, he may or may not reveal himself, and I never said I thought he did or did not; I'm not deying an infinite god anything "in that regard".
It's sort of like a singularity. You can probe the topology next to it, but nothing beyond. There can be nothing said about something such as God with certainty.
Actually I'm a philosophy major. So I can certainty address some of the things that are taught. Here are some.
Ad Ignrantiam (Appeal to Ignorance): Stating something has not been demonstrated to be false, thus the claim is true.
Because I cannot disprove your point does not mean it's true. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. Thus if you wish to support your premise that a infinite god is beyond comprehension, you must provide the evidence. Otherwise, Ad Ignorantiam. (BTW, this works both ways, a person cannot say, you can't disprove God, so He is.)
Begging the Question: When some reason is offered in support of a conclusion, that is not really different from the conclusion itself.
We can't know god, because if there is a god he is infinite, and because he's infinite we cannot know him.
Law of non contradiction. Nothing can posses both a property and it's negation. (No round squares or crossing parallel lines)
Thus a god that is infinite (if you include omniscience and omnipotent, to omnipresent, when defining infinite) that cannot be known by a finite mind cannot exist. (For if it wanted to be known, it could be known) For the very nature of that god, would give it the ability to do whatever it wanted. Thus you cannot attribute a property and it's negation. The issue is not with our minds being finite, there is no change required on our part, if any change is required, it is required on the part of the infinite.
Your finally statement is self refuting. For example, the statement, "There is no objective truth" is self refuting. If there is no objective truth, the statement, "There is no objective truth" cannot be true.
Stating, "There can be nothing said about something such as God with certainty." Cannot be said about God, if the statement is true; because you cannot state with certainty, that nothing can be said about God, if nothing about God can be said with certainty.
I could post a few more examples, but I'm a little pressed for time right now.
If you have some sources to support your premise, (a finite mind cannot know an infinite god) I would be happy to check them out. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
To be blunt (and I'm sure we'll see versions of this recycled against me in future conversations) I'm betting that plenty of Christians see an agnostic as "a fellow Christian who just doesn't know it yet".
That's just not me.
I'm as "agnostic" about the Christian god as you are about a justifiable seatbelt law or a good tasting light beer. It's just not an accurate term.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
lazs
Again, an agnostic believes there definately is a God.
An atheist believes there is no God.
That's the definitions I'm working with.
Either can be wrong. I'm an Atheist because I'm pretty sure there is no God (or anything "supernatural" for that matter, be it ghosts & goblins, mentalists, psychic powers, etc). I totally do not believe what Moot does, in that even if there were a God, it'd be impossible for us to understand it.
Put down your Beor War books for a few minutes, and hit up Barnes & Knowbles. Go get some works by Michael Shermer. "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "The Science of Good and Evil" are very good books. That would give you far better insight into why I would describe myself as an atheist, as opposed to agnostic, than I could explain on this forum.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Again, an agnostic believes there definately is a God.
An atheist believes there is no God.
That's the definitions I'm working with.
Either can be wrong. I'm an Atheist because I'm pretty sure there is no God (or anything "supernatural" for that matter, be it ghosts & goblins, mentalists, psychic powers, etc). I totally do not believe what Moot does, in that even if there were a God, it'd be impossible for us to understand it.
Put down your Beor War books for a few minutes, and hit up Barnes & Knowbles. Go get some works by Michael Shermer. "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "The Science of Good and Evil" are very good books. That would give you far better insight into why I would describe myself as an atheist, as opposed to agnostic, than I could explain on this forum.
I don't really care that much about how you define yourself really. The issue comes from the fact the word agnostic comes from two Greek words, which meant "without" & "knowledge". So most understand that to mean, an agnostic is someone that says, "I don't not know if there is a god." (He is without knowledge) I guess you could say, it meant, there is a god, but I do not know that god, but that definition seems a little forced.
It has always been my understanding that an agnostic claimed, "Not to know" one way or the other.
As opposed to an atheist, that stated, "There is no god" (This is what the American Atheist organization states)
Again, you can define yourself however you like, and I doesn't bother me, just pointing out your definitions are certainly different from what is normally accepted.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by indy007
Again, an agnostic believes there definately is a God.
An atheist believes there is no God.
That's the definitions I'm working with.
Either can be wrong. I'm an Atheist because I'm pretty sure there is no God (or anything "supernatural" for that matter, be it ghosts & goblins, mentalists, psychic powers, etc). I totally do not believe what Moot does, in that even if there were a God, it'd be impossible for us to understand it.
Put down your Beor War books for a few minutes, and hit up Barnes & Knowbles. Go get some works by Michael Shermer. "Why People Believe Weird Things" and "The Science of Good and Evil" are very good books. That would give you far better insight into why I would describe myself as an atheist, as opposed to agnostic, than I could explain on this forum.
You are alone in your definitions. An atheist is certain there is no God. An agnostic believes that there MAY be a God, however probable or improbable.
Usually when people say, "pretty sure", they mean almost sure... so which is it?
I really don't care if you are agnostic or atheist, just understand the standard definitions.
-
Webster's has a simple definition:
Atheist - Denies the existence of God.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
You are alone in your definitions. An atheist is certain there is no God. An agnostic believes that there MAY be a God, however probable or improbable.
Usually when people say, "pretty sure", they mean almost sure... so which is it?
I really don't care if you are agnostic or atheist, just understand the standard definitions.
Standard? I'm using the definition that's the same from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Online Etymology Dictionary, WordNet 3.0 by Princeton University, and Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist
1. someone who denies the existence of god
a person who does not believe in God
I think I fit that fairly well. I don't believe in a God. I don't believe there's some omniscent being that floats around spying on us. I don't believe there's any type of supernatural or inexplicable powers. I don't believe that something just decided to make everything that is.
now, from those same dictionaries...
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
agnostic
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).
agnostic
adjective
1. of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
2. uncertain of all claims to knowledge [ant: gnostic]
Now I take this to mean 2 things. Either, 1, there definately is a God, but we're too stupid to ever figure out what it is.. or 2, all knowledge is uncertain. I don't believe #1 at all. Like I said, the world used to be flat, and we used to be the center of the universe. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there is a limit to our knowledge. #2 comes back down to reasonable probability. It's really a philisophical question that's been addressed by people far more eloquent than I am.
That's a pretty big difference from what a lot of you are saying, and promptly telling me to read the dictionary... while I'm quoting 4 of them at once. Those sources would lead me to believe that the label Atheist would apply to me, and Agnostic to Moot. It almost seems like y'all are using a pop-culture version of Agnosticism, in that there is a God, the creator, with some sort of plan for humanity, but you don't know what religion is right, or think they all missed the mark. To me that seems quite a bit more like what Chairboy mentioned, closet christians.
-
an agnostic does not believe...
An Atheist believes there is no God
Agnostic = no belief in God
Athiest = belief in no God.
There is a distinction.
-
The term is defined differently depending on one's source.
Clearly, Indy posted some sources. You can't just ignore them. However, the term is defined differently in other sources, you can't ignore them either.
For example:
Merriam-Webster
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
(So it is unknown)
From a Philosophy web site
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic.htm
Agnostic - Agnostos
The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.
(Again, I don't know)
American Heritage Dictionary
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
(Again, can't know, or don't know)
Worldnet
noun
1. someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
2. a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
So, it seems some place define an agnostic as someone that believes there is a God, but claim you can't know that God. (Indy's references)
While others define it as, a person that say I don't know if there is a God, and I doubt that it can be known. (my references)
I'm sure that clears it all up :)
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Who cares about the dictionary semantics? The argument's getting stuck in mud so I'm going to cut straight to the bottom lines.
I totally do not believe what Moot does, in that even if there were a God, it'd be impossible for us to understand it.
He wouldn't be much of a god if we could then, would he?
Again, an agnostic believes there definately is a God.
See McGroin's post. Lazs' categorization is the same, faith vs reason. Definite conclusions about God's existence are a leap of faith as I'll show further down.
Originally posted by indy007
Occam's Razor. He makes an automatic assumption about the existence of an omnipotent being. An unprovable assumption is the basis for his entire arguement. Therefore, his theory is inherrently flawed.
What assumption about an omnipotent being's existence? That it exists? I don't assume it does. All I concern myself with is what's on the rational side of the faith/reason divide. I say you can't possibly tell for sure whether god is revealing himself to you or if you're deluding. Can you refute this? Or was this not what you refered to?
The only unprovable assumption I see is insistance that God does exist or that he doesn't. You can't prove that and yet take it for granted.
If he is in fact provable or disprovable then by all means please settle the thousands of years of debate once and for all! You're probably on your way to infamy right next to guys like Plato. I'm all ears.
Tachus, I'm not doing this ad ignorantiam, I'm not laying some two-bit debate trap here so take it easy with that debate devices crap ;) I'm following common sense only, no fancy stuff. I do stand on some conventions like Descartes' brain in a jar argument about reality being just a trick of god, and its implications.
We can't know god, because if there is a god he is infinite, and because he's infinite we cannot know him.
If there is a god, and he's not infinite, he's no "god". We'll surpass him sooner or later as Indy hinted at. If he's infinite, we'll never reach him. This last bit is not some philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's plain transparent math: only by reaching an infinite rate of learning can we reach infinite knowledge. That scale of knowledge is where a true (infinite) god would be within the reach of our perception unaided by divine will. With that divine help then yes, obviously you can be aware of god by your own senses; and I had specified this but you either skipped that part or chose to ignore it. Here it is again:an infinite god is within our comprehension right now, as we are, not as we could or should be.
And here's the flaw in this part of your post:Thus a god that is infinite (if you include omniscience and omnipotent, to omnipresent, when defining infinite) that cannot be known by a finite mind cannot exist. (For if it wanted to be known, it could be known)
In blue is God's will, plain text is man's will and ability. You just illustrated a Deus Ex, not man's will. Like I said, (how many times do I have to repeat it?) we can't conceive of god's true form on our own. The scales of finite and infinite are not comparable.
The statement "you can't say anything with certainty about god" qualified the unformulated hypothetical statementGod is such and such / so and so
, not the statement you can't say anything with certainty about god
itself, because that there statement is not about god nor is it an attribute of it, but is about our ability to state something about a certain subject. That ability is our own and established, not unknown like "god" is.
Finaly I'll do a quick and dirty simulation of the inadequacy of man's mind in comparison to god:
How much do you need to know about something to accurately predict it beyond doubt? From A to Z, thoroughly, totaly. How much does man know now? How much will he know in a thousand years? In a few billion orders of magnitude's time more? All of those durations will yield an infinitely small proportion of knowledge about the totality of the infinite that a true god would be which would be inadequate for us to expect any accuracy from, unless we achieve an infinite rate of learning; in which case we wouldn't need any longer than an infinitely short span of time.
We would have to be infinite ourselves. Not to go off on a tangent here, but that'd coincide with the scriptures' descriptions of man joining with god's knowledge, or whatever.
-
chair... I am an agnostic about the possibility of bunnies hiding chicken eggs... I have seen stranger things... I am not gonna post 20 threads on how evil it is to believe in the possibility.
I think we can all see that this has come full circle.. many "atheists" are simply looking for a cool title or... want to distance themselves as far away as they can from the hated theists...
That is fine with me but in doing so they create a huge "gray area" that never existed in the defenitions...
Deny the existence of god simply means.... deny To be such simply means that... you don't care about any possibilties.. you are operating on pure faith...just as the hated theists are.
agnostic doesn't piss you off near as much but just doesn't have enough punch or shock value..
The real problem comes when you have to explain the whole thing... when the words take meaning and not just an emotional impact.
now you are stuck with a bunch of tapdancing and graying out the simple defenition..
You need to come up with a new word... one that fits somewhere between agnostic and atheist.... something that says to the world "I am like an agnostic but with a mean streak"
Perhaps you could be AGNATHEISTS? cause you sure as hell (in your minds at least) don't fit in the accepted defenitions. at least the rest of us would know that you didn't mean what we thought you meant when you claim to be atheists.
lazs
-
Originally posted by moot
Who cares about the dictionary semantics? The argument's getting stuck in mud so I'm going to cut straight to the bottom lines.
He wouldn't be much of a god if we could then, would he?
See McGroin's post. Lazs' categorization is the same, faith vs reason. Definite conclusions about God's existence are a leap of faith as I'll show further down.
What assumption about an omnipotent being's existence? That it exists? I don't assume it does. All I concern myself with is what's on the rational side of the faith/reason divide. I say you can't possibly tell for sure whether god is revealing himself to you or if you're deluding. Can you refute this? Or was this not what you refered to?
The only unprovable assumption I see is insistance that God does exist or that he doesn't. You can't prove that and yet take it for granted.
If he is in fact provable or disprovable then by all means please settle the thousands of years of debate once and for all! You're probably on your way to infamy right next to guys like Plato. I'm all ears.
Tachus, I'm not doing this ad ignorantiam, I'm not laying some two-bit debate trap here so take it easy with that debate devices crap ;) I'm following common sense only, no fancy stuff. I do stand on some conventions like Descartes' brain in a jar argument about reality being just a trick of god, and its implications.
If there is a god, and he's not infinite, he's no "god". We'll surpass him sooner or later as Indy hinted at. If he's infinite, we'll never reach him. This last bit is not some philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's plain transparent math: only by reaching an infinite rate of learning can we reach infinite knowledge. That scale of knowledge is where a true (infinite) god would be within the reach of our perception unaided by divine will. With that divine help then yes, obviously you can be aware of god by your own senses; and I had specified this but you either skipped that part or chose to ignore it. Here it is again:
And here's the flaw in this part of your post:
In blue is God's will, plain text is man's will and ability. You just illustrated a Deus Ex, not man's will. Like I said, (how many times do I have to repeat it?) we can't conceive of god's true form on our own. The scales of finite and infinite are not comparable.
The statement "you can't say anything with certainty about god" qualified the unformulated hypothetical statement, not the statement itself, because that there statement is not about god nor is it an attribute of it, but is about our ability to state something about a certain subject. That ability is our own and established, not unknown like "god" is.
Finaly I'll do a quick and dirty simulation of the inadequacy of man's mind in comparison to god:
How much do you need to know about something to accurately predict it beyond doubt? From A to Z, thoroughly, totaly. How much does man know now? How much will he know in a thousand years? In a few billion orders of magnitude's time more? All of those durations will yield an infinitely small proportion of knowledge about the totality of the infinite that a true god would be which would be inadequate for us to expect any accuracy from, unless we achieve an infinite rate of learning; in which case we wouldn't need any longer than an infinitely short span of time.
We would have to be infinite ourselves. Not to go off on a tangent here, but that'd coincide with the scriptures' descriptions of man joining with god's knowledge, or whatever.
I did indeed mis-read your post, on the issue of knowing God.
If what you are stating is "Man cannot know God, apart from God imparting that knowledge to man." Then I agree with you (at least in part). Which would mean if someone claimed to know God it cannot be simply dismissed out of hand. As it would be possible to know God, if God had desired to reveal himself. So the issue then becomes, not one of ability, but how do we examine his claim? (One way of course would include the question of revelation, since he would lack the ability to know God apart from God imparting him that knowledge, but this is only part of the examination.)
I thought you were saying, "Man cannot know God, in his (man) present condition, under any circumstances (ie, God revealing himself)" Which clearly violates the law of Non Contradiction, which I outlined in a earlier post.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Tachus
As it would be possible to know God, if God had desired to reveal himself.
I once met God. He was a just stranger on the bus, tryin' to make his way home. I asked Him, "What's up with riding the bus anyway? Why don't you just zap yourself to wherever it is you're going?"
"Well, I like to slum it sometimes." He said, "I once got a ride with this nice young man in a AMC Pacer, so this is a step up."
-
Lazs, I think you're fooling yourself. You're entitled to your beliefs, and I'm entitled to my lack of belief. The tapdancing is above in your reply, the sophistry you employ dodging the easter bunny issue is proof.
-
Chairboy,
As to the a rabbit that lays colored eggs. This happens to be mentioned when discussing what is Logically Possible vs what is Physically Possible in "How to think about Weird Things" (a college level textbook used for a Critical Thinking class)
I'll quote, "A cow jumping over the moon is physically impossible.... But a cow jumping over the moon is not logically impossible. Similarly, there is no contradiction in the notion of a bunny laying multicolored eggs." (Weird 20)
The point is, when talking about what is logically possible, unless it violates the law of non-contradiction, (a round square, crossing parallel lines) it is NOT logically impossible.
The existence of a God is NOT logically impossible, and either is the existence of a bunny that lays colored eggs. However, we know a bunny that lays colored eggs doesn't exist because is "Physically Impossible".
I'll quote again, (On ESP, but the same principle applies to other topics)
"Now if he [Rothman] means that ESP is logically impossible, then provided he's right, we can dismiss it out of hand, for in that case, it can't exist. But ESP isn't logically impossible." (Weird 19)
So, you can dismiss something out of hand if it's "Logically Impossible" (violates the law of non-constriction for example), but if not, then a dismissal out of hand is unreasonable.
In the end, "the rabbit that lays colored eggs" analogy has no relevance to the topic of the existence of God, accept to demonstrate that the existence of God cannot be reasonably dismissed out of hand (as it is not "Logically Impossible") in the same manner a bunny that lays colored eggs cannot be dismissed out of hand. The bunny bites the dust, when we look at "physically possible".
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I once met God. He was a just stranger on the bus, tryin' to make his way home. I asked Him, "What's up with riding the bus anyway? Why don't you just zap yourself to wherever it is you're going?"
"Well, I like to slum it sometimes." He said, "I once got a ride with this nice young man in a AMC Pacer, so this is a step up."
I used to own a Pacer
--Tachus
-
let's just make the whole thing so simple that even an atheist or a democrat can understand it...
When it comes to believing in anything there are three choices....
Yes
No
maybe
not... no but maybe yes but not really but only if but.....
yes, no or maybe..
That's it.
You can't be an atheist light... that is simply an agnostic.
I don't care what your belief is... none of my business unless you proclaim it to me but... I just want to get the terms straight. words simply mean something.
not an emotional something.... an actual something.
lazs
-
As a person who retired from the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice, with 20yrs, I might be able to give some insight on these stats.
First when being interviewed, most inmates, are asked," What's your religion?"The answers I remember where "Christian" or "None".Most inmates at this time did not give a crap about the answers that where being given, nor the questions being asked.They wanted to get processed in and see what kind of celly they was gona get.
I have seen some very good men in prison and some of the worst,to think you can make a clean cut conclusion from some BS percentage, is just that.And to think these percentages somehow reflect the actions of a group as a whole in the freeworld, is a sad attempt to point fingers and say "My groups better than yours."
Some inmates turn to religion, others to gangs.Whatever it takes to get by.Some combine the two(Muslim, Aryan,etc) get your sermon and marching orders at the same service.I have seen many inmates pick-up a religion in prison and stick with it for yrs, and I 've seen Bibles and Korans in the trash as they are being processed out
I dont think this thread is really about what the percentages mean, but what do I know?
Hand:p