Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Quote:
Atheism is as much a faith as anything since there is not logical way to prove there is no God. Are you basing your assertion on the idea that a loving God would not allow so much pain in the world? What prompts you to believe that there is no God?
I also, respectfully, disagree with this statement.
Atheism is not a faith, it is an absence of faith.
Just as "nothing" is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing.
For me, and I guess for the average atheist, its not that there is something, some event, that has prompted us to disbelieve.
It is simply the lack of convincing evidence to prompt us to believe.
I know you don't like Russel's teacup argument, but you have to understand that for the average atheist, a flying teacup is no less absurd than the notion of God. In fact, it seems more probable.
(I say this sincerely, with no contempt intended.)
------
That said, I have read your posts with great interest Gandalf, and have a lot of respect for your good-heartedness and willingness to come under scrutiny.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Gandalf_the_White wrote:
Arguing to absurdity usually doesn't amount to proof.
I'm not sure sOcks was talking about "proof." I think sOcks was talking about likelihood. Though it is possible there are teacups orbiting in space, it is unlikely.
For myself, I find it unlikely that the God of the Isrealites, out of all the thousands of gods of all the thousands of cultures, is the One True and Only God. But that is just my personal opinion, not based on logic or anything other than "it makes sense to me." _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
I consider myself closer to an agnostic. Though I have ideas I find appealing, I don't "believe" they are the truth. I have no idea if they are true or not, it isn't very important to me, because I don't think humans can know the truth. They can only have faith in it, or not. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Ludi, I think your absence of belief makes you an atheist as well as agnostic.
According to this one guy, anyway:
"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
I don't consider myself an atheist, because many, possibly most people, believe that means you think there isn't a god. I don't know if there is a god, or many gods, or no gods.
"Atheist" is a very loaded word, also. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Unfortunately, that is a misunderstanding about the word atheist.
The author addresses that very question actually:
"Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?
Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable. "
Atheism unfortunately has received lots of bad connotations, but it is only loaded because atheism has been attacked and people don't understand it properly.
It is possible to be an "uncertain/agnostic atheist".
Someone who doesn't know, and doesn't believe.
In fact, I see now: this is the distinction between "weak atheism" and "strong atheism."
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Ludi wrote:
Gandalf_the_White wrote:
Arguing to absurdity usually doesn't amount to proof.
I'm not sure sOcks was talking about "proof." I think sOcks was talking about likelihood. Though it is possible there are teacups orbiting in space, it is unlikely.
For myself, I find it unlikely that the God of the Isrealites, out of all the thousands of gods of all the thousands of cultures, is the One True and Only God. But that is just my personal opinion, not based on logic or anything other than "it makes sense to me."
Again though you are arguing from your own perceptions. Unlikely is not impossible, nor is 'highly likely' a sure thing. In fact alot of Christians argue against evolution that way. 'Well,' they say, 'it is just too unlikely that an amoeba could become a person no matter how long microevolution is allowed to work.'
I know a person who works with probabilities for a living. He was shocked one day when I told him that 99% probability was not a sure thing, as if I were splitting hairs. But in the context it was absolutely true. We had a sub-population that was judged 99% likely to respond to a certain stimulus en masse with a mean magnitude of response of say 20 widgets (with some margin of error that was conveniently ignored by my friend), but that did not mean that any individual was a sure thing.
If a group of individuals shows a tendency on average, that does not guarantee that every subset of the group shows the same trait with the same likelihood unless the variance is effectively zero (which when studying human populations it never is.)
And even if that were true there is no guarantee that an individual picked at random from the group will exhibit the group mean response, in general, and especially not on one draw from the hat. On one draw from the hat, a single subject is expected to respond, but not ever to respond by purchasing 20 widgets.
We of course get around that by only doing things that operate on rather large samples of the studied populations.
So now if we have one mud puddle with a bunch of possible molecules and an energy source where the pieces come in contact 10^8 times per hour and the medium itself leaves a likelihood of formation of 10^32 we are quite likely to wait a very long time before even one event happens. But suppose there are 10^20 such puddles, now what was unlikely might happen in a time frame much more like what we see on earth.
So suddenly it might seem possible, even probable, that life started from a chemical rich, warm mud puddle. This is not a proof that God did use it to create life, or that He did not, and certainly not evidence that God exists or does not. It simply is no proof at all.
Arguing that what we think or prefer is true, simply because we want to, is not rigorous and certainly has very little to do with faith or proof. _________________ I return to you now at the turning of the tide.
Last edited by Gandalf_the_White on Fri May 02, 2008 5:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: Jun 05, 2006 Posts: 193 Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
wisconsin_cur wrote:
Looking at the last century the worse crimes were advocated by cynics and atheists. Trust me, there is a lot to distrust in the church right now, I agree with that, this does not mean that it is the worse of our worries. As far as I can tell the church has become a responding body, not making its own way or policy but always responding to the local culture. The greatest crime I see them doing in the next decade is (again) uncritically adopting whatever program the politicians come up with and saying that it is God's will that we obey.
Why limit your observation to the last century? What you suggest is at least debatable anyway, but for some 1,000 years prior to that in recorded European history, just about every war was as a result of attempts at religious domination in one form or another. Either inter faith struggles or inter denomination jealousies combined with geo political ambitions caused widespread death and destruction and daily lives lived in fear and uncertainty.
Your choices of Amish and Rove as candidates for the most feared (sounds like a new TV reality show – ‘America’s most feared’) are not at all comparable. Certainly Rove has proved himself to be a man to be feared and yes, I would fear his potential to do serious harm although the opportunity hopefully has greatly diminished since he left office. By the way, he claims he is an Episcopalian and a regular church goer. There is absolutely no reason to fear an Amish that I am aware of, or ever likely to. But then they are unlikely to aspire to national leadership. Should that occur I might want to revisit my position.
Charismatic Christian leaders are certainly a possible and likely source of irrational outbursts. The same is also possible of such established leaders as the Pope (whose remarks are considered to be infallible by the faithful) and of the various volatile Islamic mullahs. These people are out in the open and their comments can perhaps be anticipated and disavowed, discounted or neutralised if expedient to do so. Most western societies proclaim secular governments and some even achieve it. The USA on the other hand is the most vulnerable to creeping backdoor religious influence in government due to the nature of the vote getting system that characterizes the political system. The present toxic mix of a resetting of the world economic order, the rise of religious fundamentalism, the looming oil and food shortages and the consequent geo political posturing presents opportunities for catastrophe as a result of ill considered speech or action – or of course deliberate provocation. GWB describing the Iraq venture as a crusade is a case in point. That sort of comment points to an attitude that is clearly overlaid with a religious patina. Should supposedly secular government policy and decision making be influenced by some of the more extreme religious views, then that is truly something to be fearful of, imo.
Poor decisions and catastrophes can happen without any divine assistance. I’m just saying that I would prefer that it was not a factor at all in order to improve the odds of a rational outcome.
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Kaj wrote:
There is actually!
Its called "implicit" atheism.
(As opposed to "explicit" strong/weak atheism for those who have thought about it)
I think the graphic helps there quite a bit. I went through a time where I considered myself agnostic. The strict sense of agnosticism is believing that there is a God but that He is disinterested in that which He has created. Laplace was a man of that sort and many great scientists have been. It does not argue for a good God or a bad God, just a God who does not care to involve Himself much with His creation.
Since we are the ones who create the definitions for the discussion I do not see why we need to be so strict. Agnosticism, atheism, theism, particular religious systems are all related by the central theme of God, traditionally.
Simply not ever thinking about God is not atheism in a strict sense, but it is not agnosticism either. If the question of God has never been posed and never crossed the mind I would say the person falls into a different category.
The Bible argues that in the end that category is an illusion since everyone in their lifetime is given a conscience and their conscience if nothing else will judge them (Romans 2.) _________________ I return to you now at the turning of the tide.
Last edited by Gandalf_the_White on Fri May 02, 2008 5:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
BigTex wrote:
Kaj wrote:
I have actually come across an interesting site which compromises my position a little bit-- it appears there are two kinds of atheism:
Strong and Weak Atheism
A) Weak Atheism:
Stating that you do not believe in a god or gods.
B) Strong Atheism:
Asserting that God does not or can not exist.
I would suggest that A is not a faith, but some instances of B could be a faith/dogma.
However, I think most atheists are in the A camp.
There ought to be a category for people who never really thought about religion that much.
I recall a man I knew once who said to me that he did not see why he needed to think about God at all. I almost always find in such cases and rather glaringly that there is some action or habit in the life that is quite clearly contrary to God's word and the person is insisting they do not need to think about God as a way of justifying the thing they want to do knowing God was opposed to. In this current generation I do meet people who are unaware of the notion of sin and the message of the gospel, but in my own generation, and the former two, I have never met such a person who was completely ignorant of the story of Jesus Christ. I meet quite a few now who in my opinion have a completely wrong understanding of that story, and that to me is a sign of where our nation is at. _________________ I return to you now at the turning of the tide.
Last edited by Gandalf_the_White on Fri May 02, 2008 5:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12024 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Gandalf_the_White wrote:
Arguing that what we think, or prefer, is true simply because we want to is not rigorous and certainly has very little to do with faith or proof.
I absolutely and very very clearly have said I do not think my ideas are true, Gandalf, if you happened to be addressing me. I have never, and will not ever, argue that what I prefer, or "believe," is true. That would be absurd.
Gandalf, when I share my beliefs here, I am in no way arguing them or presenting them as "true." I hope that is now clear. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Oil is down, looks like peak oil is averted. We can all close up our truth windows and go home happy. _________________ I return to you now at the turning of the tide.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
