in what kind of god people dont believe?

[hajduk]

so answer me on this question

in what kind god people dont believe?

[peaccenicked]

God has many definitions. I reject the word completely. One day I hope the word will not be within the realm of human conciousness. It is of no use to humankind but false comfort, not that I would take even false comfort away from suffering humanity, but like the Bhuddists I would take suffering from humanity, or at least the unnecessary suffering and have society provide support for those in physical and spiritual need.

If god was everybody for everybody would there be war or hate, would we not fight scarcity and poverty everywhere.

A god outside of us is our enemy, because he is an empty distraction.

A god inside of us is in illusion, there need only be human compassion for others, balanced with a fair modicum of self interest to bring human evolution forward.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:01 pm
God has many definitions. I reject the word completely. One day I hope the word will not be within the realm of human conciousness. It is of no use to humankind but false comfort, not that I would take even false comfort away from suffering humanity, but like the Bhuddists I would take suffering from humanity, or at least the unnecessary suffering and have society provide support for those in physical and spiritual need.

If god was everybody for everybody would there be war or hate, would we not fight scarcity and poverty everywhere.

A god outside of us is our enemy, because he is an empty distraction.

A god inside of us is in illusion, there need only be human compassion for others, balanced with a fair modicum of self interest to bring human evolution forward.
do you have faith in struggle against capitalism?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 10, 2007 01:06 pm--> (hajduk @ August 10, 2007 01:06 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 06:01 pm
God has many definitions. I reject the word completely. One day I hope the word will not be within the realm of human conciousness. It is of no use to humankind but false comfort, not that I would take even false comfort away from suffering humanity, but like the Bhuddists I would take suffering from humanity, or at least the unnecessary suffering and have society provide support for those in physical and spiritual need.

If god was everybody for everybody would there be war or hate, would we not fight scarcity and poverty everywhere.

A god outside of us is our enemy, because he is an empty distraction.

A god inside of us is in illusion, there need only be human compassion for others, balanced with a fair modicum of self interest to bring human evolution forward.
do you have faith in struggle against capitalism? [/b]
No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+August 10, 2007 08:54 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ August 10, 2007 08:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:06 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 06:01 pm
God has many definitions. I reject the word completely. One day I hope the word will not be within the realm of human conciousness. It is of no use to humankind but false comfort, not that I would take even false comfort away from suffering humanity, but like the Bhuddists I would take suffering from humanity, or at least the unnecessary suffering and have society provide support for those in physical and spiritual need.

If god was everybody for everybody would there be war or hate, would we not fight scarcity and poverty everywhere.

A god outside of us is our enemy, because he is an empty distraction.

A god inside of us is in illusion, there need only be human compassion for others, balanced with a fair modicum of self interest to bring human evolution forward.
do you have faith in struggle against capitalism?
No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on. [/b]
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 11, 2007 07:28 am--> (hajduk @ August 11, 2007 07:28 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:54 pm

No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad? [/b]
I choose my side based on what will get me the most material goods, the easiest life, the most free time. I don't "believe that other side is bad." You don't have to use "morals" to choose a side on something.

[Wozza]

If "God" was anything to base morals on, then we would all be bloody maniacs.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+August 11, 2007 01:07 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ August 11, 2007 01:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:28 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 08:54 pm

No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad?
I choose my side based on what will get me the most material goods, the easiest life, the most free time. I don't "believe that other side is bad." You don't have to use "morals" to choose a side on something. [/b]
so that mean you have some beliefs in some way of life like you said free time,easiest life?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 11, 2007 02:21 pm--> (hajduk @ August 11, 2007 02:21 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:07 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:28 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 08:54 pm

No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad?
I choose my side based on what will get me the most material goods, the easiest life, the most free time. I don't "believe that other side is bad." You don't have to use "morals" to choose a side on something.
so that mean you have some beliefs in some way of life like you said free time,easiest life? [/b]
I'm rather sure he "believes" in the revolution in the same way he "believes" the world is round. There are some things that have nothing to do with faith or belief, they're called facts.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Whitten+August 11, 2007 02:58 pm--> (Whitten @ August 11, 2007 02:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:21 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:07 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:28 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 08:54 pm

No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad?
I choose my side based on what will get me the most material goods, the easiest life, the most free time. I don't "believe that other side is bad." You don't have to use "morals" to choose a side on something.
so that mean you have some beliefs in some way of life like you said free time,easiest life?
I'm rather sure he "believes" in the revolution in the same way he "believes" the world is round. There are some things that have nothing to do with faith or belief, they're called facts. [/b]
so if you believe in fact that air surrounding us is that the same for revolution?

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 11, 2007 08:28 am--> (hajduk @ August 11, 2007 08:28 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:54 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:06 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 06:01 pm
God has many definitions. I reject the word completely. One day I hope the word will not be within the realm of human conciousness. It is of no use to humankind but false comfort, not that I would take even false comfort away from suffering humanity, but like the Bhuddists I would take suffering from humanity, or at least the unnecessary suffering and have society provide support for those in physical and spiritual need.

If god was everybody for everybody would there be war or hate, would we not fight scarcity and poverty everywhere.

A god outside of us is our enemy, because he is an empty distraction.

A god inside of us is in illusion, there need only be human compassion for others, balanced with a fair modicum of self interest to bring human evolution forward.
do you have faith in struggle against capitalism?
No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad? [/b]
It's not which one is bad, it's which one is better.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by (A)//(E)+August 11, 2007 05:25 pm--> ((A)//(E) @ August 11, 2007 05:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:28 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:54 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:06 pm

[email protected] 10, 2007 06:01 pm
God has many definitions. I reject the word completely. One day I hope the word will not be within the realm of human conciousness. It is of no use to humankind but false comfort, not that I would take even false comfort away from suffering humanity, but like the Bhuddists I would take suffering from humanity, or at least the unnecessary suffering and have society provide support for those in physical and spiritual need.

If god was everybody for everybody would there be war or hate, would we not fight scarcity and poverty everywhere.

A god outside of us is our enemy, because he is an empty distraction.

A god inside of us is in illusion, there need only be human compassion for others, balanced with a fair modicum of self interest to bring human evolution forward.
do you have faith in struggle against capitalism?
No.

We want the revolution to happen. We have rational, material-interest reasons for wanting it to happen. We don't "have faith" that it will happen. We are not "believers in the class struggle" - we observe class struggle happening and know which side we are on.
then how can you choose side if you not believe that other side is bad?
It's not which one is bad, it's which one is better. [/b]
so you have beliefs that one side is better?

[peaccenicked]

It is better to live than to die. No?
The other side robs us of life! You dont need to read Marx to see the deprivations of poverty and war.

[Dean]

Revolution is not a fact. Whatever you call your belief in a future classless society, it is not fact because it has not occured. I have faith in humanity and faith that humanity can pull through our struggles and create a classless society. But this is not fact. This is theory, and for most people it is more idealistic than the dull marx materialism dialectics hegelianism ad nauseum that people here like to pretend they believe in.

Marx's is a fluid, humanist, idealist and realist ideology. So many people try to strip it of its human nature, its inherant regard for the nature of man. They say it is a dead theory of class struggle, the struggle being over, the losers having lost. This is apparent because of the severe lack of humanism amongst many die-hard marxists today. It's quite a contradiction that an ideology so interested in historical and contemporary struggle is stuck in the 1800s, but that's what you get when you have idol-worship.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:51 pm
If "God" was anything to base morals on, then we would all be bloody maniacs.
A fellow antitheist. We are few on this forum.

I don't really understand hajduk's question?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+August 13, 2007 03:44 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ August 13, 2007 03:44 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:51 pm
If "God" was anything to base morals on, then we would all be bloody maniacs.
A fellow antitheist. We are few on this forum.

I don't really understand hajduk's question? [/b]
it is philosoph question for atheist....if they say in what kind of god dont believe you will just say to them....that kind of god doesnt exist :D you got a picture? :D

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+August 13, 2007 03:44 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ August 13, 2007 03:44 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:51 pm
If "God" was anything to base morals on, then we would all be bloody maniacs.
A fellow antitheist. We are few on this forum.

I don't really understand hajduk's question? [/b]
I thought that was what an atheist was, someone opposed to deities? I'm one too, then.

However, I won't discount non-magical uses of the term "god." I had an interesting discussion with my dad about that last night; if god is in everything, why should it not be the case that for some people god merely is everything? That implies worship of the world, but as common theology will make clear, worshipping something doesn't mean not trying to change it (yes I know that theology is antithetical to the point, but the whole concept of religion is vague and its barriers are meaningless).

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:31 pm
That implies worship of the world, but as common theology will make clear, worshipping something doesn't mean not trying to change it (yes I know that theology is antithetical to the point, but the whole concept of religion is vague and its barriers are meaningless).
no...that implies freedom of choice to believe or not believe.....what do you think?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:47 pm
no...that implies freedom of choice to believe or not believe.....what do you think?
What do you mean? I was just saying that if god is in everything, he is everything. If god is worshipped in a way which ignores all supernatural concepts of him - this is, if you say "my god is what I see, feel, taste, etc." then it is not magical. It doesn't imply anything about that freedom not to believe; that is always present.

God means, basically, the central and / or whole of what someone believes in. Obviously, there are conflicting concepts of this, and to say "I believe in god" means something particularly religious in our society, but the word is also vague without taking on it's wholistic meaning, considering that many believe in 'god' as if it were simply nature.

[LSD]

it is philosoph question for atheist....if they say in what kind of god dont believe you will just say to them....that kind of god doesnt exist :D you got a picture? :D

um...no.

Now it's possible that it's just a semantic thing because I gather that english is not your first language, but I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to communicate.

If you're trying to appeal to the ontological argument for theism (ie., because I can concieve of "Him", "He" must exist), I'm sorry to inform you but it's been refuted a thousand times

If you're tying to contend that atheism must have a specific "target" and that disbelief in that one "target" does not negate the possible existance of other "Gods", then I would equally point out that atheism does not in fact have a specific "God" in mind; atheism by definition is the disbelief in any "God", no matter how construed.

Indeed, with almost 95% correlation, atheists are also materialists meaning that they don't only disbelieve in "God" but disbelieve in any unproven or unprovable assertion about the universe.

If I've missed your meaning entirely, you can of course ignore the above comments. But please do try and explain yourself clearer, as I'm now curious as to your intentions.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:14 am

it is philosoph question for atheist....if they say in what kind of god dont believe you will just say to them....that kind of god doesnt exist :D you got a picture? :D

um...no.

Now it's possible that it's just a semantic thing because I gather that english is not your first language, but I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to communicate.

If you're trying to appeal to the ontological argument for theism (ie., because I can concieve of "Him", "He" must exist), I'm sorry to inform you but it's been refuted a thousand times

If you're tying to contend that atheism must have a specific "target" and that disbelief in that one "target" does not negate the possible existance of other "Gods", then I would equally point out that atheism does not in fact have a specific "God" in mind; atheism by definition is the disbelief in any "God", no matter how construed.

Indeed, with almost 95% correlation, atheists are also materialists meaning that they don't only disbelieve in "God" but disbelieve in any unproven or unprovable assertion about the universe.

If I've missed your meaning entirely, you can of course ignore the above comments. But please do try and explain yourself clearer, as I'm now curious as to your intentions.
Look...i mean that when someone discribe that in what kind of god you dont believe that is the tricky question....becouse when you say i dont believe in god becouse he let that many people suffer i will answer you "THAT KIND OF GOD DOESNT EXIST" but becouse we cant realise and understand the god then in other hand he exist becouse by our meaning of god dont give us the proof that he is like that...becouse if we know what kind of god is,hi will not be god anymore

[LSD]

becouse when you say i dont believe in god becouse he let that many people suffer i will answer you "THAT KIND OF GOD DOESNT EXIST"

Right, but like I said, that line of argumentation presupposes that atheism must have a specific "target" and that disbelief in that one "target" does not negate the possible existance of other "Gods". However, in reality atheism does not in fact have a specific "God" in mind; atheism by definition is the disbelief in any "God", no matter how construed.

Indeed, with almost 95% correlation, atheists are also materialists meaning that they don't only disbelieve in "God" but disbelieve in any unproven or unprovable assertion about the universe.

It's not "suffering" that makes us disbelieve in "Gods" or any other manner of specific attribute applicable to one "divinity" over another, but the complete lack of evidence for the existance of any kind of supernatural deity whatsoever.

That is, the reason we don't believe in "God" is the same as the reason we don't believe in the existance of vampires or Santa Clause; no one has managed to present a shred of coherent logic argumentation in their favour.

[hajduk]

YEAH LSD but what i try to say is if you give me any proof that god doesnt exist and that is you cant... also i cant give you the proof that god is exist right?....so when you say i dont believe in gods i ask you in what gods you dont belive?if you say i dont belive in any gods i will ask you in what kind of gods you dont believe?if you say that you dont have reason for nonbelieve in gods it is that you just not believe i will say you those gods doesnt exist and theist will say to you that those gods which you not believe are not gods at all....there is other gods but we cant understand them becouse if we do understand them, then they are not gods anymore...you got my point now?

[LSD]

YEAH LSD but what i try to say is if you give me any proof that god doesnt exist and that is you cant... also i cant give you the proof that god is exist right?

The difference, however, is that I am not obligated to provide evidence for the "nonexistance" of an idea that you just pulled straight out of your ass.

The details are entirely irrelevent, it's the assertion that's at issue. By claiming that there exists something called a "God", you are logically required to provide some shred of corroborating justification.

Absent that, no one has any logical reason to consider your contention.

That's what I've been trying to explain for three posts now. The issue here is not theology, it's reason. Atheists do not reject "God" because of some characteristic "He" posesses, but because we reject all unproven or unprovable assertions about the universe.

So no matter how you choose to characterize your particular diety -- even if you choose to characterize him as undefinable -- we still reject the fundamental assertion that your position rests on.

I don't know if it's the language barrier that's preventing you from understanding me, but please do try and comprhend my meaning: materialists reject any concept presented without corroborating evidence. That nescesarily includes every single possible "God" there is.

Get it?


if you say that you dont have reason for nonbelieve in gods it is that you just not believe

Except neither I nor any other atheist would say something like that. Quite the contrary, we have a very good reason for nonbelief and that is, again, there there is zero reason to believe!

You're treating atheism as if it were another one of your "faith"-based religions, predicated on 'feelins" and "opinions". The reality, however, is that materialist atheism is rooted fundamentally in the objective empiricist understanding of the world.

We don't "just not believe", we don't believe because that's what we are logically obligated to do.

And that will remain the case unless you, or some other theist, finally manages to provide a single coherent piece of evidence for the pack of assertions you lot has been peddling for the past ten thousand years.

For my part, I'm not expecting that any time soon....

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:23 pm

YEAH LSD but what i try to say is if you give me any proof that god doesnt exist and that is you cant... also i cant give you the proof that god is exist right?

The difference, however, is that I am not obligated to provide evidence for the "nonexistance" of an idea that you just pulled straight out of your ass.

The details are entirely irrelevent, it's the assertion that's at issue. By claiming that there exists something called a "God", you are logically required to provide some shred of corroborating justification.

Absent that, no one has any logical reason to consider your contention.

That's what I've been trying to explain for three posts now. The issue here is not theology, it's reason. Atheists do not reject "God" because of some characteristic "He" posesses, but because we reject all unproven or unprovable assertions about the universe.

So no matter how you choose to characterize your particular diety -- even if you choose to characterize him as undefinable -- we still reject the fundamental assertion that your position rests on.

I don't know if it's the language barrier that's preventing you from understanding me, but please do try and comprhend my meaning: materialists reject any concept presented without corroborating evidence. That nescesarily includes every single possible "God" there is.

Get it?


if you say that you dont have reason for nonbelieve in gods it is that you just not believe

Except neither I nor any other atheist would say something like that. Quite the contrary, we have a very good reason for nonbelief and that is, again, there there is zero reason to believe!

You're treating atheism as if it were another one of your "faith"-based religions, predicated on 'feelins" and "opinions". The reality, however, is that materialist atheism is rooted fundamentally in the objective empiricist understanding of the world.

We don't "just not believe", we don't believe because that's what we are logically obligated to do.

And that will remain the case unless you, or some other theist, finally manages to provide a single coherent piece of evidence for the pack of assertions you lot has been peddling for the past ten thousand years.

For my part, I'm not expecting that any time soon....
Do you hear what kind of theoretical trap i made for you :D you say LSD that you dont believe in god...becouse if you believe that god doesnt exist you must have belief you got now what i try to say?

[peaccenicked]

The first part of this movie says it all to me.
Zeitgeist the Movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&hl=en-GB).

If you dont want to hear about 9/11 or the systematic brain washing of the population then stop when you come to the second bit on the collapse of the three towers.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 17, 2007 12:07 pm--> (hajduk @ August 17, 2007 12:07 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 06:23 pm

YEAH LSD but what i try to say is if you give me any proof that god doesnt exist and that is you cant... also i cant give you the proof that god is exist right?

The difference, however, is that I am not obligated to provide evidence for the "nonexistance" of an idea that you just pulled straight out of your ass.

The details are entirely irrelevent, it's the assertion that's at issue. By claiming that there exists something called a "God", you are logically required to provide some shred of corroborating justification.

Absent that, no one has any logical reason to consider your contention.

That's what I've been trying to explain for three posts now. The issue here is not theology, it's reason. Atheists do not reject "God" because of some characteristic "He" posesses, but because we reject all unproven or unprovable assertions about the universe.

So no matter how you choose to characterize your particular diety -- even if you choose to characterize him as undefinable -- we still reject the fundamental assertion that your position rests on.

I don't know if it's the language barrier that's preventing you from understanding me, but please do try and comprhend my meaning: materialists reject any concept presented without corroborating evidence. That nescesarily includes every single possible "God" there is.

Get it?


if you say that you dont have reason for nonbelieve in gods it is that you just not believe

Except neither I nor any other atheist would say something like that. Quite the contrary, we have a very good reason for nonbelief and that is, again, there there is zero reason to believe!

You're treating atheism as if it were another one of your "faith"-based religions, predicated on 'feelins" and "opinions". The reality, however, is that materialist atheism is rooted fundamentally in the objective empiricist understanding of the world.

We don't "just not believe", we don't believe because that's what we are logically obligated to do.

And that will remain the case unless you, or some other theist, finally manages to provide a single coherent piece of evidence for the pack of assertions you lot has been peddling for the past ten thousand years.

For my part, I'm not expecting that any time soon....
Do you hear what kind of theoretical trap i made for you :D you say LSD that you dont believe in god...becouse if you believe that god doesnt exist you must have belief you got now what i try to say? [/b]
*Scratches head*

Let's put it this way. Let's say I were to tell you that there was a planet in our solar system that was populated with invisible, unobservable dragons who spoke Esperanto and shared tea and crumpets on a daily basis to discuss the best way to ridicule your human existence on that particular day. Sounds ludicrous right? Now, here's the catch. Because there is no evidence for their existence (nor can there be, because of the unobservable nature of the dragons), you can't possibly prove to me that they're not there. But that's not your responsibility. It is MY responsibility to prove to you that they DO exist. Until such point, they must be assumed not to, otherwise we would be required to lend credence to, or even accept, any assertion made by anybody, simply because they believe it to be true. You don't have to "believe" the dragons are not there. From a logical, materialist standpoint, we can draw the conclusion that, in all likelihood, my assertion is full of shit. See where I'm going with this?

The Atheist is not required to prove the non-existence of a god anymore than you are required to prove the non-existence of Esperanto-speaking dragons on Jupiter, Saturn, or Uranus. These are not matters of faith, they are matters of logic and reason and should be treated as such. Perhaps the word "belief" is just being confused in translation here... None of us "believe" in communism; we've come to understand, defend, and fight for it, not follow it blindly without logical or reasonable explanations. We don't "believe" in revolution; we don't think some old bearded guy is going to come and sweep the capitalists away with a broomstick, this shit takes work and perseverance, not faith.



And I'm also an anti-theist atheist, I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[hajduk]

I chicorazon this is god but my point is

PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE IN GOD who is week,without power,who not heal,which dont give hope,dont give secure,in god who dont courrige us,dont protect us,who dont cover our asses in danger situations,in god who dont have mercy so is not cappable to forgive,in god who doesnt exist and and who is tricky and who is not give weekly mercy in malls,in god who have short breath so he cant follow us becouse he is shortlegged becouse he is a liar,people dont believe in god who ordered to you to love others and give you permittion to speak when he wants and told you to salute,
in god who dont maintain spirit in malls for relefs of the syn,people dont believe in god who will in blink clean the dirt under the roug,hipocrisy,monopoly system,people dont believe in god who is involved in politic,other people bedrooms,plates,purses,sense,councehnes,in god who dont blessing bombs,guns and thiefes,good tax donations and in god who dont open public toilets and elevators
that kind of god actualy doesnt exist

[Dean]

Originally posted by I chicorazon [email protected] 23, 2007 10:17 am
The Atheist is not required to prove the non-existence of a god anymore than you are required to prove the non-existence of Esperanto-speaking dragons on Jupiter, Saturn, or Uranus. These are not matters of faith, they are matters of logic and reason and should be treated as such. Perhaps the word "belief" is just being confused in translation here... None of us "believe" in communism; we've come to understand, defend, and fight for it, not follow it blindly without logical or reasonable explanations. We don't "believe" in revolution; we don't think some old bearded guy is going to come and sweep the capitalists away with a broomstick, this shit takes work and perseverance, not faith.
I don't think it is reasonable to belive in the absence of God. I think that it is most reasonable to dismiss the concept. We certainly need not prove that there is no God unless we assert that claim. But why concern ourselves with it? Is it worth it?

(In reference to God) To claim the absence of something is very similar to claiming the presence of something. Both claim to have knowledge of something that is not verifiable. But the default should be, like most claims, a perception that there is nothing. From that, people must prove various things- Earth, the Sun, Galaxies, God... to claim that one doesn't exist is to make an assertion on reality; if it is an untestable theory, its absence is hardly a plausible argument. We should start from the concept that we know not; those who assert realities of sorts have the "burden of proof." But the rejection of an idea to the point of asserting that it's thesis does not exist - God - is equally useless. Why concern ourselves with an idea that has no test for verification, espcially when it is such a ludicrous argument? We should not say "God doesn't exist," we should say "God's existance is a baseless and useless idea."

However, I do have faith that God doesn't exist. It seems too much a creation of man, too implausible for what we know of science, to be real. I don't pretend to be able to prove it, but I will certainly tell myself that God is not real. The argument, however, is just not of much worth.

[LSD]

hajduk, I would respond but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. "Public toilets", what???


Originally posted by dean
I don't think it is reasonable to belive in the absence of God. I think that it is most reasonable to dismiss the concept.

Dean, I would strongly recommend that you read through this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361&hl=agnostic&st=100), as it addresses this issue in great detail.

To quote myself from that thread,

You are, effectively, claiming that there is a difference between not believing that God exists and believing that God does not exist. I disagree. The refussal to believe in God is itself a denial of the existance of God. Again, there are only two possibilities, either God does exist or he does not. Likewise, there are only two possibilites for you, either you believe in the existance of God or you do not. If you do not then you make the tacit assumption that God does not exist. Because you have to choose.

And why do you have to choose? Because, logically speaking, there is no alternative. A judgment must be rendered on concepts which would materially impact fundamentaly understandings of the unvierse. The existance or nonexistance of God is such a concept. You would contend that one need not define his existance, but can merely "disregard" the concept in its entirety. Again, however, this is indisinguishable from disregarding God. The framework that you attempt to return to, the one in which you, theoretically, had no knowledge of God, was one in which you denied the existance of God. That's right, by disregarding God, you relegate the concept of God back the heap of ideas that you've never heard of and hence unconsciously reject.

Science, and logic, is predicated on the tacit rejection of those ideas for which we have no knowledge. We must assume that those things which we do not know of do not exist. Otherwise, we would be unable to make any theoretical models, since it would constantly be problematic that all those unknown facts were ...unknown.

That is, even though we have empirical evidence to back up the existance of gravity, it is always possible that the only reason that gravity operates the way that we think it does is because of CONCEPT X of which we have no knowledge or conception. It is equally possible that gravity does not in fact operate the way that we think it does, but rather we percieve it to be so because of CONCEPT Y ...of which we have no knowledge or conception. If we did not automatically reject the unknown before it is known, then we could not devise a theory of gravity as CONCEPT X and CONCEPT Y are not taken into account. Neither, of course, are CONCEPTS A, B, C, D, E, F etc...

The only reason that we can make empirical determinations is because we, albeit implicitly, reject all those concepts that we do not know. You would say that one can merely "not consider" these ideas, and need not assert that things we do not know are true or false. Unfortunately, that non-consideration is itself the very assertion that you seek to avoid. The "non consideration" of unknown ideas is the rejection of those ideas.

This is one of the few absolute dichotomies in logic. Something can either be true or it can be false, it cannot be both and it cannot be neither. If something is true then it is not false, if something is false then it is not true, but it must be one of them. So the question is, which one is CONCEPT X? Is it true or is it false? Remember, this is a concept that we have no knowledge of, we don't even know that it's about. Still, however, it must be either true or false. Clearly, we cannot assume it to be true. If we do so, then we undermine any theory of gravity from even being developed. There are no, however, reasons not to assume it to be false. An assumption of falsehood for an unknown object has no effect on anything, by definition since it's unknown. We therefore have a logical nescessity to not find it true, and no reason to not find it false, therefore we must assume it to be false.

That's just one example, of course. But the underlying principle remains that we must assume that those concepts that we do not know do not exist. And nonexistant concept are false.

The assumption of the nonexistance of the unknown is one of the key axiomatic rules of science. But remember, we're talking about the unknown, not the unproven, and we're talking about concepts. That means that the concept of Klingons living on the moon is not unknown to you, because I just made you aware of it. Untill I did, however, you axiomatically assumed the falsehood of that concept. You did this pattern-gnerally, that is you did not specifically reject this theory, you just process assumed the falsehood of it along with everything else of which you had no knowledge. Now that I have introduced the concept, however, you cannot reject it out of hand. You must consider any evidence that supports it, any evidence that opposes it and render a determination. That determination can be only one of two things. That there is evidence to support it and that, accordingly, you now accept it as true, or that there is not evidence to support it and therefore you do not accept it as true. if you decide upon the latter, as I hope you do, you will return that particular theory to its former status of assumed untruthfulness. You will assume it to be false, even though, again, this is part of a process pattern, not a specific rejection (that already happened).

You cannot not believe that God does not exist without believing that God does exist. In binary situations, we are definitionaly restricted to two choices. If you choose to reject a positive proposition then you are logically forced to accept that the proposition is false. It cannot be simultaneously not true and not false. If it is true then it is true, with all the implications thereof, but if it is false then it is false, which means that it is wrong. In the case of God exists, falsity means that the statement is wrong. God does NOT exist. Again, basic logical nescessity.

There is simply no room in logic, or science for that matter, for the unknown or the unrational. That which we have no reason to believe exist must be assumed to not exist until evidence is presented to the contrary. At its simplest form, we're just talking about one of the oldest and most important logical tools around, namely Occam's razor.

Occam's razor demands that we choose the simplest available alternative. In the choice between the introduction of a previously unknown concept and the rejection of said concept, where there is no evidence, the rejection is always simpler because it does not require the increased complication of the theoretical model whereas the introduction of an unjustified concept does.

Because you must choose, you must choose disbelief. Non non disbelief, is simply not an option.

[Dean]

Originally posted by LSD+September 19, 2007 01:15 am--> (LSD @ September 19, 2007 01:15 am) hajduk, I would respond but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. "Public toilets", what???


dean
I don't think it is reasonable to belive in the absence of God. I think that it is most reasonable to dismiss the concept.

Dean, I would strongly recommend that you read through this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361&hl=agnostic&st=100), as it addresses this issue in great detail.

To quote myself from that thread,

You are, effectively, claiming that there is a difference between not believing that God exists and believing that God does not exist. I disagree. The refussal to believe in God is itself a denial of the existance of God. Again, there are only two possibilities, either God does exist or he does not. Likewise, there are only two possibilites for you, either you believe in the existance of God or you do not. If you do not then you make the tacit assumption that God does not exist. Because you have to choose. [/b]
I understand what you are saying; that people must respond to the concept of God once it has entered into their minds, that I am going to make an assertion either way whether I would like to or not. And this I do not disagree with. It is, however, the interested, positive claim to the nonexistance of something which not only gives the concept relevance where it is unwarranted, but also makes an assertion that cannot be known.

Logically, one can make the assertion towards the external that God does not exist. But it should be for good reason, and I think usually there are far more important and dangerous ideas in the minds of these people which will stay long after they give up religious ideas, if they do at all. But objectively, to make the logical assertion towards the nonexistance of God is to make just as much a fallacy as to make the assertion toward "His" existance. Both statements refer to texts which state that God does exist, historically imply that God doesn't exist (or that the texts are useless evidence) and claim that a certain aspect of the material existance is certainly this or that way.

It is much like saying "there is a comet in these specific coordinates of this galaxy" and another person arguing, "there is no proof; therefore, it doesn't exist." Well, there is no reason to think either way, but so far as we know of the universe, we cannot certainly assert either claim. So a scientist would dismiss it; his studies of the surrounding, known materials would be disrupted by such a claim but so would the claim against the comet disrupt his studies. Because the comet cannot be detected, it is a certain viability. But why concern yourself with either notion? The scientist will only be limiting himself by expecting the absence of material just because another person baselessly claimed it did exist, and he will likewise limit himself to believe a claim that it does exist. So he chooses the only reasonable course of action; rather than make a claim about the sky that has no basis inempriical data, he will say "In my studies, I have no interest in concerning myself with ideas which have no evidence; therefore, I will know the idea and its dichotomy, as it cannot be avoided as a social concept, but I will not apply either belief or disbelief to it."

The same is really true for God; the concept exists externally and without viable proof or disproof. And passionately claiming that God doesn't exist is just as disruptive, in most cases, as the opposite, in a manner which I will attempt to describe in the subsequent paragraphs.

I will dismiss the concept of Gods, Angels, Karma, Tarot fortunes, superstitions, etc., but I won't make a passionate argument against such ideas so long as they remain
A) inocuous and
B) passive.

What those qualifiers mean for me, are that for one an idea should not invade the moral arguments of a person and secondly must be a more or less passive acceptance of the concept - for instance belief in God without acting in orthodox manners or otherwise adulterating your normal mode of activity.

The very basic point is that we have to look at religion for what it is. In cases of false consciousness, it is accepting ideas which ae usually clearly false; this is a symptom of a schizoprenic society. Religion in general is, more or less, a schizophrenic ideology, instilled early on with effects that work subconsciously to make people think outlandish ideas consciously, and respond to certain, opposing ideas in knee-jerk fashion.

Once we establish this, we ask the above questions - is it harming people beyond that false consciousness? Is it motivating conceptualizations of the secular world which are totally unrealistic and encourage degredation of social knowledge? Finally, we must ask, Can we stop it and is stopping it that important?

However, the final question - is stopping it important and feasible - is more correctly asserted, "is arguing it important/effective?" There is a certain import to fighting all false ideas, and even moreseo an import to fighting dangerous ones. This is a subjective judgement, however, so I'll leave that point alone.

In judging viability, you have to confront it for what it is to see how effective we can be against it. If it is a schizophrenic ideology, which I think it indeed is, it is hardly effective to argue. But certain ideas which arise from basic religious principles can be argued fairly effectively. Therefore, we must "choose our battles." Does one who believes in fairies unasahamedly and with personal regard for the concept give you a sense that you can show them how they are wrong? Should we focus our energies on a person who believes in God and is otherwise secularly oriented?

From this, we see that there are certainly cases where even arguing agaisnt the concept of god can be particularly beneficial. But in most cases, it is hardly the root of the problem; the schizophrenic tendancies are rarely the causes of the more dangerous political ideas, but a part of an orthodoxy which has far worse manifestations in ideas which can be fought independantly and with much more success.

What will be gained from arguing futilely[sic?] against God? If the argument has no positive gain, it has the negative gain of wasting breath, time, alienating the believer, etc.. If the individual, or other individuals, are engaging in much more dangerous ideology, we have diverted our attention away from the real problems in order to solve a really stupid superstition; we have taken the opiate of the masses just the same, and if we speak from the standpoint of class - conscious socialists, we are falling victim to the fetishism of religion and God - worship just as much as its proponents are. So, until class dissipation or human justice require as a primary end the destruction of the God mentality, it is a dangerous waste of time; an idle practice of fascination. We should lead the dissolution of religion by ignoring the more silly, asinine arguments ourselves, and wait until someone not only says "God supports my war on others," but is actually motivated by the concept essentially, and not by other, economic forces which tend to be the real motivators behind the wrongness associated with religious doctrines.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:15 am
hajduk, I would respond but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. "Public toilets", what???

i speak that kind of god doesnt exist who oppened public toilets,elevators etc.
becouse moust people expect that from god,you know to give them right numbers on free lotto or to make own child to go in same coledge like his father or mother does or to become a lawyer or doctor
you understand know?