In regards to atheism.

[Billy T]

... Talking facts, we are :"run" by electro magnetical impulses no?

No we are "run" as far as nerve impulses are concerned, the sudden undoing of the dis equlibrium condition the "sodium pump" has made. I.e. a rapid influx of sodium ions back into the interior of the nerve axon. This influx rapidly moves from the base of the axon down the lenght of the axon, but can and some times does, "run backwards."

Normally the interior is at -70mV (called the "resting potential") as the sodium pump has pumped + Na ions out to the exterior. Mussel contraction is a little more complex and I have forgotten the details. ATP plays a very central role.

... As is everything. There's a name better than GOD. And Just for the record, I do not share any belief with anyone or anything.

to call one name "better" than another, without telling how it is better -For example shorter, easier to spell and write. "god" scores high by those criteria.

... And if there where no higher power than us, you tell me where this energy came from at first?

One of the more satisfying answers to that question as Hawkins has said is that the total energy is and always has been zero. I.e. the big bag was the separation of positive energy as in EM radiation, gravity fields, and later when the temperature was much lower, some of the +E condensed into particle masses (E =M^2) and at "t=0," the BB made an equal quantity of negative energy as in "dark matter" and dark or negative energy.

The suggestion that net positive energy comes from god (or "higher power, if you prefer) is just "sweeping the problem under the rug." Where it god get it from?

For a money example:
You can start with nothing, borrow $10 and owe $10. If you only think or remember /know about the +$10 you can have the illusion that your net worth is positive.

 

[Kristoffer]

How about:
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Are you a cat-mew believer like Spellbound?

 

[sculptor]

I believe that I am literate, and reasonably well educated.
Anything/everything beyond that is just a curiosity.

 

[garbonzo]

Recently it seems that the Chinese are recruiting American education specialists to reform Chinese schools. The traditional Chinese system is based on memorizing lists and facts, whereas the American system is more about creativity and innovation - there are good reasons why the USA lead the world in technology and wealth. As for religion - to a large degree people tend to believe what their local traditions expect. If you were born in Iran you would almost certainly become muslim, etc. Statistical trends have shown now for decades that the better educated tend to be less religious. The correlation makes sense in an education system that emphasizes critical thinking and evidence based systems like science and technology. As global access to new technology and information is made more easily available we see a corresponding move away from religious beliefs. Evidence is everything and religions have none.

Really? Because growing up with an American education, all I remember is reading books and taking memorization tests on these book. I seem to remember people wanting to reform the education system to be less about memorization and tests and more about actual learning. There's a reason why the United States is 20th in science and 27th in math.... Perhaps China should recruit instead from Singnapore that rank 1st and 2nd in math and science. I hold nothing but disgust for my education. The time I was in Canada was much better.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

I thinks so. I believe that the answer, when we find it, will be so clear and obvious, it will shock most of us.

Very bright you are...hmm

 

[sideshowbob]

Let me rub this in: I AM NOT RELIGIOUS! We cannot explain it, but it is there. otherwise would we be? we are however working on finding an explanation for this.

The idea that there is an "it" is your religion. There is no "it" that "we" are trying to explain.

 

[sculptor]

Is TAOism a religion or a philosophy?

 

[garbonzo]

So friends…based on your written thoughts……If these thoughts are really ATHEISTIC.,,,whose credentials do YOU prescribe to?
My friends…Like me….you are anti-ORGANIZED-religion…anti-BIBLICAL-myth-CONTROLLING-men-religion.
Just as i thought about you.
The Creator of this (your) Universe…IS….sitting in front of your computer… typing a response to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

whose credentials do YOU prescribe to?

The question, as written, is far too open.
Whose "credentials" for WHICH subject?

My friends…Like me….you are anti-ORGANIZED-religion…anti-BIBLICAL-myth-CONTROLLING-men-religion.
Just as i thought about you.

Then, again, you thought wrong.
Atheism (one more time) is a lack of belief (or denial of belief) in the existence of "god/s".
Atheists' attitudes toward religion is another topic.

The Creator of this (your) Universe…IS….sitting in front of your computer… typing a response to me.

Um, how do you work that out?
I doubt many (any?) atheists will claim that.

 

[exchemist]

So friends…based on your written thoughts……If these thoughts are really ATHEISTIC.,,,whose credentials do YOU prescribe to?
My friends…Like me….you are anti-ORGANIZED-religion…anti-BIBLICAL-myth-CONTROLLING-men-religion.
Just as i thought about you.
The Creator of this (your) Universe…IS….sitting in front of your computer… typing a response to me.

"Prescribe to"? Perhaps you mean "subscribe to".

And what do you mean by "subscribe to" (let alone prescribe to) "credentials"? Do you mean whose credentials do we respect? If that is what you mean, then the answer must obviously depend on the topic in question. One would respect the credentials of a sportsman to advise about athletic training regimes, but not to talk about the US economy.

If the topic in question here is whether or not there is a God, then the people worth listening to (i.e. with suitable credentials) are philosophers and theologians, though, as with economics, you will get conflicting opinions and no way to settle the issue to everyone's agreement. You can pick a view that seems sensible to you, or choose not to take a position on the matter at all. The latter is what science does, as it is not concerned with such issues. You will find no theories or research papers on that subject in science.

 

[Yazata]

My personal explanation of Atheism is the absence of belief in anything.... If it's not there or explainable it does not exist.

That last bit sounds closer to 'scientism', the idea that all questions can be, and can only be, answered by science (whatever 'science' is). That's not synonymous with atheism, but many atheists are also adherents of scientism and often seem to confuse the two. So there's a widespread belief among atheists that reality must be coextensive with whatever scientific physicalism's currently favored ontology is.

The proof that there is in fact a higher power than us is all around (and within) us.

'Higher' in what sense? If an evaluative spin is put on that word so that it means 'better' or 'more desirable', so that it becomes the goal of a spiritual search, then it sounds an awful lot like 'divinity' in all but name.

I do however not believe that this can be called God.

Why not? Because you don't conceive of it as being personal?

This is nothing more than a higher Power which we cannot explain, but it is there.

Existence exists. And there's a great deal about reality, probably just about everything if we think about things deeply enough and investigate foundations, that remains profoundly mysterious. We are surrounded by cosmic mysteries all the time, we embody the unknown.

But it seems to me that 'cosmic mystery' isn't exactly synonymous with 'higher power'.

 

[Yazata]

Hmm, okey doke.
In which case agnosticism is a "No" position (despite some claiming that it's a "sitting on the fence" one.

Agnosticism is the "don't know" position. Thomas Huxley coined the word from the Greek 'a-' (not) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).

Weak agnosticism is the position that one personally has no knowledge of whatever it is, gods or transcendental things in this case. And strong agnosticism is the position that no human being is in a position to have such knowledge.

That needn't imply a sitting-on-the-fence response.

Today many agnostics would agree with the atheists in believing that most likely no god exists, even if they can't know it for sure. (I include myself in that agnostic atheist group.)

And historically, there's a long established religious tradition in the West, India and China that believes that divinity overflows human cognition, that the divine simply can't be put into words or captured in human concepts. (These very strong ideas of divine transcendence are typically associated with the 'mystical' traditions.) These religious agnostics nevertheless believe passionately in the existence of their transcendent divinity and many would have to be called agnostic theists.

 

[spidergoat]

My personal explanation of Atheism is the absence of belief in anything.... If it's not there or explainable it does not exist. The proof that there is in fact a higher power than us is all around (and within) us. I do however not believe that this can be called God. This is nothing more than a higher Power which we cannot explain, but it is there. Also, and this is what bothers me the most about this, is that it is called "belief" and thus everyone believes... We are taught to regurgitate, not to know. Otherwise they would call it knowledge or wisdom. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. It sounds like fake knowledge.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Agnosticism is the "don't know" position. Thomas Huxley coined the word from the Greek 'a-' (not) and 'gnosis' (knowledge).
Weak agnosticism is the position that one personally has no knowledge of whatever it is, gods or transcendental things in this case. And strong agnosticism is the position that no human being is in a position to have such knowledge.

All of which fits with what I wrote.

That needn't imply a sitting-on-the-fence response.

Um, no.
The term "agnostic" is - as Cris wrote - used to imply a "sitting on the fence" position when asked about belief.
I.e. there are those that claim that they neither believe nor disbelieve.
Rather hard to do, methinks.
As Cris wrote in post #47:

Theism means belief in a god.
Atheism has come to mean do not believe in a god.
Agnosticism is the neutral position.

You either hold/ subscribe to a belief (theism) or you don't (atheism).
There cannot be a "neutral" position with regard to belief.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You either hold/ subscribe to a belief (theism) or you don't (atheism). There cannot be a "neutral" position with regard to belief.

Why not? The average agnostic insists that there is not enough evidence for the existence of gods and other supernatural phenomena to warrant belief in such existence, yet at the same time it seems fair to give the theists time to find proof of their beliefs before dismissing them out of hand.

My problem with this is that the theists don't give a flying fuck about evidence so they won't even bother looking for it.

 

[sideshowbob]

.,,,whose credentials do YOU prescribe to?

I prescribe a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why not? The average agnostic insists that there is not enough evidence for the existence of gods and other supernatural phenomena to warrant belief in such existence, yet at the same time it seems fair to give the theists time to find proof of their beliefs before dismissing them out of hand.
My problem with this is that the theists don't give a flying fuck about evidence so they won't even bother looking for it.

It's quite simple.
If you hold the belief then you're a theist.
Any other position (including "undecided") means that you do not subscribe to that belief - atheism.

 

[spidergoat]

The Creator of this (your) Universe…IS….sitting in front of your computer… typing a response to me.

God is not talking to you.

 

[Dinosaur]

From Sculptor Post # 4

Those who choose atheism must necessarily choose from ignorance.

I and all the atheists I know are well educated, not ignorant. I guess that you do not know any atheists.

From Billy T Post #37

Atheism, like theism, is a belief concerning the existence or not of god(s) held without evidence, often just because you were born into a family with that POV.

I came from a family with a Quaker father & a Catholic mother. My father had no living relatives other than me, while my mother had 9 siblings & quite a few nieces nephews.

The atheists I know came from families who were believers, although I am sure that some (perhaps many) come from atheist families.

BTW: Saying that atheism is a belief without evidence like theism seems erroneous to me.

Would you say the same about belief in the nonexistence of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, & other mythical creatures? Must disbelief in these mythical creatures be supported by cogent arguments?

Belief in existence of some entity without evidence seems like a view that needs supporting cogent arguments, while disbelief does not always requires supporting arguments.

Perhaps in consideration of the majority belief in the existence of a god or gods, the atheist is more obligated to support his disbelief than one who disbelieves in various other mythical entities.

 

[sculptor]

It is really quite simple, and it is just words.
(Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki like his master, Soyen Shaku said/wrote that one could not describe/impart zen in words, then proceeded to write reams on the subject.)
The same has been written about TAO/DAO.....etc... and: "One may not know the name of GOD-One may not say the name of GOD", etc...
And these words were from adherents to the philosophies/religions in question!
Words are but shadows of concepts derived from perceptions of reflections and reflections on perceptions.

If you have no knowledge of deities then you are without knowledge or agnostic(of deities) ergo ignorant(of deities).
Myth and legend are a whole different subject and are purely obfuscatory when used herein. Any discussion of myths needs include euhemerism.
Ignorance is the base line and that from which all knowledge has sprung. Knowledge and ignorance are just 2 points on a continuum.
It is most likely that no one has complete knowledge of all sets and subsets of subjects under discussion. It also seems likely that the same would apply to ignorance.
oops ramble
From ignorance we may choose to believe in an unknown deity
Or we may choose to believe that there is no deity.
Either choice is necessarily made from lack of knowledge or ignorance.
Or(exceedingly rare) you may have direct knowledge of a deity, or at least make claim to said knowledge( most people consider those with such claims to be delusional).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

Ignorance is by it's self non biased, having no positive nor negative value.
Ignorance is a damned good place to begin a quest for knowledge(gnosis).

................................
If memory serves: About 60 years ago, I read a book entitled "Today's Isms"........a tad droll, but had a deep philosophical point of the folly of utilizing constructed isms as delineating boundaries for human interactions.......(memories of that book may have just become the mnemonic file folder into which I later stuffed similar items)..................(ergo: "if memory serves")
...................................................
I find it amazing that these simple words could excite such ego bursts of misunderstanding.
And position taking.
......curiouser and curiouser...........