Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Downsindrone:
Hey there Turt...
Heres what the dictionary say determinism means

determinism \De*ter"min*ism\, n. (Metaph.) The doctrine that the will is not free, but is inevitably and invincibly determined by motives.

That's a pretty lame dictionary you've got there, son. Perhaps you should get one that lists some of the many other meanings of determinism, such as:

<a href="http://www.counterbalance.org/gengloss/determ-body.html" target="_blank">http://www.counterbalance.org/gengloss/determ-body.html</a>

or

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/philosophicus/Elbows.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/philosophicus/Elbows.html</a>

<a href="http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~sintek/flip/paper/flip-pure/subsection2_5_2_1.html" target="_blank">in comp sci</a>

or many others.

FOr there to be motives, there must have been a motivator.

Oh, indeed. As far as I know, my motivators are things like hunger, sex, status and similar.

Oh and to be honest, you dont look too intelligent by insulting me.

You asked for an earnest response. I don't need to look intelligent; I know perfectly well where my limits are, and they don't include walking into forums and tossing off insults at the locals. Especially as inexperienced as you obviously are.

I'm sure you think i'm a snob and stuff, but I'm just a person like anyone else of course.

No kidding. But some "persons like anybody else" appear to be snobs.

I guess my school broke the law and still continues to break the law cuz the power team still tours across america

&lt;shrug&gt; Such church-state violations are common.

Thousands of evolution books at amazon?
Did you stupidly just do a search for "evolution" at Amazon? For every book that supports it, theres one to go aganst it, and oh yes by the way, most books written about the subject in the last two decades are indeed critical of it, not full fledging supporters of it.

ROTFLMAO. The total output of texts in biology worldwide over the last twenty years vastly exceeds the cranks in the anti-evolution crowd in US, Britain, Canada and Australia. Think globally, son. Outside of those four countries, there is no creation movement. Here in Taiwan, where I live, there are several dozen universities publishing biology works every year, and every single one uses evolution. Not a singe creationist one. Now multiply that by the US, Germany, Britain, China, India.....

And that's just books. Now toss in thousands of periodicals. No wait, I'm not finished. Now put in all the government and private industry consulting reports, periodicals, newsletters and other publications. And guess what, every single one, in biology, anyway, uses evolution. I have been a technology policy consultant to the government of Japan for the last decade, as well as a student in a sociology of science program, and I have viewed hundreds of books, periodicals and reports from all over the world on science, and I have never seen one written by a creationist. Outside of a tiny community of cranks who are attempting to influence education policy, nobody uses those ideas. They're worthless.

Hey! heres a nice ~fundie catch phrase~ for you!
Of those 85% people that said they believe in God how many do you think meant it?

All of them! The figure of ~85% christian, ~8-10% other religions, 6-7% atheists shows up across dozens of polls. It's fairly stable and reliable. Are you suggesting that everyone is lying on all polls?

Having a God bless america sticker on your minivan dosent make you a believer.
Believing in God goes far beyond living forever...
It goes more hand in hand with what you do while you are actually alive.
Good night...

Like I said, a snob. "Only I'm a real believer," those others aren't "real believers."

Come back when you are ready to learn something. In the meantime, why don't you post your ideas about evolution over in our Evolution and Creation Forum?

Michael

Vorkosigan

Great post, Panta Pei! Welcome aboard and stick around.

&lt;plug&gt;I hope you take a gander at our exceptionally fine library -- there's a link at the top of the page. Visit our kiosk to see recent articles and opinion pieces.&lt;plug over&gt;

Michael

Oolon Colluphid

Hey, Downsindrone, we have <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=58" target="_blank">a whole forum</a> here on this topic. As a moderator of that forum, I cordially invite you to you come on there (here is not the place) and defend these assertions. In fact, I damn well insist that you do, or cease that line of argumentation. I'll even start a thread there for you if you'd like.

TTFN, Oolon Colluphid

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

E_muse

There's actually a good discussion covering some of these topics <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000013&p=1" target="_blank"> here </a> but please read through all the posts before posting yourself. It'll give you a good insight into some of the issues relating to this issue.

Asha'man

I want to be free of ignorance and superstition. I want to know how things really work, not just throw up my hands and invoke a supernatural force every time I don’t understand something. I want the world to be predictable and governed by natural laws, laws that operate everywhere, all the time, and for all observers. I don’t want my life to be controlled by a psychopathic deity with a sick fascination with death. I can either be rational, skeptical, and logical, or I can believe any piece of crap that is thrown my way. To me, there isn’t much of a choice.

My mom was raised a Southern Baptist, and took my brothers and me to church as children. My father was raised in an atheist Jewish home, and is a dedicated scientist (PhD Chemistry). I have always leaned towards the scientific point of view.

That question makes no sense. Freethinking isn’t a lifestyle, it is a way of thinking.

Because the “fundies” are extremely annoying. They insist on telling us things that cannot possibly be true, and are unable to see the logic when we ask for evidence. Talking to most of them is like beating your head against the wall. While there are a few who are polite and reasonable, most come off as extremely condescending and rude.

Crazy is throwing up your hands and pointing to a supernatural cause, instead of searching harder for a natural law that isn’t understood yet.

I can see the evidence of gravity every day. I see no evidence that any supernatural entity has ever altered reality or suspended natural law. Instead, I see strong evidence that natural laws exist, are universal, are understood, and can be made to work for us. The fact that you are reading this message at all is proof that science is an improvement over superstition.

Because religious states are a BAD IDEA. Just look at the Middle East and you will see why. If a government can’t find a non-religious reason for doing something, it probably isn’t worth doing.

Jamie_L

Downsindrone:

What are my motivations?
I don't think I'm "motivated" to be a freethinker, per se. I just am. In my life, I've found it's most rational not to believe something unless there is sufficient rational or evidentiary support for it. I've found it's not that smart to believe something just because some people or some authority says so. I apply a healthy dose of skepticism to all things, because that seems to be the best way to avoid buying into false or questionable ideas. I don't just trust a car salesman. Likewise, I don't just trust a religious believer or a UFO nut.

Was I raise this way or born this way? Yes. I had a non-religious (though not atheist) upbringing, but I also believe I am a curious, open-minded, cautious, skeptical person by nature. I investigate everything, and I want to know as much as possible/practical/necessary before subscribing to some idea or belief.

Why the sarcasm/aggression on this board? Atheism is one of the last segments of the population that the mainstream (in the US anyway) feels is okay to slander, berate, belittle, and attack. We are still an outcast minority, and, at least for me, that really affects my outlook and attitudes towards believers. I strive to be polite and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But more often than not, for me anyway, the sarcasm/aggression starts on the other side.

You seem to assume we have taken the easy way out. I strongly disagree. I, for one, spent years struggling with religion, trying to make sense of it. I wanted to believe. I delved, questioned, read, reasoned. When I came out the other side, I still didn't believe. I feel I was very open-minded. I gave religion every chance to take hold in me, and it didn't. When I finally accepted the fact that I just didn't believe, I became much more comfortable with myself and my outlook on the world. And yes, it's satisfying, though satisfaction the reason I hold the views that I do. I hold them because they make sense, and even if something were more satisfying, that would not be a good reason to abandon something that I find more rational.

To me, it seems religion is the easy way out. I answers all your questions. It gives you solace about death and the horrors of the world. It doesn't require long, deep thought - just simple faith. In fact, faith often encourages believers to ignore the tough questions and avoid the in-depth investigation of the world and it's problems. Religion is a crutch that helps people emotionally. Trust me, a rational, skeptical worldview is not easy or comforting. But, to us, it's true.

How is having a place to interact amongst others like us a strike against us? Isn't that what church is for believers? Doesn't every human being like to be among those who understand them? As I mentioned before, we're few and far between, and we often face social persecution if we are too outspoken about our atheism. Finding a place to comfortably be who we are is important. It has nothing to do with needing to reassure ourselves about our atheism. Most, if not all of us were confident in our atheism before we got here.

As for the scular lifestyle being "anti-everything". Well, from our perspective, so much of mainstream society is against us. After experiencing that enough times, you want to stand up and say "This is what I think!" "I'm here, I'm a part of this society, and I deserve respect just as much as you!"

And here's an idea for people who want to put religion in the public (government - US) arena: Read the First Amendment! Read the writings of the founding fathers. Read the Treaty of Tripoly. The US is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation were all religions are free from government interferance, and no religious (or non-religious) minority is less (or should be made to feel less) in the eyes of the government.

I'll let others respond to some of the other specifics. Anyway, honest inquiry is always welcome. I've often asked honest questions of the other side. But be careful what you assume about us, and try to be respectful if you want respect in return.

Jamie

Hobbs

I want to know what is true. And I want to know it, not just accept somebody else's word on faith and hope I happen to be right but not be sure. I don't just want to feel my beliefs are true, I want to know what is true, and, when necessary, to change my beliefs to match reality.

I guess I was raised this way, much to the chagrin of my religious but less educated parents (who have since, at least in part from my influence, greatly moderated their religious beliefs); they didn't expect raising me to respect truth to result in me moving beyond a religious and "god"-centered understanding of the world. I believed I was a born-again child of the King, with his Holy Spirit living inside me. I really felt it. But upon further investigation, I had to conclude that this way I had been taught to understand and interpret the world and my experiences of it was inadequate and untrue.

Well, I'm quite happy and satisfied with my life (moreso than I was when I was a Christian, in fact, but I suspect that is probably due more to being older and more mature than to being nonreligious), but I think that is irrelevant to this issue. Even if I weren't happy, and even if my unhappiness were a result of being a "freethinker," I wouldn't give up pursuing truth for happiness. Knowing and understanding truth and reality is more important to me than being happy. I care more about intellectual integrity than happiness. If I'm wrong about something, I want to be corrected; I want to know the truth, even if it is something terrible. I like being happy, and I'm glad I am, but it's not what's most important to me.

I've found that knowing reality takes a lot more effort and work than believing in God ever did. Well, actually, once I started to understand reality much better than I did when my opinion of evolution precisely matched your current opinion of the topic (add my increased knowledge of comparative religion, history, philosophy, and science in general to evolution), I found it very difficult indeed to continue believing in God. So difficult, in fact, that I no longer could honestly maintain the belief.

So much so that the large majority of them are still religious and believe in God.

What I may want to be true is utterly irrelevant to the question of what is true. And why in the world wouldn't I want to live forever in perfect bliss, as I used to believe I would? I was disappointed to realize that I won't, but, hey, that's reality, what can you do about it?

Precisely. You can measure it's effects on you. And those effects hold no matter what you may believe about the topic. I fully agree that people's beliefs in various gods can affect them, but there is no reliable evidence of any effects that are independent of people's subjective beliefs. Believers in various gods all are comforted by their mutually exclusive beliefs, they all find meaning and purpose in their mutually exclusive beliefs. Their beliefs, being mutually exclusive, cannot all be correct, so the effects of the beliefs are at least mostly due to something other than the truth of those beliefs. Lacking any objective evidence of the kind we have for gravity, I'm forced to conclude that it is the beliefs themselves, and not the various gods that are believed in, that cause the effects.

Am I to take it that you are satisfied with a god for which you have no real evidence of his existence, who makes no difference in anything in reality?

It sure would take me far too much effort to believe in something for which I have absolutely no real, reliable, objective evidence.

Again, whether something is "undesirable" is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true. Such undesirables are not the cause of my unbelief, nor, I suspect, of the unbelief of at least most of the unbelievers in this forum.

What about the response that says that all this suffering is evidence that if in fact there is a god, he is at best uncaring and unconcerned and at worst actively malevolent, and in either case not worthy of worship? Along with intellectual integrity, moral integrity is also more important to me than happiness. If there is a God and that God is evil, then I'd rather suffer the torments of hell than to sacrifice my moral integrity and worship a monster just so I can go to heaven.

I'm not saying that I think God is evil (and I wouldn't, since I don't think God exists in the first place). I'm saying that the existence of so much suffering (include in here suffering resulting from natural disasters and such, i.e. things that can't be attributed to our free will and/or sinful nature) is good evidence that if in fact there is a god, that god is either uncaring or malevolent, and thus not worthy or deserving of a moral person's worship.

You do realize, don't you, that you are not the measure of all things. From the fact that something provides you with "spiritual" or emotional fulfillment, it does not follow either that your beliefs about it are true, nor that it would necessarily provide any fulfillment for others. Most of the people who remain in those churches remain there precisely because those churches do provide them with "spiritual" fulfillment.

It would be good of you to take your own advice here.

Despite the inclusion of some sarcasm and condescension in your questions, I believe that you meant these questions sincerely (my beliefs, however, aren't necessarily accurate; if I am wrong, please do correct me). Perhaps you didn't even realize that you were being sarcastic and condescending in some of your comments. Keep that in mind if you think the same of any of my responses: if you perceive any sarcasm or condescension from me, it was unintended on my part, and likely has become so for you due to your perspective and interpretations in reading it. Keep that in mind, too, as you read the deliberate sarcasm and condescension evident in some of the other responses (at least, they seem deliberate to me).

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

If by freethinker you mean atheist, it's because I don't think there are any gods.

I came to this conclusion, gradually, in my teens.

Give me a break. It's not a "lifestyle choice." It's what I think is true. I know there is a lot of theistic rhetoric going around, that atheists choose not to believe in God, because they don't like following his rules. That's a pile of steaming horsecrap. You don't choose what you believe, you just believe it because you think it is true. The question is: why do you think something is true?

It shouldn't surprise you. Skepticism and a willingness to ask questions are signs of intelligence.

Some people are ex-theists, or were forced to participate in religion as children, and so they have a resentment for it. Other people just think it's laughable that so many people believe in something for which there is no proof. And so they make fun of it. Haven't you ever heard fellow theists make fun of beliefs they thought were stupid? I've heard Christians laugh over how certain primitive societies are afraid to have their pictures taken for fear of losing their spirits, and the Christians said "How savage! How can they be so superstitious!" I always think, "How ironic."

Chance and orderliness are just points of view. Is a cloud a thing of chaos, or order?

Which God? Why do you assume it's the God you believe in that everyone either believes in, or rejects? If there is a god-claim, it is important not to fully understand the god, but to ascertain whether the particular claim is something worth considering, or not.

Again, what we "want" has nothing to do with what we believe. I "want" to believe the Jewish Holocaust never happened, but I believe it did.


Believing in God takes effort because there is no evidence for him. You talk to him, nothing talks back. You believe because you've been told to, someone else says God exists and you take it on faith. Believing in the sun or that tree over there, by contrast, doesn't take any effort at all.

On this we agree.

Stop right there. What does popular opinion have to do with whether evolution is true or not?

See how you are fixated on what non-theists "want"?

Overused, bad analogy.

In anything but matters of faith, being skeptical is considered good common sense. People should ask for proof, and not take things on faith. Look at all the people who have been taken in by mail fraud, or made investments based on someone's word.

True about us Americans... But this is off topic. What does this have to do with atheism? Now it just looks like you're running together a few different "social problems" (as you see it). So there are a lot of fast food restaurants and pizza is delivered in under thirty minutes... What does that have to do with whether any gods exist, or not?

Or, believing in gods takes effort because there is no evidence for them, and constantly suspending your reason indeed takes effort.

Nice phrase, "brady bunch white mans barbecue of good feelings"... I like that. But what's this about "wages of hate and sin"? Did you say you're not a Christian? What are you, exactly?

Again, I think you're off topic. What's your point? Religion might be looked at as the Great Placebo, but not atheism. Atheism isn't "here to reassure you" or make you feel better. It is simply the view that there aren't any gods.

How can you tell when your prayers are answered, or if something just happened without God's intervention? What is your criteria for separating the two?

Because we don't want a theocracy, or a state religion. We like freedom.

I agree with that.

How do you know when God intervenes in your life? How do you know it's not just your imagination, interpreting events of your life to fit your beliefs?

That's how I felt about it, too. Not only did I not feel fulfilled, I also started to doubt the whole thing. I remember sitting in church and thinking "We're all singing hymns to an imaginary being. This is ridiculous."

Point taken. But don't judge all atheists by the few who are sarcastic or overbearing. There are theists who are like that, too -- contemptuous of the beliefs of others.

Atheism is a lifestyle like baldness is a hairstyle.

ImGod

Rather good troll. The shear volume of questions, slightly condescending tone, pseudo-facts, and general statements are bound to get a few responses. "I'm not a christian, but I sound like one, discuss."

I could answer each point individually, but it would expend way too much energy. I'll leave it up to DS to find the answers as I did, in the many threads and articles found on this site and books in the real world.

My only comments are:
1) You'll find that most people here are considered freethinkers simply because they define their own lives. As you step away from religion, you realize you are responsible for your own actions and the consequences they bring. That thought process permeates into all aspects of your life. You think more critically about everything in life, interactions with others, authority, politics, religion, career, family, etc.. If you don't, you end up wasting your precious time here working toward false ideals.

2) The separation of church and state debate could be ended doing the following. Pass a law rotating the state-sponsored religion each year between the major religions of the world, and throw in secular views (pantheism, agnosticism, and atheism). All schools would have to teach and practice only that religion that year. That way it's fair. The christian, jewish, muslim, atheist, buddhist, populations can all feel what it's like when they are forced to pray, or say pledges, to other gods.

I'm sure the separation of church and state issue would be picked up by more organizations than just the ACLU. You see, there is no problem with god in schools, as long as you think it's yours. When christians are forced to take and oath to allah, or pray to Mecca, the christian organizations would blow a gasket and call for the re-instatement of seperation of church and state.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: ImGod ]</p>

lpetrich

There is one thing wrong with that analogy. "Darwinistic macroevolution" simply does not work that way. Consider fossil equines. There have been numerous species of them over the 50 million years, and one can work out a reasonable family tree of them, in which putative descendants look very similar to putative ancestors. If the equine family tree is a result of a special creation for each species, then that means lots of special creations, with each newly created species not being very much different from previous ones.

What would you consider proof? Going back in time with a time machine?

Not really; they considered cosmochemistry and considered what would be the likely composition of a hydrogen-enriched version of the Earth's atmosphere. And prebiotic organic compounds have actually been found, both in meteorites and outer space, so the Miller experiment is fundamentally reasonable.

I do not know what you have in mind; please be more specific.