Poll: What is your religion?

[Dolph]

That would mean I was believing without evidence the absence of evidence and that believing belief without evidence is the same as absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence, which I don't. I think. Excuse me while my head explodes


As it's impossible to disprove anything it doesn't require an act of faith to think something doesn't exist. However, it does require an act of faith to believe in something without any evidence.

You are still making the mistake of treating the hypothesis as testable, which is in itself a statement of faith, as it is an assumption taken a priori (that is, without knowledge) and applied.

The default position on an hypothesis that has not or cannot be tested is not that it is false. That's the result of application of assumptions, nothing more, and hence is a statement of faith. The correct, faith free position is that the hypothesis is untested, and that if it is untestable, probably irrelevant, and the status remains untested. You can't declare either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis to be true on anything other than faith. What the nature of that faith is may change, but the actual position is still faith based.
and the stateus remains unde anyway.

 

[ripperOFflesh]

R.E.M. - Losing My Religion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhp5E6bINVk&feature=related

 

[Warbie]

You may have lost me there, Dolph

You are still making the mistake of treating the hypothesis as testable

I'm not even sure what the hypothesis in this case is.


Are you saying it takes an act of faith to think something so unlikely that it's not worth considering? I'm probably explaining things poorly, but that is my stand point.

'The correct, faith free position is that the hypothesis is untested, and that if it is untestable, probably irrelevant, and the status remains untested.'

That's what I thought I was saying.

Why is it so hard to accept there is a certain amount of faith in being atheist? Faith isn't a bad thing.

Because I believe in trees and rocks and not things that can't be seen or measured.

 

[Dolph]

You may have lost me there, Dolph

So it takes an act of faith to think something so unlikely for it not to be worth considering? I'm probably explaining things poorly, poorly but that is my stand point.

It takes an act of faith to take a position on something that has not been tested. Whether you consider that leap of faith reasonable (eg you consider it very statistically unlikely) does not diminish that. There are, after all, people who consider it very statistically unlikely in their minds that the world formed at random. Both are logical, rational positions depending entirely on the assumptions of those considering them, because an untested hypothesis has no evidence to support either position.

'The correct, faith free position is that the hypothesis is untested, and that if it is untestable, probably irrelevant, and the status remains untested.'

That's what I thought I was saying.

That wasn't what you put across, the above position is the agnostic one, not the atheist one, which can take a variety of forms, but the one you've given specifically takes the above and tags on "so therefore I believe it is false until proven true" on the end (the position often referred to as agnostic atheism).

Because I believe in trees and rocks and not things that can't be seen or measured.

You don't believe in all the theory dependent scientific entities such as atoms, electrons, quarks and so on? They can't be measured or observed independent of the theories that predict their existence...

 

[RDM]

Because I believe in trees and rocks and not things that can't be seen or measured.

So you don't believe in love, pride or happiness then?

 

[Warbie]

It takes an act of faith to take a position on something that has not been tested.

I believe in scientific method, that things have been tested and accurately predicted and that you can have a position on something that hasn't been tested based on things that have. That sentence is probably full of contradtions, and sounds worryingly close to faith to me (this shall require further thinking time!) but it will have to do for now.

That wasn't what you put across, the above position is the agnostic one, not the atheist one, which can take a variety of forms, but the one you've given specifically takes the above and tags on "so therefore I believe it is false until proven true" on the end (the position often referred to as agnostic atheism).

In that case I am an agnostic atheist.

Whether you consider that leap of faith reasonable (eg you consider it very statistically unlikely) does not diminish that. There are, after all, people who consider it very statistically unlikely in their minds that the world formed at random. Both are logical, rational positions depending entirely on the assumptions of those considering them, because an untested hypothesis has no evidence to support either position.

I have difficulty with this and can't see how believing that the world formed due to some kind of design can be a logical or rational response. Haven't we observed how stars and planets form and die and reasoned that it's as random as random gets?


I'm not trying to argue the toss btw - I find these kind of things very interesting - but am struggling with the idea it takes faith not to believe in something that can't been seen or touched or predicted.

So you don't believe in love, pride or happiness then?

Woh, this might get quite deep. I believe the feelings we get are the results of chemical reactions and synaptic things I don't fully understand. It doesn't mean they're any less special or gushy, or that I feel any different towards my friends and familly than you do, but no, I don't beleive in love, pride and happiness.

 

[Dolph]

I believe in scientific method, that things have been tested and accurately predicted and that you can have a position on something that hasn't been tested based on things that have. That sentence is probably full of contradtions, and it sounds worringly close to faith to me (this shall require further thinking time!) but it will have to do for now.

May I suggest you have a look at the various philosophies of science? How science fits into our perception and understanding of reality is not a question of science, but of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

How science relates to the question of god also depends very much on how you think science fits into reality.

In that case I am an agnostic atheist.

Fair enough

I have difficulty with this and can't see how believing that the world formed due to some kind of design can be a logical or rational response.

Because rationality is bounded by assumptions and evidence. For an argument to be rational, it only has to be consistent with the evidence accepted and the assumptions of the individual making the argument.

The argument becomes about what evidence you accept to be true, and what assumptions you accept to be representative.

Haven't we observed how stars and planets form and die and reasoned that it's as random as random gets?

Not quite, we've observed the resulting emissions and proposed a mechanism by which the observations could have occurred or be predicted via the application of data and assumption. Whether alternative mechanisms that yield the same data exist is something the scientific method does not care about in the slightest, so you cannot (or should not) assume that the mechanism proposed is the correct one, only that it is a useful one.

I'm not trying to argue the toss btw - I find these kind of things very interesting - but am struggling with the idea it takes faith not to believe in something that can't been seen or touched or predicted.

Have a read through the various philosophies of science, particularly the realist and instrumentalist ideas, and see if that helps, if not, come back to me and I'll see if I can explain any queries further

Just out of interest, what level of scientific education do you have? It might change how I pitch

 

[Warbie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Cheers, i'll give that a read and may well come back with questions!

Just out of interest, what level of scientific education do you have? It might change how I pitch

I work in IT (so not very much!) I have a D in Biology A-level - misspent youth - and that's about it.


btw - by saying rationality is bounded by assumptions and evidence - of which both may be wrong - are you also saying it must take a degree of faith to believe in anything? That it's impossible to be sure of anything. My brain tells me there has to be a distinction between what we can test and what we can't.

I'll stop asking questions and have a read

 

[SexyGreyFox]

It's very fashionable to be an atheist, and I'm not surprised that such a closed-minded, herd-following numb-brained lot as the OCUK majority would go that way.

I'm 52 and my decision is by experience and not by being closed-minded or herd following.
In fact when I became atheist is was not fashionable to do so back in the 70s because you were frowned upon and it was something you didn't declare.
When I told my mother I was getting married at the Registrars she cried because it wasn't the done thing.
In 52 years I have NEVER seen anything to convince me there is a God or a Devil - nothing.
In that same time I have never seen anything to convince me of anything paranormal but if you think you can convince me by pure blind faith then try.

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

is atheism and agnosticism a religion?

 

[LordSplodge]

That's like saying "I'm European" when someone asks where you're from. Sure it's correct in one sense, but it tells you nothing specific and I don't think the French would like to be considered the same as the British, same as Asatru isn't Wicca.

I think "American" would be more accurate. With Wicca, Shamanism, Druidry et al being the individual states!

I still think it should be included rather than demoted to Other. Hell even Jedi made it on the poll!

So are you a pagan or not?

Yes I am. Have been for a long time.

Still life goes on and my faith remains regardless of what polls say...

 

[Biohazard]

I'm 52 and my decision is by experience and not by being closed-minded or herd following.
In fact when I became atheist is was not fashionable to do so back in the 70s because you were frowned upon and it was something you didn't declare.
When I told my mother I was getting married at the Registrars she cried because it wasn't the done thing.
In 52 years I have NEVER seen anything to convince me there is a God or a Devil - nothing.
In that same time I have never seen anything to convince me of anything paranormal but if you think you can convince me by pure blind faith then try.

You need to 'open' your mind

 

[Raymond Lin]

Science is my religion, although i don't believe in God as such or an almighty being who controls everything. I do in some small ways believe in karma/destiny/fate, not so much as everything is already set, but more like somethings happen for a reason so it's best just get on with it than blaming God.

Which brings me to the point, if God does exist then he/she must be the most sadistic being imaginable, if he is so mighty and kind and all powerful then why would be let all these tragedy going on. And how convenient is that when something happens people say its the work of the Devil ?

I envy those who does believe in God, have faith in something that gives them peace in the moment of need, but then part of me also think that is just weak and that one should do something about it rather than pray.

 

[meghatronic]

Science is my religion, although i don't believe in God as such or an almighty being who controls everything. I do in some small ways believe in karma/destiny/fate, not so much as everything is already set, but more like somethings happen for a reason so it's best just get on with it than blaming God.

red + orange = does not compute.

 

[Raymond Lin]

red + orange = does not compute.

Burgundy ?

I don't want to put everything in absolutes, like how do you explain love? I don't believe in an Almighty Being but I rather just let things flow.

 

[meghatronic]

I don't want to put everything in absolutes, like how do you explain love? I don't believe in an Almighty Being but I rather just let things flow.

I agree, but that isn't science.

 

[Tombstone]

It's very fashionable to be an atheist, and I'm not surprised that such a closed-minded, herd-following numb-brained lot as the OCUK majority would go that way.

Thats an interesting description because in my experiences the people I know who follow a religion tend to be the ones who seem to be closed-minded and herd-following, especially when they seem to get most irate and offended that I dont believe in their god.

 

[Raikiri]

I'm able to change my mind if presented with evidence, so I don't see a conflict.

Then you're agnostic.

Question to the atheists. What do you think put us here? I mean it's not pure chance is it...

Actually, given the size of the Universe and the sheer amount of planets and stars the probability of Earth (or an Earth like planet) with life existing by pure chance approaches 1:1.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

You need to 'open' your mind

Funnily enough up until the age of 19 I had more of an open mind than Magick & Teki put together.
I met my wife in Church, I had a paperback book collection on every phenomena going and believed them at the time.
I constantly watched the sky because I firmly believed ET was out there and already here.
I then grew up.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I agree, but that isn't science.

I mean things like evolution, mavity, that part of science I believe in. I reject the idea of Adam and Eve and the earth is only a few thousand years old.

I don't however reject the entire idea of Jesus, not as the person, I think there was a guy like him around, except through story telling from one person to another, lack of a written record and chinese whispers and whatnot. Facts get muddled and exggerated and from walking on a shallow stream made out to walk on water. Jesus probably existed but was he a son of God? I doubt it. Alexander the Great and Genkis Khan achieved more in comparision and there was proof to their achievements.

As for destiny and karma, I do like the idea, hence i don't reject it, and some things I've experienced in my life time suggest that it might exist. Then again, i know it is purely coindental, i just like the idea of it thats all.