are you an atheist?

is the influence + reach of calvinism in broader normative american culture + society also predetermined?

Is it? Again, I don't know enough about the history of philosophy to answer that, but it seems to me that it isn't.

St. Augustine yo

Greeks were debating free will B.C. no?

This is more a time-travel hypothetical but if:
(1) free will does not exist
(2) you are predetermined to choose a red ball

What happens if, knowing (2), you choose a black ball instead? Does the universe explode?

Having already performed one impossibility, all the subsequent ones just come along for the ride.

which part is the impossible part?

Another immoderate consumer of science fantasy hook slides into first base.

I'm pretty sure this hasn't been explored in fiction because it would make for very short fiction.

maybe a futurama joke?

at least a pondering fry meme image

Picking apart a hole in the philosophy of an atheist is not equal to the tiny probability that the unknowns of the universe subscribe to very specific, very conveniently imaginable workings for some reason revolving around the human, when we've barely scratched the surface of how enormous that universe is.

I didn't get to read all this, but I skimmed and noticed you arguing about free will. What does it amount to? How can it account for the giant discrepancies in what is more likely than the other as being the truth?

Hopefully you don't read this as combative, I'm just trying to get to the core of why I'm an atheist here. Oh and sorry to derail, too.

I don't think anyone was bringing up free will to argue about whether atheism is true or not. I was mostly curious about their compatibility. Also morality.

Oh OK. Carry on! I'm just venting my stance and was too lazy to read all of the new answers

Has anyone used godelian arguments re: free will to prove the non-existence of an omniscient god?

I just get bothered when I see atheists and theists arguing over why one little aspect of religious text or theory is true or not (unless it springs from a specific context like gay marriage) and the overarching point, to me, is not addressed.

I posted this on another thread but I thought this Neil Tyson vid was OTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Oh I totally agree about being tied to a "movement," and I would rather not call myself an atheist but it's confusing to say I'm not an atheist cause I hate that baggage but I am, basically.

As much as I want to agree about how silly it is to have a word for not being something, religion has been dominating enough to make a word for not believing necessary, and you know what, I'll just call myself a non-believer. Hate the atheist label a lot.

I would rather not call myself an atheist but it's confusing to say I'm not an atheist cause I hate that baggage but I am, basically.

I feel exactly the same. And I also don't really understand getting all philosophical about it - can't I just be comfortable knowing that nothing I've experienced has proven the existence of anything supernatural to me?

As for the morality end of it, I sincerely try my hardest to live by the golden rule, but without any fear of retribution or damnation.

I also think the idea of fading into atoms and nothingness once again is extremely satisfying, and makes me feel awe and wonder at the theoretical infinity of the universe, the vast majority of which we know nothing about. And it could contain or have been started by a diety of some sort, but it's unknowable so why try to define it in a very specific manner?

but it's unknowable so why try to define it in a very specific manner?

Because if the answers it provides are to comfort, they should also be comforting with familiarities that are easy to digest. Imagining god in a human form and an afterlife that preserves our consciousness, memory, and personality is an attractive concept to a mind that has to try to process nothingness as an alternative to that afterlife and incomprehensible amounts of time to be the main ingredient of why such complex things exist.

To the idea which has popped up a couple of times that agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position, I'll only buy this if you're agnostic about every single god ever believed in throughout the entire history of humanity. iirc Shakey Mo took this line once, and I guess I'd have to have a grudging respect for such thoroughgoing agnosticism.

I think "it's unknowable" is a concept really at the root of spirituality. God or the soul or whatever are ultimately unknowable to us, and religious texts and symbols have to be taken with this in mind. They aren't strict descriptions of this supernatural phenomenon, because such description is impossible. Each symbol does reveal a fragment of the truth, but due to the abstract nature of god, words will always literally fail. If god was comprehensible and describable in human terms, then it would be science.

On the other hand, there are many phenomenon found through science that are more and more difficult for our minds to comprehend as well. And unless you are a brilliant mathematician or astrophysicist, you are probably aware of such concepts as described through their own comforting familiarities.

A 'personal connection with Jesus' or a 'personal god' does not mean that god is a person with two arms, two legs, and a head, etc. It means that god is a personal experience. Maybe one could try describing it to others but it is ultimately a transcendent experience that cannot be transmitted wholly via language.

that would dispense with a lot of the purpose of religions as institutions tho

Adam, that interpretation is your personal one and describes god and spirituality as a part of and an origin of your psyche, is that what you mean?

Yes that's my personal interpretation but I believe an impersonal or objective interpretation is impossible.

Yeah I just didn't know if you were describing a belief you are a part of or one you've discovered on your own.

Well I've never gone to a church other than for weddings/funerals, and my parents taught me more about pop science than anything else growing up. But i've always been interested in myths and religions mainly from a purely "these are cool stories" point of view, but lately I've been on a big Alan Watts kick, looking at Christianity through a Zen Buddhist lens. I think there's plenty of value in organized religion but that most of the original messages have been distorted and/or politicized to a degree where they don't make sense on most levels.

On that last point I fear the stretch between the introduction of the original messages and the point at which they were used for political or economical gain may be tiny to non existent depending on the religion in question.

Greeks were debating free will B.C. no?

Greeks did not have a word for free will

To the idea which has popped up a couple of times that agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position, I'll only buy this if you're agnostic about every single god ever believed in throughout the entire history of humanity.

If you view all gods/religions as hypotheses, some are going to appear to be more unlikely or ridiculous than others. Just like any group of hypotheses proposed for a problem.

So what is it that makes the monotheistic god(s) of abrahamic religions apparently more plausible than others?

Better beards

Do Cthulhu's face tentacles count as a beard?

Cthulhu's gay?!?

Well I think the odds of any of the hypotheses man has made up out of thin air over the years actually being the correct one are very very very very very very very high so...

Sad to see so many ILXors will be swimming in the Lake of Fire, tsk tsk.

See you again on the 4th of July.

So what is it that makes the monotheistic god(s) of abrahamic religions apparently more plausible than others?

I don't think that they are more plausible, but those aren't the gods that many of us are agnostic about. Agnosticism about Thor or Jehovah is different from agnosticism about something as abstract as a "prime mover" or "guiding intelligence." The latter are philosophical possibilities, for which one can offer arguments. The former are elements of folklore that there's no good reason to think exist.

otm. Though the thing about folklore is that even if it isn't literally true, it still offers an insight into the people that embrace it.

Careful, we all know where the folklore road ultimately leads

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120805123155/horrormovies/images/1/11/Candyman2.jpg

otm. Though the thing about folklore is that even if it isn't literally true, it still offers an insight into the people that embrace it.

Like what religion they are and stuff

someone more versed in religious history could explain this better, but monotheism strikes me as a major development because it shifts the metaphysical frame from one of a pluralism of, let's say, "forces" within the world to one of the "prime mover" or what have you. that's interesting because it puts the world off the one side and God off to the other--God exists "outside" the world, makes it happen, makes it new, whatever.

that's a big epistemic shift (tho i am perhaps overemphasizing the pluralism of polytheism) because it locates ultimate "causes" and things like that in a very different zone from the shifting, contingent nature of the world around us. and it's especially interesting because it creates a zone for thinking the unthought, the unthinkable, futurity, etc. the world as a whole becomes contingent and thus evolving, changing, mutable.

now of course that leads to all the familiar sins of metaphysical thinking but also points to what's good about that kind of thinking.

Despite our being 'made in God's image', a single, omnipotent, omniscient creator is miles different from non-omniscient, non-omnipotest, non-creators with distinct jobs and personalities and biographies who are like humans but on a greater scale only Christainity, afik, has something close to a demi-urge in Christ.

xpost

Monotheism being an attempt to inscribe a rational agency on the world, as inscrutable as its motives might be?

I don't know, a God existing other than the world he makes happens still seems like in that old tradition of human-like deities, entities with forms, not really the "prime mover" but a "really important mover". The only way monotheism really works is if God transcends the world -- he is not outside of it, not separate from it, in fact he's not separate from ANYTHING. If he was separate from something, he would not be perfect and infinite, there would always be this line where 'god' ends and 'something else' begins and that's not an infinite concept. There can be no other gods because all deities are contained in him, all are reflections or glimpses of him. It's a more mystical, abstract, all-encompassing version of god.

it's not hard to cast contemporary philosophy in terms of this inability to think the "whole" as god + world but also necessary + contingent or even beings + Being (to use Heidegger's formulation). we fall into one-sided loops of self-reference, we "forget" Being, radical contingency, etc.

x-post: I actually agree. God is paradoxically "not separate from anything separate" as I think Niklas Luhmann puts it somewhere. the position of radical "indistinctness."

Any God I can conceive of is far too puny to be credible.

Agnosticism about a "prime mover" as a philosophical position I can understand, but it's so thin and abstract a concept that it bears hardly any relation to the idea of god that most people consider when they're talking about agnosticism. ("Prime mover" even suggests some kind of agency, stripped down to its bare essentials "first cause" would be a better term.)

What happened before the prime mover moved?

To put it another way, an argument for a first cause isn't really a religious argument, you'd need to drag in a whole load of other implausible baggage to make it religious. (Xposts to jim, really)

xp zodiac_mindwarp.gif