TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- 'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles, Spark Heated Debate
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 »

And with that I think I've literally answered all objections in this thread. And honestly, its distracted me a lot from actually getting work done.

So I retire from this thread, but by all means, DigiNut or anybody else who is not satisfied don't hesitate to PM me for my msn/contact info, and I'll gladly discuss it with you. I deal with it on my daily basis in class so might as well.

p.s well done Elyot!

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Forgetting all of that, here is the argument for irreducible complexity and how it (a) creates a bigger problem than the one it attempts to solve and (b) how it is logically impossible.

I never endorsed the argument for irreducible complexity. No need to explain or refute it - it's an absolute crock of shit and so is the whole Creation Science/Intelligent Design "theory".

You're basically doing exactly what I asked you not to do - refuting the pseudo-scientific claims of some religious nuts. I don't believe in irreducible complexity or any of the other nonsense from that camp. I just don't see enough evidence to conclude that it would be impossible for life to have been either created or influenced by a superior being.

If you're going to make a positive claim - specifically, that there was no deterministic element in the initial formation of life here on earth and that there were no unseen forces influencing the later development of life here, then you have to prove it. Simply telling me that it's improbable is not that much better than the similarly hackneyed Creationist argument. I will grant you that it's marginally more palatable because its claims are less grandiose, but a positive claim still requires positive proof.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie And with that I think I've literally answered all objections in this thread. And honestly, its distracted me a lot from actually getting work done. So I retire from this thread, but by all means, DigiNut or anybody else who is not satisfied don't hesitate to PM me for my msn/contact info, and I'll gladly discuss it with you. I deal with it on my daily basis in class so might as well. p.s well done Elyot!

Well done yourself!

And yeah... all the time that I've wasted on this thread... *sigh*. But a worthwhile experience nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I wish people in this thread would stop treating atheism, and strong atheism in particular, as if it were a logical fallacy. It's not, and many authors have argued this. Authors like Dawkins have written about the following forms of atheism: 1) Weak atheism: I don't know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it does not. 2) De facto atheism: I cannot know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it has extremely low probability and live my life as if no god exists. 3) Strong atheism: I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there is no god. I believe that the event of a god existing is impossible.

Hah, I didn't know he wrote this. What he calls "de facto atheism" is clearly agnosticism, and "weak atheism" is just one step removed from deism (just take out the word "not").

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot ...Of course, these are not good enough to prove the hypothesis you stated, but they provide some evidence.

I don't mean to take quotes out of context, but I believe this is the key point right here. I would not be at all surprised to see that there is positive evidence for your claim along certain axes, such as academic achievement. I would bet you that there is also some evidence in favour of religion along other axes, such as community involvement. I've also seen studies linking higher intelligence (above a certain point) to lower happiness, so again that highlights the importance of clear definitions.

The point is that it's unscientific to draw broad conclusions based on such spotty evidence, especially conclusions so vaguely-worded. If what you're trying to say is "Average education levels are higher in secular communities, and from this we can infer that society in general would be more educated if religion were to disappear entirely" then that would be an easy claim to test (and I would probably believe you anyway). But to say, effectively, that the world would be a better place period... that sounds more like wishful thinking tempered with anger than a logical deduction from well-supported facts.

Guess what I've concluded from this thread?
You guys like to type.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hah, I didn't know he wrote this. What he calls "de facto atheism" is clearly agnosticism, and "weak atheism" is just one step removed from deism (just take out the word "not").

Certainly Dawkins didn't develop those terms, but he uses them quite a bit.

De facto atheism is not quite agnosticism. Agnosticism is part of all types of atheism except strong atheism. An agnostic claims that we do not or cannot know for certain whether there is a god, but does not define a particular belief or system for making decisions.

An agnostic may very well choose to live their life as if a god exists via arguments like Pascal's wager. A weak atheist asserts that god is unlikely, and a de facto atheist makes the same decisions in life that a strong atheist would, but doesn't assert that there is no god.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan

That one's gonna piss quite a few people off, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie

It's funny... all this discussion and essentially we have the same position; the existence of god(s) or no god(s) is unprovable... it would seem the only difference is that I am willing to admit that is the case. I don't know you but you seem to be a logical and intelligent person, as such you should understand that a probability is not a certainty; therefore, any position stated as a certainty which is, in fact, predicated on a probability is a belief rather then knowledge. Ultimately, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I wish people in this thread would stop treating atheism, and strong atheism in particular, as if it were a logical fallacy. It's not, and many authors have argued this. Authors like Dawkins have written about the following forms of atheism: 1) Weak atheism: I don't know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it does not. 2) De facto atheism: I cannot know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it has extremely low probability and live my life as if no god exists. 3) Strong atheism: I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there is no god. I believe that the event of a god existing is impossible. Now, in order to describe which of these you belong to, you have to qualify WHAT god you're talking about. I am a de facto atheist when we're talking about ALL supernatural powers, because I can't know for certain whether or not there are magical fairymen living in the sky. However, I am a strong atheist when it comes to the typical Christian/Muslim view of a single, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity that constructed the universe as a home for humanity, listens to prayers, performs miracles, etc. I know for certain that such a being cannot exist, because its existence leads to various logical contradictions.

Unfortunately, my friend, atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). The only one of these three classes of atheism (which have been developed as a response to the charge that atheism is unprovable) that is actually atheism is what has recently been termed "strong atheism," the other two are really agnostic positions which have been co-opted by people who style themselves as atheists. I have absolutely no problem with people who take the position that gods or a particular god is improbable or that they do not believe in such entities, as that is a rational position. I have a very large problem with people who state there is no god(s) as an absolute certainty. I have an equally large problem with people who state there is a god(s) with absolute certainty. Neither of these positions can be proven thus neither should be presented as facts, which is why I will always argue against anyone who does so.

I think you're incorrect in stating that one must specify which god(s) they are referring to when taking an atheist position. If one is to be considered an atheist they're position must be that there is no god(s) not just that one particular god does not exist. If not believing in one particular god were enough to classify someone as atheist then Moses (assuming he actually existed) would have been an atheist, as he did not believe in the gods of Egypt. In fact, just about everyone on the planet would be an atheist (Hindus excluded), as very few people accept all the entities deified by every other person/belief system to be gods. If someone does not believe in a particular god then it is fair to say that they do not believe in that particular god; however, to be an atheist you must believe there are no god(s).

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Guess what I've concluded from this thread? You guys like to type.

+1

As much as I would like to read the entire responses my brain looses interest after the fourth line.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie So I don�t know what your nonsense about "vague and untestable" is. When you present a physicist, a biologist, or a chemist with the question of "is there a God?" they will apply the question to our current standard models of science and logic, and based on their evidentiary research, they will rationally arrive at their atheistic position. Even if you say something like they are forced to take a position of skepticism, seeing as they can�t entirely disprove the existence of a supreme deity; based on the probability that the evidence yields--let me say that again--based on the probability that the evidence yields, you know, that thing you get after you examine something. Based on this, they can logically take the position which is more probabilistic,the atheistic one, which has come as the end result of scientific and logical reasoning.

this paragraph is just plain wrong. the answer is no, if you ask a scientist they will not come to this conclusion.

i think you are falling into the problem of the null hypothesis that cannot be ever proved. just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. the null hypothesis is the worst thing about science.

33 pages and.... nothing

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan

It has been mostly the Christian lobby complaining of being singled out and complaining about the campaign so it's actually going to be comforting that the Atheist lobby is an equal-opportunity insulter.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker I've already complained. These ads won't be up long.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Faith is what one chooses to explain that what science cannot (and there is a great deal that fits into this innocuous category). Faith is the confidence that there is order, a system, a process for everything (even that beyond current days scientific explanation). The greatest physicists and scientists of all time agree that although we can explain much and almost everything in the world, there is a common "perfection" that has created all that is and was. Science is NOT faith. Science seeks to explain everything, whereas faith attempts to put meaning behind the unexplainable. Personally, I seek science, but am humble enough to realize that faith plays a big part in realizing the true potential of science. Faith is a choice. That is the point.

I dont care to post in these kinda threads.

But i literally skimmed thru just to see/read ur comments RJ.
Well thought out and said as expected...couldnt possibly agree with anyone more

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan

that just goes into the whole topic that "if you believe in a god, you are illogical and non scientific"

it just shows who the real ignorant ones are....

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It's funny... all this discussion and essentially we have the same position; the existence of god(s) or no god(s) is unprovable... it would seem the only difference is that I am willing to admit that is the case. I don't know you but you seem to be a logical and intelligent person, as such you should understand that a probability is not a certainty; therefore, any position stated as a certainty which is, in fact, predicated on a probability is a belief rather then knowledge. Ultimately, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

You do not prove the existence of god. You actually disprove his non existance. This is the basis of statistical hypothesis testing. Basically you are gathering enough information to reject a null hypothesis in order to make a logical correlation.

Faith can be anything you can believe in many gods as in the past, or believe in one god (the sun) or whatever, jesus christ, mohamed budah and whatever else tickles your pickle.. To each his own. But putting science and religion together is nonsensical. Religion and faith have no scientific basis whatsoever. Religion has been used since the dawn of humanity to try to explain the unexplainable and control the masses. Its nice to believe in something, i would say i am agnostic. I cannot fathom the creation of something from nothing. But i do trust in science. Its simply how our society works.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee it just shows who the real ignorant ones are....

the religious fools that think ignorance is bliss. Or that the world is still flat lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie It has been mostly the Christian lobby complaining of being singled out and complaining about the campaign so it's actually going to be comforting that the Atheist lobby is an equal-opportunity insulter.

looks like all the religious loons have no sense of humour!

...pretty deep in here.

lol @ "Religion flies you into buildings"

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit the religious fools that think ignorance is bliss. Or that the world is still flat lol.

hey dont assume all religious sects have the same views on science...

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee hey dont assume all religious sects have the same views on science...

Obviously not. But you'd be surpised at the magnitude that are ignorant.

No... it's not surprising at all. It's quite visible out there.

But if groups are going to be judged by their lowest common denominator... then shit, the whole Human Race fails no matter who or what you believe in.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Obviously not. But you'd be surpised at the magnitude that are ignorant.

One should be surprised at the magnitude of ignorance in general.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan

lol, i almost feel this is photoshopped.

and i find it very offensive. as a scientist i know that science flew us to the moon but also science flies any plane and allows for big buildings to exist so that argument is flawed.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.