TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Why does...w
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa In other words, the inability to prove there is a God is considered proof in itself toward the belief that there isn't a God. Ex. (way overly simplified and dumbed down) A group of people believe if you wait long enough, an apple can become an orange. These people cannot prove that this is even possible. Therefore, a different group of people accept the inability to prove that it can happen as viable evidence proving that an apple cannot ever become an orange. The fundamental difference between the two is that the Atheists are not basing their belief on "faith" as a Theist does, but rather on what they "know" can't be proven. The issue that Agnostics often have with this is that you can never really "know" something, especially when it comes to divinity and things beyond our ability to comprehend. No one "knows" how the earth began (we have very good postulates, but nothing is for certain.) Therefore, what Atheists claim as "knowledge" seems to be comparable to the Theists "knowledge", both of which assume that their "knowledge" is true and infallible. It is logical to say that the absence of proof *for* something suggests that it otherwise does not exist, but only if your "knowledge" is 100% infallible. So it only makes sense to take an indifferent view - Agnosticism. You are accepting that there is no way to "truly know" something and therefore accept that there could be any number of possibilities. *cue hating and bashing* P.S. For the philosophers/thinkers: http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf Not necessarily an advocation for his theories... I just liked how it made me think outside of the box.

The problem I have with agnosticism (asides from it being homo and pansy fence sitting bollocks) is that it gives equal regard to both sides, and I don’t consider the invention of a magical being, without a shred of evidence, to be on an equal footing with disbelief of such notions. If I proposed an idea that a unicorn was orbiting Jupiter, would a belief in such a notion be weighted the same as disbelief? I wouldn’t think so. as quoted earlier:

quote:

Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions, and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.

That’s pretty much where I stand.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Why is "i'm not sure" not sufficient for an atheist?

where's the fun in that? but seriously, as a rabid atheist i am more than happy to admit that i could be wrong, and i am more than open to have my concepts of no-god changed with the correct amount of evidence. i dont know of any atheist (including dawkins) that says they KNOW god doesn't exist. such comments are ludicrous, obviously.

but i contend that there is no god for the same reasons i contend there is no unicorn orbiting jupiter. i dont believe you should entertain incredibly outlandish ideas without a corresponding level of evidence, thus the "natural" position in any like question is one of scepticism rather than "i don't know".

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN If I proposed an idea that a unicorn was orbiting Jupiter, would a belief in such a notion be weighted the same as disbelief? I wouldn’t think so.

lol, Russell's teapot. But it's a unicorn because it's TRANCEaddict!

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato lol, Russell's teapot. But it's a unicorn because it's TRANCEaddict!

haha, yes! well caught

quote:

Originally posted by Lira ^^^ Well, I'm afraid there's no such thing as a founded belief then.

I thought you might say something like that. Going down that road only leads to 'the colour red isn't really red but your body simulating the closest experience it can to the wavelengths of light reflected back to it from that particular object. Also, red is just a human linguistic and conceptual construct used to describe reality and doesn't really exist. ' When you go that far the discussion just becomes silly and pointless.

I can observe that an apple is red, I could fly into space and see with all certainty that the earth is round, or if I pricked myself with a pin I can see that it bleeds.

I cannot see a god and I cannot speak or otherwise communicate with one. I have no way or checking if there is a god. To me, this means that the existence or non-existence of a god cannot be currently proven.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN The problem I have with agnosticism (asides from it being homo and pansy fence sitting bollocks) is that it gives equal regard to both sides, and I don’t consider the invention of a magical being, without a shred of evidence, to be on an equal footing with disbelief of such notions.

This isn't necessarily true of agnosticism.

An agnostic may very well assign varying levels of validity to either position, though may ultimately contend that despite their misgivings or credence regarding these positions, 'evidential sufficiency' (as it were) has not been met in order to accept or reject either.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost This isn't necessarily true of agnosticism. An agnostic may very well assign varying levels of validity to either position, though may ultimately contend that despite their misgivings or credence regarding these positions, 'evidential sufficiency' (as it were) has not been met in order to accept or reject either.

that's a fair point. it doesn't prevent them from being homo fence-sitters though

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN The problem I have with agnosticism (asides from it being homo and pansy fence sitting bollocks) is that it gives equal regard to both sides, and I don’t consider the invention of a magical being, without a shred of evidence, to be on an equal footing with disbelief of such notions. If I proposed an idea that a unicorn was orbiting Jupiter, would a belief in such a notion be weighted the same as disbelief? I wouldn’t think so. as quoted earlier: That’s pretty much where I stand. where's the fun in that? but seriously, as a rabid atheist i am more than happy to admit that i could be wrong, and i am more than open to have my concepts of no-god changed with the correct amount of evidence. i dont know of any atheist (including dawkins) that says they KNOW god doesn't exist. such comments are ludicrous, obviously. but i contend that there is no god for the same reasons i contend there is no unicorn orbiting jupiter. i dont believe you should entertain incredibly outlandish ideas without a corresponding level of evidence, thus the "natural" position in any like question is one of scepticism rather than "i don't know".

LOL!! I think this is one of the only posts from you that I have truly enjoyed Favourite part? Unicorn orbiting Jupiter.

Anyway...

On paper, it may look like an Agnostic lends the same regard to both Theists and Atheists but in reality, I think most people are biased toward one way or the other. I think there are Agnostic-Theists (those who accept that they do not know but are more readily to accept that there is some type of deity), Agnostic-Atheists (those who accept they do not know but lean toward the idea that religion is a bunch of hobunky), and a Neutral Agnostic (one who accepts that they simply do not know and have no tendency to believe one way or the other).

Personally, I agree with you 100% - it does seem ludicrous to even entertain the idea of a "magical being" as you called it. However, I contend with the fact that I don't know... as pansy ass, fence sitting a position that is. It seems almost arrogant to say that one is right over the other (as ludicrous as it may sound) when no one can prove without a reasonable doubt either position.

Your acceptance that you could be proven wrong with sufficient evidence suggests that you are, according to the way I see it, an Agnostic-Atheist. You believe there is no deity but are willing to admit that you could be proven wrong.

Perhaps I have an incorrect idea of what Agnosticism is, but I perceive it as the simple admission of not being able to "truly know" something.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit A)you're jumping the gun here. There is sufficient evidence to show that we are not, so we presume so unless stronger evidence shows otherwise. B)Do you know the grand scheme of things? For certain? obviously not so you cannot discount what may or may not be without sufficient evidence. (SEE A)

That's the point- the grand scheme of things, i.e. the universe, is so vast and beyond the ability of our brains to comprehend. You don't think it's arrogant to presume that we hold real significance? Believing this makes us feel like we actually have a purpose in the grand scheme of things. I read that if the history of time was put into a calender year, our species' existance would be comprised of the last second of the last minute of December 31st. Let Carl put it in perspective:

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated An atheist completely denies that there could possibly be a divine or higher being. As with the religious person, they have no proof to prove this belief. They are making an assumption.

Your wrong

quote:

Originally posted by wikipedia In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

Atheism, strictly speaking, means "not a theist". An atheist holds no belief in a god. Agnosticism is really just a type of atheism.

Think that your agnostic and not atheist? Think again.

Anyway, it's already been explained that the burden of proof is on the theist.

This deserves another post:

atheism also serves no purpose without religion. without religion, there would be no need to speak out about atheism, not necessarily because everyone would be classified an atheist, but because people wouldn't feel the need to regularly state "there is no god!" any more than they would feel the need to declare "i dont have 5 heads right now!"

crazy fundamentalists like moral hazard have gone a long way to make me feel a little ashamed of some of the things dawkins says, but it at least provokes debate on the acceptable roles of religion in our societies.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/cli...g=Mrs.+Garrison

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Also as an atheist you are neglecting the multiplicity of hypotheses without running them through a scientific screen. the conclusion is numeric certanty without fact. Why is "i'm not sure" not sufficient for an atheist. IF you were sure you would have evidence analogous to everything else you presume about life and its origins. The fact that you don't simply shows that you cannot come to a conclusion and thus its a stalemate until evidence can be shown. Theism inversely equates to atheism with regards to semantics. the conclusion to both is affirmation without evidence. this is what i tried to show with my shoddy analogy.

We aren't sure that there isn't a colony of super advanced humans living on Pluto but the idea is very doubtful. The fact that we don't have any proof doesn't mean we should take a wishy washy "Well the odds of them being there are 50/50 because we don't really know." attitude. It is NOT 50/50. From what we know about the universe (through scientific observation), it is statistically very improbable that they exist. In the beginning of "The God Delusion", Dawkins discusses this issue as a sliding 1-10 scale from "pure" atheist on left to "pure" faith on right..with various levels of agnosticism in the midle. He describes himself as hovering just above the "1" on the scale..and agnostic who believes a God/Gods are very highly improbable..making him a de-facto (but not absolute) atheist.

Re: Why does...w

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in b4 me and craig argue about this for the 100th time...

Actually, I'm just going to let it go this time, as this question always ends up with the two of us having theological hate-sex for 5 pages and while I always enjoy it I just don't have the time today.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Richard Dawkins make everyone look like an idiot when he talks to them. Personally I am not an atheist, but seriously are all religious people so moronic?

I will admit that I did not watch this particular clip; however, most of the time I see Dawkins arguing with someone his opponate is a creationist or literalist. It's easy to make someone who is defending an indefendible position look like an idiot because there are always flaws in their logic and/or rhetoric. I would suggest to you that if Dawkins were to debate a true theologist the debate would not be so one sided... say Cardinal Levada, Pope Benedict, or Archbishop Bartholomew... any of these three would likely best Dawkins; however, whether or not an mass audience would be able to understand them is questionable.

quote:

Do they even bother to research or THINK before they say things?

Sure they do; however, what they consider to be evidence and proof differs from what most of us would consider to be evidence and proof. Besides, when these people speak they are largely speaking to those that already believe rather then those that do not... this is one of the key failings of the evangelical movement as a whole; they spread "the good news" in such a manner that the only ones who listen are those that are also speaking "the good news."

quote:

Albeit to be so sure that ones religion is correct is arogant and dismissive without any facts to support.

Indeed. I would go one further... to claim certainty that any position that cannot be proven with absolute certainty is correct is arogant.

quote:

On the other hand i see atheism as the same thing. You don't know, therefore you presume. Dawkins strikes me as very arrogant to dismiss A higher being or creator completely.

see above.

quote:

Sure disprove man made religions all together, but what about Gnosticism? What are his views on that?

I cannot speak for Dawkins; however, I would suggest that you be more specific in your question. Gnosticism is a blanket term which actually encompases a number of religions that share the key belief that man is divine or partially so at very least. Most of these religions are Abrihamic; however, there are many religions which fall under this moniker that are not. If you are refering to Christian Gnosticism then I would presume Dawkins would reject it outright, as it is also based on believe in Yahweh as the creator... in fact; all of the gnostic traditions I know of believe in a creator of some description.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but i contend that there is no god for the same reasons i contend there is no unicorn orbiting jupiter. i dont believe you should entertain incredibly outlandish ideas without a corresponding level of evidence, thus the "natural" position in any like question is one of scepticism rather than "i don't know".

Right i understand your point completely. But one must leave possibilities open (more rational ones then irrational as your example above) in order for theories or science to progress.


What would Newton say to einstein if he stated his kinematic equations incorrect (as he has proven). It would be a shock. Thus one should be humble in presumptions.

To deny such a large claim without any supporting evidence is ludicrous.

Its worse then presuming that there is no other life in space. We do not know so we should not presume so.

Its limiting (sure its conclusive and satisfying in a way) but its not right because there is no evidence.

A view of atheism will simply lead to lack of questioning, improvement and "evolution" of mind.

it removes the "what if" which is the basis for any hypothesis.

My view. Keep the option open if you have evidence, provide it and draw a conclusion from there.

Re: Re: Why does...w

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I will admit that I did not watch this particular clip; however, most of the time I see Dawkins arguing with someone his opponate is a creationist or literalist. It's easy to make someone who is defending an indefendible position look like an idiot because there are always flaws in their logic and/or rhetoric. I would suggest to you that if Dawkins were to debate a true theologist the debate would not be so one sided...

ask and ye shall receive..

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I can observe that an apple is red, I could fly into space and see with all certainty that the earth is round, or if I pricked myself with a pin I can see that it bleeds. I cannot see a god and I cannot speak or otherwise communicate with one. I have no way or checking if there is a god. To me, this means that the existence or non-existence of a god cannot be currently proven.

This is faith in your own powers of perception. There are plenty of things in the universe that cannot be observed by human senses yet still exist, and some of them are only perceived through convoluted inference.

Our understanding of reality is limited to the scope of our instruments. There is considerable precedent to doubt the conclusiveness of our perception, and so what you call a "founded belief" still requires faith.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Our understanding of reality is limited to the scope of our instruments. There is considerable precedent to doubt the conclusiveness of our perception, and so what you call a "founded belief" still requires faith.

Belief in something in the absence of evidence is what requires faith. This is the definition of theism.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Belief in something in the absence of evidence is what requires faith. This is the definition of theism.

Actually, it would be in the absence of proof. Evidence exists for or against just about anything... what the weight one gives to any piece of evidence will differ from person to person. I take statements from people all the time that are considered to be evidence; however, they may be complete and utter bullshit... but evidence nonetheless.

Re: Re: Why does...w

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Actually, I'm just going to let it go this time, as this question always ends up with the two of us having theological hate-sex for 5 pages and while I always enjoy it I just don't have the time today.

but if you leave me unmolested, imagine the stupid shit i might say!

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Right i understand your point completely. But one must leave possibilities open (more rational ones then irrational as your example above) in order for theories or science to progress.

i certainly agree, but im not sure how denying the possibilities in this context has any negative affect on theories or progress. indeed i would say its not scepticism that has impeded theory or progress, but faith, scepticism's really ugly cousin.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit What would Newton say to einstein if he stated his kinematic equations incorrect (as he has proven). It would be a shock. Thus one should be humble in presumptions.

well, when god taps me on the shoulder and lets me know that my equations are messed up, i'll be sure to listen i dont think the analogy works very well, because my (or anyone's) denial of god has no real effect on anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit To deny such a large claim without any supporting evidence is ludicrous.

yet still far less ludicrous than asserting those claims in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit A view of atheism will simply lead to lack of questioning, improvement and "evolution" of mind.

i think you're confusing atheism with its ugly cousin again

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit it removes the "what if" which is the basis for any hypothesis.

i would be interested in hearing any hypothesis where the existence of god could be tested. hypotheses are pointless without conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit My view. Keep the option open if you have evidence, provide it and draw a conclusion from there.

while i think god is a more likely concept than a unicorn that could survive the vacuum of space, i still put them in the same ball-park of concepts that require substantial amounts of evidence before they should be considered.

Re: Re: Re: Why does...w

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but if you leave me unmolested, imagine the stupid shit i might say!

I have rarely known you to say stupid shit.

quote:

i certainly agree, but im not sure how denying the possibilities in this context has any negative affect on theories or progress. indeed i would say its not scepticism that has impeded theory or progress, but faith, scepticism's really ugly cousin.

I have to agree with you on this point... in fact I'll one up you... skepticism is absolutely imperitive for progress, as it is only by questioning the prevailing beliefs that we expand our understanding (in all things). I would not; however, argue that one can conclude that faith has impeded progress... faith like everything else is something that people should be skeptical of and hold the candle of scrutiny to... by testing faith great progress can be and has been made.

Moral Hazard, please learn to use ellipsises?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This is faith in your own powers of perception. There are plenty of things in the universe that cannot be observed by human senses yet still exist, and some of them are only perceived through convoluted inference. Our understanding of reality is limited to the scope of our instruments. There is considerable precedent to doubt the conclusiveness of our perception, and so what you call a "founded belief" still requires faith.

Indeed I do have faith in my powers of perception. What other option is there? We cannot observe reality with anything but.

On 'our understanding of reality', I'm not talking about quantum physics here, I'm talking about the fact that an apple is red because I can see that it is red and know I am not colour blind or otherwise vision impaired. If you want to debate the merits of that particular notion, then again:

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I thought you might say something like that. Going down that road only leads to 'the colour red isn't really red but your body simulating the closest experience it can to the wavelengths of light reflected back to it from that particular object. Also, red is just a human linguistic and conceptual construct used to describe reality and doesn't really exist. ' When you go that far the discussion just becomes silly and pointless.

We don't need instruments to observe that an apple is red or that a ball thrown up in the air will fall to the ground. However, I did allow for the fallacy of current instruments.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated To me, this means that the existence or non-existence of a god cannot be currently proven.

By this I meant that the future may well hold a method for searching for a god or evidence of one existing, though at present there is no practical way to do this.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Moral Hazard, please learn to use ellipsises?

I've used them to indicate a pause in speech, which is a wholly acceptable use.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I've used them to indicate a pause in speech, which is a wholly acceptable use.

Moreover it would not be wholly unacceptable for me to complete typing an exceptionally garrulous paragraph, for instance the individual aforementioned mode of communication which you are currently laying eyes on in order to comprehend, in such a particularly verbose and highly superfluous manner as you have just had the immense discontentment of deciphering. Though it may perhaps possibly be a technically satisfactory mode of transmission, I do so think that you would maybe concur and consent that it is an exceedingly and gratuitously problematic method of communicating, and that to write in plain and simple English uninterrupted by unneeded words or punctuation marks would be far easier?

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