TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- lotto: the atheist's religion
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

i didn't say that i need that fear in order to be a decent person. i think a lot of people do though.

our judicial system stems from civilization and humanity which stems from religion. kinda..right? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A tea cup orbiting the sun can be observable because a tea cup and the sun are both matter. Science can prove and disprove natural objects and their behavior. The supernatural is not an observable phenomenon. Therefore, science has nothing to say about it.

Krypton, I think you're failing to see the point here:

• I'm claiming that it is not science that has disproved religion, because it doesn't even care about many religious issues. Philosophers are to blame for that.
  
  
• Claiming something supernatural exists is not as strong an argument as compared to claiming that something supernatural doesn't exist. Think about unicorns to see why.
  

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Krypton, I think you're failing to see the point here: I'm claiming that it is not science that has disproved religion, because it doesn't even care about many religious issues. Philosophers are to blame for that. Claiming something supernatural exists is not as strong an argument as compared to claiming that something supernatural doesn't exist. Think about unicorns to see why. Also, RickyM brought up a good point: not all atheists deny God (strong atheism). Some of them just lack such belief (weak atheism). I'd rather call the latter nontheists (or agnostics). In spite of that, I maintain my previous question: If you lack such belief, how can that be a matter of faith?

1. Neither philosophers nor science has disproved the existence of supernatural realities.

2. Based on what?

I've already made clear my main point is not directed as weak atheists, agnostics, or people who lack faith. My point is directed at a strong atheist who makes a clear definitive statement that no supernatural reality exists because science has not found it. Lacking belief in a god, but not a belief that there is no god, is simply a lack of belief. Stating that there is no supernatural reality because science has not found, I see that as a faith proposition.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Let me make a distinction between strong and weak atheism. You are a weak atheist. No "tactics" here. No straw man argument. My points were more specifically aimed at strong atheists who says science proves there is no supernatural realities... Let me make a distinction between strong and weak atheism. You are a weak atheist. No "tactics" here. No straw man argument. My points were more specifically aimed at strong atheists who says science proves there is no supernatural realities... Lack of evidence is a premise to your conclusion which is, "no god". I'll just refer to the negative proof fallacy which says that because there is a lack of proof that proposition A exists, then it must not exist. It is the DEBATE forum. If you do a search, there have been a myriad of threads about philosophy, theology, evolution vs. creation, etc. etc.

You're still making a straw man argument as you are misrepresenting atheism as saying 'there is no god'. Atheism can mean a doctrine that there is no god, however it is also defined as a lack of belief in deities.
Any 'atheist' who says that science proves there is no supernatural realities are wrong; simply because science by definition can make no comment on the supernatural.
You can't wriggle out of it now and say you were specifically referring to 'strong atheism', you simply did not make that clear in your original posts. You've only decided to do that now after being challenged.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Let me make a distinction between strong and weak atheism. You are a weak atheist. No "tactics" here. No straw man argument. My points were more specifically aimed at strong atheists who says science proves there is no supernatural realities... Lack of evidence is a premise to your conclusion which is, "no god".

My conclusion is not "no god."

My conclusion is "belief in god is not justified based on everything I've observed so far. Since this belief is not justified, I'm not going to adopt it."

That's basically the position of most atheists I know as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee i didn't say that i need that fear in order to be a decent person. i think a lot of people do though. our judicial system stems from civilization and humanity which stems from religion. kinda..right? lol

I just think that the vast majority of people are inherently good, and would continue to be so if there was known to be no punishment after death for doing wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It is the DEBATE forum. If you do a search, there have been a myriad of threads about philosophy, theology, evolution vs. creation, etc. etc.

Big deal. Debates happen in here every day, including debates about politics, and from what I've read they're mostly far more intelligent and interesting than what goes on in PDD, since that place seems to be brimming with irrational zealots.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 1. Neither philosophers nor science has disproved the existence of supernatural realities.

Actually, plenty of philosophers (dating back to Hume in the modern tradition), have already shown how unlikely it is for a God to exist, and how the existence of a Christian god is, in fact, impossible. The last good argument I read was the Knowledge Argument developed by Yujin Nagasawa (which I posted on the PDD).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 2. Based on what?

Think of the Greek gods. If I tell you they exist, and all those myths are true, would you say it is just as probable as saying otherwise?

Think about it in daily terms: If I claim you the next block of ice you touch will be warm, is that just as probable as saying that it will be cold?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I've already made clear my main point is not directed as weak atheists, agnostics, or people who lack faith. My point is directed at a strong atheist who makes a clear definitive statement that no supernatural reality exists because science has not found it. Lacking belief in a god, but not a belief that there is no god, is simply a lack of belief. Stating that there is no supernatural reality because science has not found, I see that as a faith proposition.

But, isn't it likely that science won't ever find something that it doesn't even mean to look for? It can't even try to look for it. Here's the first bit you wrote:

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton There are two choices. Believe in an intelligent creator, or not. Both decisions rely on faith. Atheists can not prove god does not exist, which would be a logical fallacy anyways. Theists can not prove god does exist. Both axioms rely on faith to build their syllogisms. So an atheist is no different than a theist in their reliance on faith.

In order to claim anything about God, don't you have to at least define what God is? Theists can't even agree on that so, if you claim there is no God, you're correct to deny the existence of at least one definition of God, given the fact that God cannot be so many different entities at the same time.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM You're still making a straw man argument as you are misrepresenting atheism as saying 'there is no god'. Atheism can mean a doctrine that there is no god, however it is also defined as a lack of belief in deities. Any 'atheist' who says that science proves there is no supernatural realities are wrong; simply because science by definition can make no comment on the supernatural. You can't wriggle out of it now and say you were specifically referring to 'strong atheism', you simply did not make that clear in your original posts. You've only decided to do that now after being challenged.

From the very beginning, it was obvious I was referring to those who says "there is no supernatural reality, or god, because science has not discovered it." That is an obvious reference to strong atheists. You can try to twist my arguments however which way you want, but you know exactly what I meant.

Like I told Lira, a lack of belief in god, is simply a lack of belief. I was not addressing anyone's lack of belief. I was addressing those who absolutely state the nonexistence of the supernatural.

quote:

My conclusion is not "no god." My conclusion is "belief in god is not justified based on everything I've observed so far. Since this belief is not justified, I'm not going to adopt it." That's basically the position of most atheists I know as well.

Lack of belief, weak atheism..got it.. I'm not really addressing weak atheism. I am addressing the Richard Dawkins-type strong atheists..

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Krypton, I think you're failing to see the point here: I'm claiming that it is not science that has disproved religion, because it doesn't even care about many religious issues. Philosophers are to blame for that. Claiming something supernatural exists is not as strong an argument as compared to claiming that something supernatural doesn't exist. Think about unicorns to see why. Also, RickyM brought up a good point: not all atheists deny God (strong atheism). Some of them just lack such belief (weak atheism). I'd rather call the latter nontheists (or agnostics). In spite of that, I maintain my previous question: If you lack such belief, how can that be a matter of faith?

I'd generally agree, however you can still be a theist and be agnostic. Agnostism is simply a position stating that we can't ultimately know whether god exists or not...it says nothing about belief.
A lot of people confuse agnosticism as being some sort of middle ground between theism and atheism...it's my opinion that a lot of people who call themselves 'an agnostic' are in fact atheists who aren't ready to admit it!
You can call yourself an agnostic, but it says nothing about your belief/lack of belief in a god.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I am addressing the Richard Dawkins-type strong atheists..

I must defend Dawkins here, because he does not say 'there is no god', he says he finds it highly unlikely. Krypton misrepresenting atheists again, surely not!!

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Big deal. Debates happen in here every day, including debates about politics, and from what I've read they're mostly far more intelligent and interesting than what goes on in PDD, since that place seems to be brimming with irrational zealots.

Well, I'm not in this thread to debate the existence of god, just to make the point against strong atheism, of which Richard Dawkins advocates.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Actually, plenty of philosophers (dating back to Hume in the modern tradition), have already shown how unlikely it is for a God to exist, and how the existence of a Christian god is, in fact, impossible. The last good argument I read was the Knowledge Argument developed by Yujin Nagasawa (which I posted on the PDD). Think of the Greek gods. If I tell you they exist, and all those myths are true, would you say it is just as probable as saying otherwise? Think about it in daily terms: If I claim you the next block of ice you touch will be warm, is that just as probable as saying that it will be cold? But, isn't it likely that science won't ever find something that it doesn't even mean to look for? It can't even try to look for it. Here's the first bit you wrote: In order to claim anything about God, don't you have to at least define what God is? Theists can't even agree on that so, if you claim there is no God, you're correct to deny the existence of at least one definition of God, given the fact that God cannot be so many different entities at the same time.

Religion's commonality is the belief in the existence of a supernatural reality, of which all of them attempt to explain what this reality is, and our place in it.

There are just as many philosophers who philosophize the existence of a god, or supernatural realities, as there are philosophers who philosophize about the non-existence of a god. The common fact about all of these philosophies is that none can be definitively proven. Only through logic can one theorize these issues.

FFS don't you fucking idiots get tired of arguing the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over???

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie FFS don't you fucking idiots get tired of arguing the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over???

Yeah, which is why from now on in this thread I'm going to proselytize for my theory of an unintelligent creator, also known as "dumb design."

The first piece of evidence for dumb design is the predominance of stupid people in the world. God loves idiots the most, so he makes lots of them.

we all know full well that i am your god, now bow to me her majesty's swine.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I'd generally agree, however you can still be a theist and be agnostic. Agnostism is simply a position stating that we can't ultimately know whether god exists or not...it says nothing about belief. A lot of people confuse agnosticism as being some sort of middle ground between theism and atheism...it's my opinion that a lot of people who call themselves 'an agnostic' are in fact atheists who aren't ready to admit it! You can call yourself an agnostic, but it says nothing about your belief/lack of belief in a god.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I must defend Dawkins here, because he does not say 'there is no god', he says he finds it highly unlikely. Krypton misrepresenting atheists again, surely not!!

I'm not misrepresenting atheism. I just didn't make myself clear enough. You seem to think I'm purposefully trying to demonize atheists.

Not that I don't believe, but can you supply me with a quote on Dawkins specific belief on the existence/non-existence of a creator or god, etc.? I know he despises religion. But religion is different from god itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Aesthetic we all know full well that i am your god, now bow to me her majesty's swine.

Fuck you dave! The only way I would ever bow to you is before a round of karate, then I would proceed to kick your fosters drinking head off your shoulders!

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I'd generally agree, however you can still be a theist and be agnostic. Agnostism is simply a position stating that we can't ultimately know whether god exists or not...it says nothing about belief. A lot of people confuse agnosticism as being some sort of middle ground between theism and atheism...it's my opinion that a lot of people who call themselves 'an agnostic' are in fact atheists who aren't ready to admit it! You can call yourself an agnostic, but it says nothing about your belief/lack of belief in a god.

Well, I'm following Bertrand Russell on this one:

quote:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

I simply don't consider Krypton to be "an ordinary man in the street", and I tend to be cautious about labels in general.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm not misrepresenting atheism. I just didn't make myself clear enough. You seem to think I'm purposefully trying to demonize atheists. Not that I don't believe, but can you supply me with a quote on Dawkins specific belief on the existence/non-existence of a creator or god, etc.? I know he despises religion. But religion is different from god itself.

Not a problem:

quote:

We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richa...nl_b_32164.html

Check the very last paragraph.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, I'm following Bertrand Russell on this one: I simply don't consider Krypton to be "an ordinary man in the street", and I tend to be cautious about labels in general.

Precisely, I think Russell is referring to how the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' can be and are misunderstood.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Precisely, I think Russell is referring to how the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' can be and are misunderstood.

And now I'm confused as to why you drew my attention to how I was using the definitions. I just chose the most cautious one for this discussion

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And now I'm confused as to why you drew my attention to how I was using the definitions. I just chose the most cautious one for this discussion

I was sure you used the definitions appropriately, but the amount of times I've encountered agnosticism being misunderstood I felt it necessary to attempt to avoid confusion...it seems that it had the opposite effect

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

quote:

Originally posted by Rostros "When God[2] began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said, 'Let there be light.' and there was light" [3]; the "firmament" separating "the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;" dry land and seas and plants and trees which grew fruit with seed; the sun, moon and stars in the firmament; air-breathing sea creatures and birds; and on the sixth day, "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."[4] On the seventh day God rests from the task of completing the heavens and the earth: "So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation." Adam and Eve by Titian Adam and Eve by Titian God forms Adam "from the dust of the ground...and man became a living being."[5] God sets the man in the Garden of Eden and permits him to eat of all the fruit within it, except that of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." God makes "every beast of the field and every bird of the air, ... and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name ... but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him." God causes the man to sleep, and makes a woman from one of his ribs, and the man awakes and names his companion Woman, "because she was taken out of Man."[6] "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed."[7] The serpent tells the woman that she will not die if she eats the fruit of the tree: "When you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,[8] knowing good and evil." So the woman eats and gives to the man who also eats. "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." God curses the serpent: "upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life;" the woman he punishes with pain in childbirth and with subordination to man: "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you;" and the man he punishes with a life of toil: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground." The man names his wife Eve,[9] "because she was the mother of all living." "Behold," says God, "the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil," an

Your point?

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