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

Why does...w

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? Do they even bother to research or THINK before they say things? Albeit to be so sure that ones religion is correct is arogant and dismissive without any facts to support. 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. Sure disprove man made religions all together, but what about Gnosticism? What are his views on that?





personally i think this guy (not dawkins)is just playing devils advocate. Truly he is not being serious.

this topic is open for debate now.

Atheists aren't presuming anything. No evidence for a creator, so it won't be believed in. You don't have the prove the non-existence of anything (burden of proof).

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato Atheists aren't presuming anything. No evidence for a creator, so it won't be believed in. You don't have the prove the non-existence of anything (burden of proof).

No, atheists believe with absolute certainty that there is no 'higher being', and yet they have no proof.

Re: Why does...w

There are quite a few kinds of atheists, Domesticated... and, let's face it, no atheist would ever bother to look for a negative proof, as that's utterly illogical

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Sure disprove man made religions all together, but what about Gnosticism?

Why would gnosticism be special? Unless you mean agnosticism

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated No, atheists believe with absolute certainty that there is no 'higher being', and yet they have no proof.

I have no proof that there's not invisible fairies in my bedroom, but I won't be arguing for that anytime soon.

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato Atheists aren't presuming anything. No evidence for a creator, so it won't be believed in. You don't have the prove the non-existence of anything (burden of proof).

Just because we could not see beyond our galaxy, we did not presume that it was the only one. We left the answer blank.

Science does not negate but instead provides evidence to support a hypothesis.


Where is there evidence to support that initially all matter was created from nothing and thus a higher dimension beyond our perception may exist where something put things into motion?

I don't know the answer thus i do not make non factual assumptions (atheism, or specific deity ism ) The answer is left blank until sufficient evidence can be accumulated to create and reject null hypothesis with regards to there being a god or creator of some sorts.

I see dawkins as playing the role of "i don't know but this is what we do know" but without basis he returns to the idea that there is no god. There isn't evidence to support the claim.

Thats my beef with atheism. How can you be so sure if there is no evidence to base your specific claim?

Re: Re: Why does...w

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Why would gnosticism be special? Unless you mean agnosticism

you know what i meant..

obviously agnosticism

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato I have no proof that there's not invisible fairies in my bedroom, but I won't be arguing for that anytime soon.

Get a clue.

A Catholic, Jew or Muslim believes in the existence of a divine creator or higher being.

An agnostic does not necessarily believe in a higher being, but nor do they deny that there could possibly be one.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato I have no proof that there's not invisible fairies in my bedroom, but I won't be arguing for that anytime soon.

right.. but do you have proof of preception of a fourth dimension? Fifth?

A full understanding to the consequence of time dialation? Matter being created from nothing? Presence from unpresence?

I'm not talking about a fairy here lol your demeaning the subject. I am talking about a higher level of being, higher perception of things. What we see isn't what we get. Clearly as animals who are only meant and have evolve to simply perceive our limited environment there is much more that we cannot easily perceive to come to conclusions that negate a higher existence without empirical evidence.

Darwin simply put the pen down for evolution. Modern science has begun writting the story. To boast darwin as arrogantly as dawkins seems a bit hypocrytical and simplifying the situation we are in.

Science teaches us to be humble and open to new ideas and reformatoin of theories.

Cladistics change constantly for example. We used to think dinosaurs with bird hip orientation were related to birds but instead, those ones were later found to be related to lizards!. It was only through maticulous analysis that we found that essentially hip orientation of those dinosaurs was convergent and as a reminder of the fraility and openness to cladistics the names were never reverted. Ornithischians (bird hip) are more related to lizard and sauritian (lizard like) are more related to birds.(an issue with semantics that goes to show that defining evolution itself is never concrete and is open to debate constantly).


This is just an example to show that science needs to be constantly challenged in order to progress. To make bold factless statements is arrogant and inconclusive. Thus should not be made to hold truth.

waiting for pkc

lol

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.

But the sort of assumption is quite different. You see, I'm speaking for myself here but, in order to be a Christian, for example:

• You must believe the universe needs an external creator (assumption #1);
  
  
• This creator cannot be an unconscious event - it created the universe willingly (assumption #2);
  
  
• Oh, and for the record, not only is he conscious, he's also a loving creature (assumption #2.5);
  
  
• He also created the world because He saw it was good, He decided to populate it (assumption #3);
  
  
• Now, there are inhabitants in his world, and He actually cares about his behaviour (assumption #4);
  
  
• Furthermore, not only does He care about the behaviour of the inhabitants of his world, He also told a particular group of inhabitants what kind of behaviour He expected from them (assumption #5);
  
  
• Finally, He's watching all His creatures (it's probably like a gigantic version of The Sims) and, should His creatures fail to live by His standards, he will let them rot in a very unpleasant place (assumption #6).
  

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But the sort of assumption is quite different. You see, I'm speaking for myself here but, in order to be a Christian, for example: You must believe the universe needs an external creator (assumption #1); This creator cannot be an unconscious event - it created the universe willingly (assumption #2); Oh, and for the record, not only is he conscious, he's also a loving creature (assumption #2.5); Not only He created the world because He saw it was good, He decided to populate it (assumption #3); Now, there are inhabitants in his world, and He actually cares about his behaviour (assumption #4); Not only does He care about the behaviour of the inhabitants of his world, He also told a particular group of inhabitants what kind of behaviour He expected from them (assumption #5); Finally, He's watching all His creatures (it's probably like a gigantic version of The Sims) and, should His creatures fail to live by His standards, he will let them rot in a very unpleasant place (assumption #6). Naturally, this is all very tongue-in-cheek and oversimplified, but as an atheist, there's nothing you need to assume other than "Okay, we're on our own... where do we begin?". And, don't get me wrong, I don't think religion is a bad thing, but the whole "atheists are just like theists" thing just happens to be a completely misguided concept.

its the same lira, you're making assumptions in order to be christian A god
B jesus
C holy spirit

in order to be Atheist
A no god
B no evidence means no creator
C origin of species is bible lol

in b4 me and craig argue about this for the 100th time...

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated No, atheists believe with absolute certainty that there is no 'higher being', and yet they have no proof.

atheism is a little more diverse than that, FYI. from our lovely friends at wiki:

quote:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities... Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[34] Michael Martin,[25] and William L. Rowe[35] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[36] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[34] and in Catholic apologetics[37] since at least 1813.[38][39] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists. While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[25] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[40] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[41] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[42] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[43] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[44] Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[45]

thread is win.

go on

quote:

Originally posted by Lira the whole "atheists are just like theists" thing just happens to be a completely misguided concept.

halle-fucking-lujah!

one of the many reasons why you might be nice, but youre not boring

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN halle-fucking-lujah! one of the many reasons why you might be nice, but youre not boring

Hah, thanks.

Anyway, I'm coming to the conclusion that, even though I do defend religion, we - as atheists - need to explain where we're coming from as well. This whole debate is so full of misconceptions it's not even funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit its the same lira, you're making assumptions in order to be christian A god B jesus C holy spirit in order to be Atheist A no god B no evidence means no creator C origin of species is bible lol

Does that mean I make negative assumptions for every single belief I don't hold? That's a whole lot of assumptions, as they easily outnumber the amount of positive assumptions you make, regardless of what you believe... I mean, you must then take into account the fact that you don't believe in Zeus, Aphrodite, and the Phlogiston theory (this multiplicity of negative assumptions can't be relevant just for religion, right?).

By the way, your letters "A" and "B" are approximately the same thing and, no, the "Origin of Species" is not anything like the bible for atheism. I don't even understand why the hell religious groups in North America talk so much about a bloody book on biology when there are so many more points discuss

I'm pretty sure that Nrg2Nfinit is assuming that every Atheist is a militant one, like Dawkins. Again, from wiki:

quote:

Strong atheism is a term popularly used to describe atheists who claim the statement "There is at least one god" is false. Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false.

I believe no higher deities exist, so count me in on Weak Atheism.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Naturally, this is all very tongue-in-cheek and oversimplified, but as an atheist, there's nothing you need to assume other than "Okay, we're on our own... where do we begin?". And, don't get me wrong, I don't think religion is a bad thing, but the whole "atheists are just like theists" thing just happens to be a completely misguided concept.

Apologies if it came off that way, but I have never believed that atheists are just like theists. I merely stated that they both make an unfounded and as yet unprovable assumption.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in b4 me and craig argue about this for the 100th time... atheism is a little more diverse than that, FYI. from our lovely friends at wiki:

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.

haha... we are so small and insignificant in this universe and the grand scheme of things... IMO it takes a very narrow minded person to believe homo sapiens are the purpose set forth by "god".

to paraphrase Dawkins, you only believe in the christian god because by the most sheer statistical anomale, you happened to be born at this point in history in this country; if you were born in India you'd be a Hindu, if you were born in Pakistan you'd believe in Allah, if you were born in ancient Greece you'd believe in Zeus, if you were born in Denmark in the 12th century you'd believe in Thor.............

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Hah, thanks. Anyway, I'm coming to the conclusion that, even though I do defend religion, we - as atheists - need to explain where we're coming from as well. This whole debate is so full of misconceptions it's not even funny. Does that mean I make negative assumptions for every single belief I don't hold? That's a whole lot of assumptions, as they easily outnumber the amount of positive assumptions you make, regardless of what you believe... I mean, you must then take into account the fact that you don't believe in Zeus, Aphrodite, and the Phlogiston theory (this multiplicity of negative assumptions can't be relevant just for religion, right?). By the way, your letters "A" and "B" are approximately the same thing and, no, the "Origin of Species" is not anything like the bible for atheism. I don't even understand why the hell religious groups in North America talk so much about a bloody book on biology when there are so many more points discuss

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.

Here's Dawkins talking about his "militant" atheism

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Apologies if it came off that way, but I have never believed that atheists are just like theists. I merely stated that they both make an unfounded and as-yet unprovable assumption.

It's all right, I may have jumped the gun and started talking about what was not being discussed yet. But, in that case, what would be a founded belief (I take it that's what you mean by provable assumption)?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha... we are so small and insignificant in this universe and the grand scheme of things... IMO it takes a very narrow minded person to believe homo sapiens are the purpose set forth by "god".

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)

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Here's Dawkins talking about his "militant" atheism It's all right, I may have jumped the gun and started talking about what was not being discussed yet. But, in that case, what would be a founded belief (I take it that's what you mean by provable assumption)?

A founded believe would be something that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Theists sometimes say that the beauty and intricacy of the world is proof beyond reasonable doubt that a creator exists, but most people would agree that this is not sufficient evidence.

^^^ Well, I'm afraid there's no such thing as a founded belief then. Is there? You can't even say Einsteinian physics because, after what he did to Newton, it's quite clear that, sooner or later, someone may prove Einstein wrong and come up with an even better theory.

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.

Wait, I don't believe science provides a true picture of the world: It's supposed to provide a useful picture of experience, and it'd be dishonest to pretend science could do any more than that!

By the way, why are we talking about science? Is it supposed to be a new religion or something?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Theism inversely equates to atheism with regards to semantics. the conclusion to both is affirmation without evidence.

Not at all... but it's almost 3AM and I've got stuff to do tomorrow. I know this is not the first time I tell you this but I'll take about this later - I really need to go to bed

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