quote:

Originally posted by Slylee we need religion whether we realize it or not. i'm not religious but i respect what it does for society. imagine how society would act if we were going through life with no fear of any consequences of our actions whatsoever? religion instills fear, and we need that fear.

What the fuck are you talking about 'no consequences of our actions'. Haven't you ever heard of the judicial system? There are consequences for a person if they go out and shoot someone....depending on what country they live in obviously.
As regards to your comment about people needing fear to avoid doing wrong; I think Einstein has already said it best:

quote:

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

In my opinion the only good reason to have religion is it's comedic value...it does make for really great stand up material.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM For christ's sake, not this again...I would call myself an atheist, but I don't say that no god exists, I simply lack belief in a god. That is not a faith based statement. This is a typical tactic by believers to try and say that both atheism and theism are equally logical...it is such a blatant straw man argument; you're misrepresenting what atheism means. You've had this explained to you before yet you still persist with this crap.

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...

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nah, this is just your own straw man of what "atheism" is. I'm an atheist, so I've "met" at least one of them. My "proposition" is simply that I know of no good evidence to believe that a god exists -- so I don't, just as I don't believe in phlogiston or astrology or cows that are born with horns made of gold.

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.

quote:

How the heck is a debate about the existence of God a "political" one?

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.

___________________

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

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

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.
  

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

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.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

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.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

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.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

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.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive