|
Porn causes atheism? (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I think the important point, though, is that it is no more irrational than taking an absolute stance on almost any factual question.
For any statement of fact, there is a spectrum of confidence in the truth or falsity of the statement that ranges from supposed absolute belief in its truth, on through absolute uncertainty (the point at which one has equal confidence in the truth and falsity of the statement), all the way to absolute belief in its falsity.
Any rational person recognizes that, aside from a few unusual contexts, the limitations of human cognition foreclose the possibility of holding beliefs at either extreme; that much is true whether we are discussing matters of religion or matters of present physical reality. I am quite confident that I am presently using a keyboard, but in recognition of the possibilties, among other things, that I could be dreaming, or hallucinating, or be otherwise unaware of my actual surroundings, I could not describe my confidence as "absolute."
To be honest, I am skeptical of anyone who claims absolute belief in the truth or falsity of questions pertaining to religion. Surely they must realize that they are cognitively incapable of determining the truth of the matter with perfect and infallible accuracy, so I think such claims are best viewed as expressions of that person's own insecurity about their beliefs--an insecurity that goes by the name "faith."
But the ordinary meaning of the word "belief" is not "absolute belief," so it does not follow that someone who affirmatively believes that no god exists must possess an absolute belief. Indeed, the ordinary meaning of the word "believe" may well understate the degree of confidence in the nonexistence of specific religious deities that is justified under the available evidence. I "believe" that I am currently located in my apartment. But as a matter of ordinary usage, I would not say "I believe I am in my apartment." Instead, I would merely say, "I am in my apartment." The remote possibility that I am mistaken is implicit in that statement--actually qualifying the statement would only be appropriate for claims which I had some substantial reason for doubt.
At least to me, and I have no interest in participating in a battle of the dueling dictionaries, that is the most cogent point at which to distinguish between agnosticism and atheism. An atheist need not "absolutely" believe that the deities of theism do not exist; rather, an atheist is someone whose doubt in the non-existence of such entities is so negligible and insubstantial that to describe it as a "mere belief" would be to understate their degree of confidence in that conclusion. An agnostic, by contrast, would be someone whose degree of confidence in the proposition "a theistic 'god' exists" would be more towards the middle, such that they possess some substantial doubt as to the truth or falsity of that proposition. |
BLA BLA BLA BLA BLAB LABALWMFNDKFJL:WEKJRWEIO:jr;weklfj |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
BLA BLA BLA BLA BLAB LABALWMFNDKFJL:WEKJRWEIO:jr;weklfj |
Hoor. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry but you're not correct here... sure the "strong" atheist position (note; I see what you would call strong atheist as the only atheist position... but let's not get into that) |
no, lets!! :p
i'll let our learned friend renegade take over from here
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Atheism simply constitutes a "disbelief" in the notion of God. Nothing about atheism states with any certainty that "there is definately no God", rather, to be in atheist is merely to say: "given everything I have experienced, I have experienced nothing that would positively indicate the existence of any deity". Thus there is no faith in this position anymore than there is faith in most other negative, ontological/metaphysical statements. Scepticism (or lack of faith) is the opposite of faith. For me to say "that chair does not exist" is to make a negative ontological claim, and marks a position of scepticism rather than a position of faith. You may argue that it requires faith to deny the existence of that chair, but then I'd argue how? Such a negative ontological claim requires the denial of faith in our senses, not faith in anything specific. To deny the existence of that chair - or of that God - requires the exact opposite of faith, namely scepticism.
The point of all this is merely to show that it requires no faith (or no faith in any particular piece of knowledge) to become an atheist, and thus the position of agnosticism - insofar as agnosticism is the rejection of possibility of knowledge with such regards to such things - is not really all that different from atheism. As I say, no atheist claims to "know", or have "faith in" the fact that God doesn't exist, because it takes no knowledge or faith to make a negative ontological claim. In fact, we're all born atheists: it's the default position. From this perspective then, we can see how atheism and agnosticism are really the same thing: both make negative-ontological claims, both deny the existence of a God. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
begins and ends with the statement "there is no god(s);" however, the theist position begins and ends with "there is a god." |
im unaware of any theistic position that ends there though; organised religion wouldnt be nearly as organised otherwise ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Both will likely go on to express other beliefs or positions; however, all of these are beyond the simple monikers of atheist or theist... usually they are positions of secularist or religious (insert religion of choice). |
i don't see secularist arguments as making unproven claims though. denying the assertions of theists isn't really a belief, again it is merely a position of scepticism. for instance, "there is a god" is much the same statement as "jesus was the son of god" or "god wants us to love thy neighour and thy god". a disbelief in such notions doesn't bear the same onus as the positive assertions of said notions.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I find both the positive assertion that there is a god and the positive assertion that there is no god to be equally illogical because both are entirely beyond our scope of knowledge... now if one were to take the position that there is an incredibly low probability of there being a god or that they have sufficient reasons to believe their is a god then I think those are positions that can be reasonably defended (although I admit the former is more easily defended then the latter); however, taking an absolute position on something that we cannot know is pure folly. |
Well, that’s why I would contend that much of atheism doesn't actually make a positive assertion, anymore than the newborn child makes the conscious assertion that there is no god. indeed, the assertion that "there is no god" only really needs to be mentioned when confronted with a theistic position, otherwise it plays next to no role. Sure, people like dawkins might make the claim that god definitely doesn't exist, but plenty of atheists (myself included) merely subscribe to the position stated by renegade; that given all that we know nothing substantiates a belief in god, therefore a disbelief in the notion is more reasonable. I think the person making the positive claim is the person that should bear the most responsibility for providing evidence, and I don’t think most atheists make the positive claim, at least not when you talk to them seriously about it. I am the first to admit there could be a god, but given the lack of supporting evidence, I simply can't entertain the notion:
| quote: |
The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.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. -wiki |
|
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lightspeed
How is what I said dumb? It was proven by a creation scientist already that more "faith" is needed to believe in Evolution then it does in creation.
Its funny how you athiests can defend the idea that a secular scientist (a normal human being) can tell us that the world is billions of years old? How can he do this? Does he have supernatual powers?
Have you guys heard of the polarnium halos law? How about intelligent design? Like I said the mechanics of all matter work like mini factories, DESIGNED FACTORIES.
Plus theres more evidence that Jesus lived then there is that Cesar ever existed at all. |
its called laziness and you didn't take the time to learn.
evolution is a theory just like gravity |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lightspeed
Have you guys heard of the polarnium halos law? How about intelligent design? Like I said the mechanics of all matter work like mini factories, DESIGNED FACTORIES. |
I assume you mean "polonium halos," which is not a "law." For anyone who hasn't heard of this before, here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohalo
http://www.halos.com/ (creationist site)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/
See this page on the age of the earth.
As far as "intelligent design" goes, you'll have to specify some specific claim you want to defend. The usual creationist hand-wave tactic is to point at some area of evolutionary science or abiogenesis theory that is currently sketchy and say, "Scientists haven't explained it yet -- therefore, God!" But saying "God did it" isn't actually an "explanation" at all, as it doesn't tell us anything about what to expect or not to expect in future observations of the fossil record, the chemistry of life, or any other area of investigation. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Thank you for that very scholarly reference. It actually uses the "dinosaur tracks" argument, which even a lot of creationists have abandoned.
:p |
|
|
| elFreak |
jesus is the only way my brother.
Bless us, O Raptor Lord,
and these, your gifts,
which we are about to receive
from thy merciful talons.
Through the bounty of Raptor Christ,
our Cretaceous Lord.
Amen. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
"I was right in the middle of a ing reptile zoo. And somebody was giving booze to these goddamn things! It won't be long before they tear us to shreds!"
~Hunter S. Thompson - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
"I was right in the middle of a ing reptile zoo. And somebody was giving booze to these goddamn things! It won't be long before they tear us to shreds!"
~Hunter S. Thompson - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
lol
what alot of people don't realise is that dinosaurs are actually birds or vice versa.
so in a way creationists are correct. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I think the important point, though, is that it is no more irrational than taking an absolute stance on almost any factual question.
For any statement of fact, there is a spectrum of confidence in the truth or falsity of the statement that ranges from supposed absolute belief in its truth, on through absolute uncertainty (the point at which one has equal confidence in the truth and falsity of the statement), all the way to absolute belief in its falsity.
Any rational person recognizes that, aside from a few unusual contexts, the limitations of human cognition foreclose the possibility of holding beliefs at either extreme; that much is true whether we are discussing matters of religion or matters of present physical reality. I am quite confident that I am presently using a keyboard, but in recognition of the possibilties, among other things, that I could be dreaming, or hallucinating, or be otherwise unaware of my actual surroundings, I could not describe my confidence as "absolute."
To be honest, I am skeptical of anyone who claims absolute belief in the truth or falsity of questions pertaining to religion. Surely they must realize that they are cognitively incapable of determining the truth of the matter with perfect and infallible accuracy, so I think such claims are best viewed as expressions of that person's own insecurity about their beliefs--an insecurity that goes by the name "faith."
But the ordinary meaning of the word "belief" is not "absolute belief," so it does not follow that someone who affirmatively believes that no god exists must possess an absolute belief. Indeed, the ordinary meaning of the word "believe" may well understate the degree of confidence in the nonexistence of specific religious deities that is justified under the available evidence. I "believe" that I am currently located in my apartment. But as a matter of ordinary usage, I would not say "I believe I am in my apartment." Instead, I would merely say, "I am in my apartment." The remote possibility that I am mistaken is implicit in that statement--actually qualifying the statement would only be appropriate for claims which I had some substantial reason for doubt.
At least to me, and I have no interest in participating in a battle of the dueling dictionaries, that is the most cogent point at which to distinguish between agnosticism and atheism. An atheist need not "absolutely" believe that the deities of theism do not exist; rather, an atheist is someone whose doubt in the non-existence of such entities is so negligible and insubstantial that to describe it as a "mere belief" would be to understate their degree of confidence in that conclusion. An agnostic, by contrast, would be someone whose degree of confidence in the proposition "a theistic 'god' exists" would be more towards the middle, such that they possess some substantial doubt as to the truth or falsity of that proposition. |
Agreed. I was actually going to say that taking an absolute stance on anything is stupid and irrational but that's simply not true. I mean, if I say that humans depend on oxygen it's pretty much an absolute statement and I know for a fact that it's true.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
lol
what alot of people don't realise is that dinosaurs are actually birds or vice versa.
so in a way creationists are correct. |
Birds evolved from dinosaurs. You should have learned that when you were 8.
What does that have to do with creationism anyway? |
|
|
|
|
