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.
Moral Hazard
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.
Nrg2Nfinit
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.
Capitalizt
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..
SYSTEM-J
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.
Capitalizt
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.
Moral Hazard
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 bull... but evidence nonetheless.
pkcRAISTLIN
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 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 :p 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.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but if you leave me unmolested, imagine the stupid i might say!
I have rarely known you to say stupid .
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.
Domesticated
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.
