Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 1 of 414 (551224)
03-22-2010 12:11 AM


I recently had a conversation regarding Atheism with an old Athiest friend who is a 67-year-old engineer and a mathematics wiz.
I asked him whether Atheism has any beliefs which are unique to Atheism? - before making any comments remember the question pertains to "unique beliefs".
His answer was "we do not believe in a God or Supernatural being".
I responded: Well that is not a belief, that is a disbelief of someone else's belief.
So I ask again, what beliefs are unique to Atheism?
His next answer "We accept Evolution as fact"
My response: Well you don't have to be an atheist to hold that belief, religious, agnostics anyone can hold that belief, it is not unique to Atheism.
So I ask you all:
1. Does Atheism have any beliefs which are unique to Atheism?
2. Is the so-called "freedom" of Atheism just the illusion given by an endless empty space that traps and imprisons the intellect?
Edited by AdminPhat, : spelling in title

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 03-22-2010 2:43 AM Den has not replied
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 03-22-2010 3:30 AM Den has not replied
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 03-22-2010 5:46 AM Den has not replied
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 03-22-2010 6:19 AM Den has not replied
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2010 10:20 AM Den has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2010 10:51 AM Den has not replied
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 12:44 PM Den has not replied
 Message 157 by Sparcz1978, posted 03-27-2010 2:03 PM Den has not replied
 Message 158 by Sparcz1978, posted 03-27-2010 2:08 PM Den has not replied
 Message 195 by Asking, posted 05-23-2010 4:12 PM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 8 of 414 (551262)
03-22-2010 6:40 AM


Once you commit to Atheism doesn't ruling out a possibility disable you from continuously objectively investigating it?
or less likely due to human ego to look outside the limiting boundaries of a committed belief? or in this case a dis-belief.
What positive purpose is there to committing to Atheism? I just do not get it, I prefer to look at things from both sides and keep my options open.
From where I stand I think there's good arguements on both sides that are getting us no where!

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 03-22-2010 7:10 AM Den has not replied
 Message 10 by bluegenes, posted 03-22-2010 7:48 AM Den has not replied
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 03-22-2010 8:14 AM Den has not replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-22-2010 11:01 AM Den has not replied
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 1:35 PM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 71 of 414 (551523)
03-23-2010 12:31 AM


Thank you for sharing your views on Atheism. From reading your comments it is very easy to see from who/where your influences stem.
I now have a better understanding of what Atheism means, it means to be a free thinker, and free thinking to an Athiest means repeating what someone else has said.
Cheers
Den
Edited by Den, : corrected a word

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 03-23-2010 12:59 AM Den has not replied
 Message 73 by Granny Magda, posted 03-23-2010 1:04 AM Den has not replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 1:20 AM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 74 of 414 (551541)
03-23-2010 1:17 AM


Haha sorry, but I feel half the time Im just listening to Dawkins repeat himself.
I think its interesting that Athiests can argue that their commitiment to a non belief doesnt dampen their objective thought process, I have thus proposed a new topic of allowing these people the opportunity to prove such claims - new topic section ; Why Athiesm = Impossible to find any answers.
I know from the weakness of my own debilitating ego that I must not commit myself to anything unless I am completely certain, this is why I question your resolve on a matter which is completely unprovable at this point in human history.
Thanks for the discussion, I will try to be more grown up in future.
Edited by Den, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 03-23-2010 1:22 AM Den has not replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 1:26 AM Den has not replied
 Message 79 by Granny Magda, posted 03-23-2010 1:42 AM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 78 of 414 (551547)
03-23-2010 1:29 AM


NWR ^I believe you would classify someone such as you describe as Agnostic, any person who label themselves as Athiest rejects the notion of gods, supernatural beings, intelligent design etc is my understanding of the term.
You wont find an Athiest actively trying to pursue evidence of such beings or forces, which is why I think it proves they are wrong in claiming that an Athiest remains objective. An agnostic remains objective, an Athiest has made their mind up, so they are intellectually bound on the subject.
Its that simple, there is nothing to argue, but some still dont understand the simplicity of this reasoning.
Edited by Den, : added NWR reference
Edited by Den, : typo sorry

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 1:44 AM Den has not replied
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 2:54 AM Den has replied
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 03-23-2010 9:03 AM Den has not replied
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 9:58 AM Den has not replied
 Message 106 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-23-2010 5:38 PM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 83 of 414 (551569)
03-23-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Huntard
03-23-2010 2:54 AM


James Randi.?
Exactly what type of evidence is he looking for? I cover this in my new topic;
My question is to the Athiest;
You dismiss the notion of intelligent design from a perceived lack of evidence. Can you please provide an example or examples of the evidence which you would require in order to be convinced of the existence of intelligent design and/or a supreme being?
How can you find evidence when you dont know what the evidence you are looking for is supposed to be?
Anyway I cover a few scenarios in the new topic, I would love to hear everyones views.
Cheers
Den

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 2:54 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 5:44 AM Den has replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 7:49 AM Den has replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 85 of 414 (551572)
03-23-2010 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Huntard
03-23-2010 5:44 AM


I think the design process you mentioned is an interesting comment, I hope to discuss it in the new topic, so I wont carry on the discussion here.
Cheers
Den

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 5:44 AM Huntard has seen this message but not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 89 of 414 (551593)
03-23-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
03-23-2010 7:49 AM


Dear Dr Adequate
I dont feel you have answered my question, I'm sorry if I've missed something in your answer, not meaning to be impolite but maybe if you refraimed from sarcasm I could understand you better.
You say Nature as stupid,wasteful and cruel?
Thats just your perception of reality. Everything is perfect, take that new pencil on your desk, break it, its now a perfect broken pencil. Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect, Nature is a perfect cycle of transformation, from the sun which transforms Hydrogen to Helium, to the plants that transform light into plant matter, to the tiger which transforms antelopes into baby tigers. Nothing is wasted, Nature in all its forms is perfect.
I've kindly asked Admin to make it a new thread, I changed the subject to "A question for all Athiests to consider" lets see how they reply, fingers crossed.
Cheers
Den

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 7:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:03 AM Den has replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 1:44 PM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 92 of 414 (551600)
03-23-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:03 AM


quote:
Evidence for an all powerful, all knowing, and ever present supernatural deity that created the entire univers and everything in it who also affects everyday events shouldn't be that hard to objectively identify, if that god actually exists.
If it is not hard as you say please provide an answer. I'm not asking you to provide proof, I asking what do you require as proof?
quote:
And if nature were perfect why do we have vets and doctors? In America, we spend 1 dollar of every 6 just to fix this supposed perfection.
Arent most vets dealing with the problems created by man made incestually inbred animals such as mutated cats, dogs and livestock? Anyway I think your are missing the point that perfection is a subjective matter, I dont believe that perfection and imperfection exists, its all perfect, I know you might find that hard to grasp, I probably need to work out how to explain this better.
Cheers
Den

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:03 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:23 AM Den has replied
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 11:05 AM Den has replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 95 of 414 (551627)
03-23-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Huntard
03-23-2010 11:05 AM


First there is proof so far that at minimum Snarklepom exists in your imagination, since if it did not, you would be unable to write it down, therefore this evidence is expressed in your written text.
For anyone to define or prove Snarklepom in reality, I guess if you wanted to make the case Snarklepom existed in reality you would first have to describe or define what is Snarklepoms purpose in our collaborative reality?
Nice try, but I dont think you can drawn a comparison since intellegent design has been attributed or dedicated to a purpose, snarklepom has not - yet.
Edited by Den, : fixed a squeak!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 11:05 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 1:54 PM Den has replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 96 of 414 (551629)
03-23-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:23 AM


quote:
You seem to have confused the word "existence" with "perfection". The only requirement you seem to have for something being perfect is that it exists. That doesn't make any sense.
Perfection and imperfection is based on a completely subjective decision. So I actually mean that everything just is.
You might have to think about it for a while and try to explain it to yourself, cause I've done my best, a good theology teacher can probably explain what Im saying alot better.
Edited by Den, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:23 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2010 1:19 PM Den has not replied
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 3:32 PM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 131 of 414 (551748)
03-24-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peepul
03-23-2010 2:10 PM


quote:
Right, so the arthritis in my mother's hands is perfect? Whales who get the bends are perfect? The death of many animals in pain or by starvation is perfect? Disease and parasitism are perfect? Have a look at an encyclopedia of tropical human diseases.
A diseased or dead and decaying body to you apears imperfect, however it is perfect to the microbes and other fauna which inhabit and exploit the decaying tissues. A broken birds nest is imperfect to the bird, however its perfect to the fungi which attack its decaying sticks.
This is why I accept that perfection is completely subjective to the individual, either man or animal. I cant make it any clearer simpler than that.
-------------------------------------------
I think this thread has too many off topic discussions going on, its a bit confusing for me to follow or work towards any meaningful outcomes from the original discusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peepul, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Granny Magda, posted 03-24-2010 3:20 AM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 164 of 414 (552274)
03-27-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Huntard
03-23-2010 1:54 PM


This is the situation,
1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception.
2. The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception(while maths and physics can), making Biological science unqualified and incapable to examine the theory of ID.
3. Biologist such as Dawkins reject all theories on Intelligent Design from the 5 arguements in Summa theologica written by St Thomas Aquinas to Micro Bioligist Micheal Behe's arguement of irreducible complexity. At the same time Dawkins and his Athiest supporters make the claim "there is no evidence of an intelligent designer".
If they reject what others put forward as evidence, while making the statement that there is no evidence, then to vailidate and prove their arguement they must be able to provide examples of what the evidence should be.
Let me give you an example in reverse:
A Biologists discovers foot prints in an area which he belives belong to a feline animal, however the animal has never been seen.
The biologist writes a paper in order to prove that a feline animal must be present in the area since the prints have been discovered.
A mathematician reads the biologists paper and says this is wrong, these are not feline foot prints, and since no one has ever seen such an animal in this area, that there is no evidence that a feline animal exists here.
When the Biologist asks the mathematician, OK then you reject my theory, you reject that the evidence of prints belong to a feline animal, you say that there is no evidence of feline animals in this area, then tell us, what should a feline foot print look like?
The mathematician responds " I dont know, dont ask me", "you have to prove it Mr biologist".
This is the Dawkins arguement which you have tried and failed to repeat with your Snarklepom, since you cannot provide the function of snarklepom your arguement is fundamentally flawed, tell me what part or function Snarklepom id reponsible for in our reality and I will prove it exists, though what it ends up being others may have a different name for what you call and label Snarklepom.
For example if you say Snarklepom is a creature that flies around and eats nectar and pollen from flowers, I might say your snarklepom is what others call a butterfly, if you tell me Snarklepom is the creator and master of life and matter then I will tell you that your Snarklepom is what others call God or the intelligent designer.
Edited by Den, : Correction
Edited by Den, : fix typo
Edited by Den, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 1:54 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 1:58 AM Den has replied
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 2:49 AM Den has not replied
 Message 171 by Huntard, posted 03-28-2010 3:32 AM Den has replied
 Message 174 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2010 8:52 AM Den has not replied
 Message 175 by bluegenes, posted 03-28-2010 9:21 AM Den has not replied
 Message 176 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-28-2010 9:25 AM Den has not replied
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 03-28-2010 9:41 AM Den has not replied
 Message 179 by nwr, posted 03-28-2010 1:45 PM Den has not replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 167 of 414 (552293)
03-28-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2010 1:58 AM


quote:
But this is not the situation. For example, I can deduce from your existence plus the tenets of human biology that at some point you were a zygote formed by the union of a human sperm with a human egg, even though I wasn't watching at the time.
So biologists new this before the development of the microscope?
You are obviously completely wrong. It is simple fact that nothing exists to a biologist until they can "see" something.
Please before you respond to me in future have a better think about your arguement, I dont mean to be rude but I dont have time to explain every basic detail twice.
As for the rest of your arguement you have obviously not done your research well, there is more to Intelligent Design theory than just a priest standing in a church asking you to please have faith!
If you want to be a good debater you can start by getting a real grip and understanding on the opposing arguement first hand. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself? instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it?
Im on the fence, I havent made my mind up, that is because I am still trying to educate myself on both sides of the argument, what pisses me off is people reading Dawkins work and just taking his side without any attempt at being objective, this goes against the principals of the science which the Dawkins Drones claim to uphold so dearly.
Cheers
Den
Edited by Den, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 1:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:16 AM Den has replied

  
Den
Member (Idle past 5101 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 169 of 414 (552297)
03-28-2010 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2010 3:16 AM


My quote:
This is the situation ... The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception ...
Your reply
quote:
But this is not the situation. For example, I can deduce from your existence plus the tenets of human biology that at some point you were a zygote formed by the union of a human sperm with a human egg, even though I wasn't watching at the time.
My response :
So biologists new this before the development of the microscope?
Your response:
I did not in any way say or imply this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does this rebuttle of yours mean then?, please dont explain, anyone with half a brain cell left in their head can understand the flaw in your arguement.
Please kid, no more, I dont have any more time for this.
Edited by Den, : Added line to seperate my sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2010 3:30 AM Den has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024