Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2018 11:02 PM
197 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,751 Year: 13,574/29,783 Month: 1,020/1,576 Week: 232/303 Day: 29/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
28NextFF
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 76 of 414 (551545)
03-23-2010 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Den
03-23-2010 1:17 AM


Den writes:
I think its interesting that Athiests can argue that their commitiment to a non belief doesnt dampen their objective thought process, ...

Did it occur to you that maybe they are not committed to a non-belief. They are just not committed to a belief for which they can find no persuasive evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:17 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 77 of 414 (551546)
03-23-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Den
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.

Given the time, the effort, and the pompousness that you put into this post, you must surely have meant something by it. And yet your meaning escapes me.

You promise to start a new thread which may clarify your position. Thank you. I look forward to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:17 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Den
Member (Idle past 2996 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 yet responded
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 2:54 AM Den has responded
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 03-23-2010 9:03 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 9:58 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-23-2010 5:38 PM Den has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 83 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 79 of 414 (551549)
03-23-2010 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Den
03-23-2010 1:17 AM


Certainty and Deities
Hi Den,

Haha sorry, but I feel half the time Im just listening to Dawkins repeat himself.

Well, you did grossly misrepresent his views in your "Dawkins Made Me a Better Person" thread. It's only natural that people are going to take you to task on that and show you some of his real opinions.

For the record, whilst I agree with Dawkins on much, I don't regard him as some kind of all-knowing guru. I disagree with him on some issues. The suggestion that atheists call ourselves "Brights" for instance; Dawkins was cautiously positive about the idea. I regard it as patently stupid, arrogant, risible, self-defeating, sanctimonious tripe. Each to his own, eh?

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.

Yes, you've started a number of topics. That's only of value though if you actually participate.

I know from the weakness of my own debilitating ego that I must not commit myself to anything unless I am completely certain,

You can't have much to commit to then.

this is why I question your resolve on a matter which is completely unprovable at this point in human history.

If one allows supernatural explanations, then nothing is provable. Personally, I don't claim to be 100% certain of anything. All I have is a spectrum of certainty and uncertainty. Some ideas I'm more sure of than others. Since I have never seen any evidence of a god, I see no reason to believe in them. I can't claim to be 100% certain that no gods exist, but nor can I claim to be 100% certain that the Machine Elves from the Other Side don't exist.

Many theists on the other hand, are happy to claim utter certainty about their fantastical claims of deities, always without a shred of evidence. I think I'll stick to atheism for now if that's aright with you.

Mutate and Survive

Added by Edit; You know, the board software here allows us to target our replies to the person for whom they are intended. This creates a chain of linked messages which is much easier to follow. Just use the "Reply" button in the bottom right of the post you want to reply to, this button here;

This makes it clearer who you're talking to and (with some members, depending on their preferences) will send an email notification of your reply to the member you're talking to. ore posting tips here; Posting Tips Cheers.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:17 AM Den has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 80 of 414 (551550)
03-23-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Den
03-23-2010 1:29 AM


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.

Well, how much time have you spent "actively trying to pursue evidence of" pigs with wings?

None whatsoever, am I right?

And yet you would consider your belief that there are no pigs with wings as "objective", am I right? And you don't consider yourself "intellectually bound" as you consider me, even though I have wasted much of my life searching for God, and you have never wasted a single second of your life looking for pigs with wings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:29 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 414 (551556)
03-23-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
03-22-2010 8:28 PM


marc9000 writes:

They're not united by evolution?


Nope. Let me introduce you to RaŽlism, a group of people who believe aliens are responsible for the development of life on earth. They're also atheists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 03-22-2010 8:28 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 82 of 414 (551558)
03-23-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Den
03-23-2010 1:29 AM


Den writes:

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.


But that's not how the term is used. An atheists is a person who lacks a belief in god. That's it. Some are "more" atheist then others, and say there are no gods, or that gods are impossible. But that's it really, nothing in there about supernatural powers or beings, or even ID (Raelism coiuld be considered some form of ID).

You wont find an Athiest actively trying to pursue evidence of such beings or forces...

James Randi.

which is why I think it proves they are wrong in claiming that an Athiest remains objective.

Since it's not the case, I guess they are.

An agnostic remains objective, an Athiest has made their mind up, so they are intellectually bound on the subject.

Are you agnostic about The Dread Cthulhu? Thor? The great big Arkleseizure? Are you really?

Its that simple, there is nothing to argue, but some still dont understand the simplicity of this reasoning.

Myabe because it is wrong?

Edited by Huntard, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:29 AM Den has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 5:26 AM Huntard has responded

    
Den
Member (Idle past 2996 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 responded

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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 84 of 414 (551570)
03-23-2010 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Den
03-23-2010 5:26 AM


Den writes:

James Randi.?
Exactly what type of evidence is he looking for?


Depends on what the claim is. If the claim is "I can move objects with my mind!", I suspect he'll put the person in a room with objects the person says he can move, and then see if they can indeed move the object without touching it/blowing against it, or something or other. Then I'd suspect a study for the brainwave patterns would be conducted. But nobody has ever gotten past the first test, as far as I know.

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?

ID is not about a supreme being, or so we are told. I'd have to see the design proces in action, that would convince me. I am told however by IDists that that is impossible.

How can you find evidence when you dont know what the evidence you are looking for is supposed to be?

It all depends on the claim that is being made. If someone claims "This is designed!", I ask them for evidence of the design process.

Anyway I cover a few scenarios in the new topic, I would love to hear everyones views.

I'll go there once it gets promoted.

Kind regards,
Huntard


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 5:26 AM Den has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 5:56 AM Huntard has acknowledged this reply

    
Den
Member (Idle past 2996 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 acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 86 of 414 (551577)
03-23-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Den
03-23-2010 5:26 AM


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?

Sure. The nonexistence of all the intermediate forms in the fossil record. The nonexistence of the law of faunal succession. The nonexistence of the correspondence between cladistics as revealed by genetics and cladistics as revealed by morphology. The nonexistence of the confirmation of evolution by biogeography. The nonexistence of the facts in genetics which make evolution certain and inevitable. The nonexistence of all the experiments in which we can see evolution happening, for example the nonexistence of beneficial mutations. In short, the nonexistence of all the facts proving that evolution happens and has taken place.

Your turn. What would you have to see in nature such that you couldn't fantasize that God made it by magic? You see that nature is stupid, wasteful, and cruel, and yet you still attribute it to a God who is wise, prudent, and benevolent. Is there anything, anything at all, that you couldn't attribute to your imaginary friend?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 5:26 AM Den has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 9:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 87 of 414 (551587)
03-23-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Den
03-23-2010 1:29 AM


Den writes:
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.

People vary in how they use these terms.

I use "agnostic" for somebody who has decided that there is know way to know whether or not there is a God. I use "atheist" for what the name suggests: a-theist or without a god.

Some people distinguish between "hard atheism" (people who assert that there is no god) and "soft atheism" - people who live their lives without any concern for whether there is a god. In that terminology, Dawkins would count as a hard atheist, but the majority of atheists would be soft atheists.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Dawkins is typical of atheists. There are many atheists who criticize Dawkins as being unnecessarily confrontational.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:29 AM Den has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 03-23-2010 9:10 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17655
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 88 of 414 (551589)
03-23-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by nwr
03-23-2010 9:03 AM


nwr writes:

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Dawkins is typical of atheists. There are many atheists who criticize Dawkins as being unnecessarily confrontational.

And let us not forget antagonistically counterproductive.

Prophetically, before Dawkins succeeded to the chair for the public understanding of science at Oxford he once said that he would probably not be the best public face for rationality and science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by nwr, posted 03-23-2010 9:03 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
Den
Member (Idle past 2996 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 responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7557
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 90 of 414 (551594)
03-23-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Den
03-23-2010 1:29 AM


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.

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. Also, if there were ample evidence why do theists rely on faith as the basis of their beliefs?

In the end, you are blaming atheists for the lack of evidence for your god of choice. Sorry pal, but it isn't the fault of atheists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:29 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
28NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018