|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So biologists new this before the development of the microscope? I did not in any way say or imply this.
You are obviously completely wrong. It is simple fact that nothing exists to a biologist until they can "see" something. It is a simple fact that every biologist would infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it.
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. Please, before you respond to me in future, have a better think about my argument, and ensure that you really are responding to me and not to stuff you've made up in your head.
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! Which is why I never in any way said nor implied that that was the case. Note, for example, how my post did not contain the words "church", "priest", "faith" or any of their synonyms. Please try to respond to my posts and not the imaginary people in your head.
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. You appear to be pretending that I got my opinions on theology from Dawkins. Why? This fantasy might bring you some measure of emotional comfort, but it also makes you look like someone who indulges in self-serving fantasies. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What does this rebuttle of yours mean then? It means that it is possible for biologists to infer the fact of your conception without having witnessed it. It means that because that is what it says. It does not mean anything about microscopes, because it does not in any way refer to microscopes. Is that simple enough for you to understand? Only I am really not sure that it is possible to make it any simpler.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But no biologist would ever be able to make such an inference unless this process was originally seen and confirmed in a microscope! And I never said otherwise.
hence my comment remains valid. Your comment is irrelevant to my post.
What im the hell is wrong with your brain? I keep using it for this thing we call "thinking". Apparently you just use yours to pad out your skull.
now go away this is getting silly. The silliness will not be reduced by my going away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I make my arguements in vain to those who have already made their choice, your choice is one of ego. I nor anyone else can show you the truth, the search for the truth is a choice you must make to undertake yourself, it begins when you let go of your ego and accept that you know nothing, this is where I began. I too am becoming persuaded that you know nothing. But I don't believe that you've let go of your ego.
You are mistaken regarding the scientific community, Dawkins is seen by many scientists as a joke, his argement has been destroyed by countless scientists ... Many and countless eh? I guess that's why you can't name any.
All you Athiests same as Dawkins paint a false image of God, and then choose to disbelieve in your own delusion, for the God I believe in is not the same God you choose to disbelieve in. You have not as yet described your deity to us. However, I'm sure if you do it will be as worthy of mockery as all your other delusions.
You use atrocities committed in the name of Religion to revolt against God ... This is, of course, not true. My disgust at religious lunatics who fly planes into buildings is not a revolt against Allah; my disgust at religious lunatics who practice suttee is not a revolt against Shiva; and my disgust at religious lunatics who spew out filthy nonsense on internet forums is not a revolt against whatever dreary little deity you've made in your image. You must remember, he only exists in your imagination, not mine.
I didnt know I believed in God until I met you Athiests here ... Interesting. So, according to you, when you joined this forum screaming and frothing with hateful and hysterical delusions about atheists, you suspected that you might be one? If I didn't know that you were lying, I'd think that you were insane. Of course, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. --- P.S: It's spelled "atheists". The next time you can't control the urge to spit out rancid poisonous lies at people who've done you no harm, you could look slightly less ludicrous if you were to bear this in mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think that depends on the nature of the non-belief. I have argued elsewhere that if one's only reservation about it is the difficulty of proving a negative, then that is disbelief, and one is then an atheist and not an agnostic. But there are other forms of non-belief. If I toss a coin, catch it, and then put it in my pocket without looking at it, then I have no belief that it came down tails, but that doesn't mean I think it didn't, and I am perfectly agnostic with respect to that proposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But I'm saying that it's actually the same with the god problem. We don't know and can't know whether god exists or not. We can only believe that he/it does or doesn't. Belief is positive, there isn't a middle position - like pregnancy. 'I'm not sure whether I believe in god or not' doesn't make sense, if you're not sure, then you don't believe. But "I'm not sure whether there is a god or not" does make sense, just like "I'm not sure whether it was tails or heads".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If someone says that, we know that what they actually mean is that they don't know which it is. And if someone says "I don't know whether there's a god or not", we know that what they actually mean is that they don't know whether there's a god or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yup, but we don't know whether they believe in a god or not either. If they admit that they don't know whether there's a god or not, then presumably they don't believe there is one and they don't believe there isn't. Just as someone who admits he doesn't know how the coin came down doesn't believe that it was heads and doesn't believe that it was tails.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't know whether there is or not but I see no evidence for one. That's as near to knowing something as it's possible to get. Unless you want "know" to mean "have knowledge so absolute that it could never be controverted by any conceivable data", then seeing no evidence of a thing that's meant to be everywhere is pretty good grounds for saying you know it doesn't exist. That does make you an atheist. But what about someone who thought there was evidence for and evidence against? --- someone who felt the argument from design was balanced by the argument from evil? What then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What do you call a belief system that claims that no gods exist? ... Buddhism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If a belief system just included the claim that no gods exist, then what would you call it? To start with, I'd call it not a belief system. That on its own doesn't make a system of thought any more than a disbelief in leprechauns does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is there no limit to your pedantry? I have infinite reserves of accuracy.
Consider that the system implies believing itself exists ... ... ?
Can you bring yourself to call it that then? Callit what then?
Why must you so strongly cling to dodging it? Huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't go around telling people that leprechauns don't exist. Nonetheless, I would never have explicitly come to the conclusion that they don't unless someone else had first invented the concept of leprechauns.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024