Summations Only

quote:

---

I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low

---

quote:

---

Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist

---

quote:

---

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

---

Those are not the words of someone who rules out the possibility of the supernatural.On the other hand, metaphysical supernaturalists often rule out the possibility that the universe can be explained without recourse to supernatural entities.Finally, the mere fact that someone lacks faith in one thing does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that they have faith in something else - as you imply. Nope. If they believe in natural explanations or entities without any evidence would they have 'faith' in the natural. Where 'faith' means 'a belief in spite of or in lieu of supporting evidence'. They have faith in a different sense of the word: trust. In direct contrast to religious faith, the faith of the naturalist grows stronger the more evidence supporting the position can be found.

And what do you think this excerpt from wikipedia shows that countermands the man's words? Even if that was the case, what has this to do with my refutation of your claim?

At what point did I advance the argument that Dawkins is not an atheist? I didn't did I? I argued that Dawkins does not absolutely rule out the possibility of the supernatural by showing examples of him explicitly not absolutely ruling out the possibility of the supernatural. This stands in contrast with your position that Are you being deliberately disingenuous?

---

This seems quite pertinent right now:

quote:

---

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. -- Bertrand Russell

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You registered: 30-December-2003

You failed to describe why this is a problem of some kind. Furthermore, there are other non-biblically based moral systems than utilitrarianism. For instance, these:

State consequentialism
Ethical egoism
Ethical altruism
Rule consequentialism
Motive consequentialism
Negative consequentialism
Teleological ethics

We've traveled above the sky and discovered no firmament, no heaven and comparatively little water. Is Christianity therefore worthless?I mean, I think it's pretty worthless - I think all religion is worthless - but I thought that this was the entire reason that faith is deployed. Most of the Christians I've spoken about it with have indicated that they have faith that the stories, whether true or false, point to difficult to grasp spiritual truths.This kind of religion isn't rendered worthless upon the destruction of an inerrant Bible. It's rendered worthless on other grounds. I actually agree. If you establish that a collection of books contains provable errors such as the Bible has, then one should not rely on that collection of books for facts that are not verifiable by other means - since it stands a reasonable chance of being as wrong as everything else.If the Bible is error prone, it demonstrates that it is a human document. And if ancient humans made mistakes about the cosmos, life, and geology, why would anyone believe they would get right such things as the meaning of life, or the other things you regard as 'the most important things in life'.Really: the liberal Christians have to do something of a special pleading. Sure, they say, the Bible makes errors in History, Linguistics, Biology, Geology, Astronomy and Cosmology - but the one thing it always gets right is matters of spirit.

---

You've managed to generate some interesting discussions in a thread that was started by you to express your worries that you are despised.If you are despised, some people are at least willing to spend a little time of their lives dedicated to discussing your opinions. That's got to be worth something. It is not that your views are rubbing people the wrong way, per se (I guess it's possible that some people have been rubbed wrongly). It is that people disagree with your views, and this being a website about debate, they will use whatever tools the are comfortable with in the debater's handbook to criticize those views. This often feels like you yourself are being attacked. Believe me, I've butted heads with many of those that have been around here long enough, I understand the instinct to read opposing and critical arguments as being attacks on the person.Personally, I enjoy the adrenaline of reading a scathing criticism of my views. That said, it's an acquired taste, not for the light-hearted. It's not your IQ that counts around here. It is your capacity to construct polite but forceful arguments, retorts, and rebuttals. There is a side market in witty remarks. This is probably easier for those of higher IQs but there is no reason that a reasonably intelligent person can't construct a reasonably polite and well written argument.Let's examine Newton. We can presume he had a high IQ. If he did not, we could certainly write IQ off completely as a remotely valid measure of intelligence. He had some weird views. Some of those views turned out right, others did not. I'm reasonably confident that the manner in which Newton argued regarding Alchemy or Theology, was still in the intelligent style as his discussions on politics or minting. You are welcome.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That would be an effective retort had I claimed that I had. I said 'we' and I obviously wasn't referring to you and me. I was referring to we humans. Yes, indeed, but does that make Christianity worthless? Unless, like many Christians, you special plead that things like 'ultimate truth' or 'spiritual values' are trustworthy even as the natural facts are false. Unless it is true, in some respects; In the important ways.