Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions for Atheists
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 110 (481433)
09-10-2008 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
09-10-2008 6:39 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
Percy writes:
While you might not like what Dawkins has to say (and when he ventures outside the strict confines of science I don't, either), consider that he's a very effective force in mobilizing Christians in the battle against what they see as Godless science. He might actually be doing more to help your cause than hurt it.
Percy, sometimes I get the impression that you're looking forward to bequeathing this site to your great grandchildren, so that they can carry on discussions about whether or not there was a world wide flood around 4000 years ago into the 22nd century.
I know the science education issue is dear to you, but the thing standing in your way is superstition, and it has to be tackled head on. You may cringe at Dawkins' anti-theism partly because you're a theist, but mainly I think because you see it as counter productive. But Christians have been attacking science heavily, particularly in the U.S., long before Dawkins came on the scene, as you know, and they will continue to do so until they're so reduced in numbers as to be a spent force.
If religion is attacked head on, and made to defend itself against accusations like psychological child abuse (indoctrination), then it will have less time and energy to expend on trying to expand its operations into the science class.
Look at it this way. The likes of Dawkins want to shift the battle ground from the science class to the Sunday school, so the question won't be should "controversial" biological theories be taught in science class, but should children be being taught that scriptures that encourage genocide and torture are "holy" and "true" in schools, Sunday schools, or anywhere.
Start a loud debate about whether or not stoning to death religions are a good idea, and the creationists might be forced to shelve their plans about invading the science class because they'll be too busy defending indefensible scriptures.
A bit off topic, but, coming on topic, it's a bloody silly O.P. anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 09-10-2008 6:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 09-11-2008 8:45 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 62 of 110 (481455)
09-11-2008 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by mike the wiz
09-10-2008 5:45 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
mike the wiz writes:
If we have naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena, we don't need to insert God as a flimsy explanation. What on Earth is fallacious about that?
1. The explanation is not a logical proof over a supernatural alternative.
Are you saying that, given naturalistic explanations for Hurricane Katrina and its devastation of New Orleans, these explanations are not "a logical proof over a supernatural alternative", such as: "God sent Katrina to punish the sinful people of New Orleans"?
What other "logical" reasons would there be for maintaining "a supernatural alternative" explanation when we can determine a naturalistic one that is detailed, motivated by repeated observations, and useful for making better-than-chance predictions about future conditions and events?
And regarding a later post:
mike the wiz writes:
... as long as we all know that atheism doesn't have any scientific or logically sound backing.
You aren't trying to assert that religion (theism) does have some sort of scientific or logically sound backing, are you?
Anyway, I think your assertion is very weak. An atheist (such as myself) can state a hypothesis like "There is no supernatural power that listens and attends to the prayers of individual people," and then check whether it's false by doing experiments, in which people are observed to pray for particular things ("within reason", of course!), and outcomes are tabulated. If the outcomes that were prayed for are actually found to occur significantly more often than would be expected by "mere chance", then the atheist's hypothesis would be falsified.
I think that sort of experiment has been tried, in a variety of ways, and the atheist's hypothesis has not been falsified. There's something about this that strikes me as being somewhat scientific and logically sound.
Hell, if Dawkins doesn't argue it, big deal - it's still a common argument therefore I can refute it.
{--sniff--} I think I smell a lot of straw here... hmm, and I see it being arranged into a hominid form...
If Dawkins doesn't argue it, yeah, "big deal" -- but I think you may also wrong about calling it a "common argument". Sure, you can still refute it, but what's the point of that?
Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed grammar
Edited by Otto Tellick, : yet more grammar repairs (I shouldn't be posting at this hour...)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2008 5:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 63 of 110 (481462)
09-11-2008 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
09-10-2008 9:56 AM


mike the wiz writes:
quote:
The one about not requiring God is illogical because he pre-supposes there is no motive for anything, at all, despite the substance of anything - at all.
And the mere existence of atheists proves this to be true.
Unless you're trying to say that atheists have no motive.
quote:
My washing machine doesn't require me to wash my socks, but there is a motive as to why the socks are being washed.
God wants you to wash your socks? Is that what you're saying?
quote:
But what is clear is that they don't own thought
Nobody said they did. But you have the reasoning backwards. Atheists have all the traits of theists but without the god and faith parts.
Therefore, where do we find justification for the claim that god is required for whatever trait you deign to name?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2008 9:56 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 64 of 110 (481464)
09-11-2008 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Open MInd
09-10-2008 2:04 PM


Open MInd responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And when was it decided that the Jewish god was the one that truly existed?
You are argueing from ignorance. First of all how do you know that it was decided.
You're the one who brought it up. Therefore, it is your burden of proof. When asked about what you meant by "god," you were the one who said that it was the Jewish god.
So when was it decided that it was the Jewish god that was the one that truly existed?
quote:
How do you know what the Hindu's have to say.
The ability to read the texts of the Hindu religion. Besides, what makes you think I'm not Hindu?
quote:
How can anything decide that any god is the true one.
You tell me. You were the one who brought it up. You are the one who needs to explain yourself. Your own words from Message 33:
Open MInd writes:
You asked me which god I am referring to, and my answer to you is: The G-d that is written in the Torah.
Since when did we agree that god meant the Jewish one? Why should we accept your definition?
quote:
Do you understand what I am trying to tell you.
I understand perfectly:
You don't want to answer the question. You made assumptions about the nature of god and when it was pointed out to you that your assumptions are not shared by all, you're doing everything you can to avoid the issue.
quote:
If you want to have a debate, why not give your opinion in a nice thought out rebutal?
Because you're playing a game of "gotcha" and I don't play those games. Thus, I'm trying to get you to skip to the end where you reveal your "gotcha!" so that it can be handled directly. If your "gotcha" is dependent upon the setup that you're making, then it is sufficient to demolish your "gotcha" by pointing out that your setup is fallacious.
So, help us out: Stop playing games and get to the point.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Open MInd, posted 09-10-2008 2:04 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Open MInd, posted 09-11-2008 2:17 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 110 (481466)
09-11-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Open MInd
09-10-2008 5:46 PM


I realize that this may be risking that which I am warning against:
Open MInd writes:
quote:
I dont have time for your biased warnings.
You do realize that you are talking to one of the administrators of the board, yes? If you truly wish to remain here and discuss your topic, it would behoove you not to piss the admins off or you will find your tenure here cut short. Demonstrating that you will not listen to warnings by the administrators is one way to piss them off.
Of course, if you're just trolling, you may not care....

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Open MInd, posted 09-10-2008 5:46 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 66 of 110 (481467)
09-11-2008 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
09-10-2008 5:53 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
quote:
we all know that atheism doesn't have any scientific or logically sound backing.
Incorrect. Soft atheism, otherwise known as agnosticism is the most logical position. An understanding of the flaws of Pascal's wager logically deduces that an uncompromising belief in a religion is the least logical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2008 5:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 09-11-2008 5:31 PM obvious Child has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 67 of 110 (481487)
09-11-2008 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by bluegenes
09-10-2008 9:28 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
The only reason to reject Dawkins as a messenger is his ability to impassion the other side. I much prefer Sam Harris, who carries the same message but in a way that doesn't make our side appear like dangerous anti-religious fanatics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2008 9:28 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 12:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 68 of 110 (481514)
09-11-2008 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
09-11-2008 8:45 AM


real atheists!
I much prefer Sam Harris, who carries the same message but in a way that doesn't make our side appear like dangerous anti-religious fanatics.
I'm fairly sure several threads have been dedicated to it, but I have yet to see how Dawkins manages to give the appearance that atheists are dangerous anti-religious fanatics - especially in contrast with the likes of Harris and Hitchens.
Harris is far more vocal against Islam than Dawkins, perhaps because Dawkins is concentrating his criticism against moderate and extreme homegrown Christian-related issues he is regarded as more of a dangerous anti-religious fanatic?
quote:
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas. --Sam Harris
This is far more violent and anti-religious rhetoric than anything I've seen Dawkins come out with. In its full context, Harris is making a good point - but it does strike me as odd that he is always regarded as the squeaky clean peaceful hippy type, and Dawkins is regarded the militant fanatic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 09-11-2008 8:45 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 09-11-2008 2:36 PM Modulous has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 69 of 110 (481518)
09-11-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by mike the wiz
09-10-2008 10:53 AM


Re: Fictional atheists!
Yes, he does rather have abrupt sayings.. however, let's see you take what he actually says in context. I challenge you to find anything he said/wrote, and put it in context , saying that it PROVES there is no God.
You can say 'I saw him on TV', but unless you say what exactly he said, in context.. then I would have to suspect your bias didn't have you properly listen to what he said.
Can you give the exact quote, in context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2008 10:53 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 70 of 110 (481530)
09-11-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain
09-11-2008 4:06 AM


Have Fun
This post states my point for the last time. I was trying to inform you about how your method of posting does not act in a logical manner. Your latest response just illustrates your desire to create arguments without fully reading the post to which you are responding to. I understand that you know very well what you are doing, and you do not wish to have a fair and logical debate. You take my sarcasm in my previous post, and pretend that you do not know what I am trying to say by arguing against the sarcastic points. Then you admit what you are actually doing in your own words:
Rrhain writes:
Because you're playing a of "gotcha" and I don't play those . Thus, I'm trying to get you to skip to the end where you reveal your "gotcha!" so that it can be handled directly. If your "gotcha" is dependent upon the setup that you're making, then it is sufficient to demolish your "gotcha" by pointing out that your setup is fallacious.
Therefore, I do not wish to respond to you any further. I hope you continue to have fun posting.
Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 09-11-2008 4:06 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by kuresu, posted 09-11-2008 2:38 PM Open MInd has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 110 (481534)
09-11-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Modulous
09-11-2008 12:21 PM


Re: real atheists!
This is far more violent and anti-religious rhetoric than anything I've seen Dawkins come out with. In its full context, Harris is making a good point - but it does strike me as odd that he is always regarded as the squeaky clean peaceful hippy type, and Dawkins is regarded the militant fanatic.
I think it is as much to do with general demenour and method of expression as it is what they actually say.
Harris comes across as kinda jovial, brash and spontaneous whereas Dawkins can come across as superior, arrogant, cold, considered and quite ruthless in his turn of phrase.
They both sort of exemplify the stereotypes of their respective nationalities. Additionally I don't think there is much that American conservatives (who make up a large portion of the religious right) hate more than perceived intellectual elitism.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 12:21 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2008 2:41 AM Straggler has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 72 of 110 (481535)
09-11-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Open MInd
09-11-2008 2:17 PM


Re: Have Fun
Is open mind having a hard time? Aw, poor thing. Are we not responding how you wanted us to? Are we not falling for your game? Are you frustrated by your failure? Mad at being called a child? Well, grow the f**k up. Since you amply showed your ignorance over fallacious arguments, and you played that childish quote game, you probably don't even deserve to be speaking with adults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Open MInd, posted 09-11-2008 2:17 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Open MInd, posted 09-11-2008 6:58 PM kuresu has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 73 of 110 (481567)
09-11-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by obvious Child
09-11-2008 4:19 AM


Re: Fictional atheists!
Soft atheism, otherwise known as agnosticism is the most logical position.
Which god are you agnostic about? I don't presume you are agnostic about Zues or Apollo, are you?
Is it just the Abrahamic God you are agnostic about, or is it just the concept of God that you would consider being agnostic about?
Sometimes you'll talk to an agnostic that is agnostic about Allah or Jesus but is completely atheistic about Zues, or Apollo, or any other God(s). That to me seems a bit hypocritical.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 4:19 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by obvious Child, posted 09-12-2008 8:24 PM onifre has replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 74 of 110 (481586)
09-11-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by kuresu
09-11-2008 2:38 PM


Re: Have Fun
If you are an atheist than you must also believe in materialism. This means that you are nothing more than a large amount of molecules interacting in complicated ways. This also means that your opinions are a direct result of your genes and your surroundings. Therefore, it is possible for me to put the chemical that you call yourself into a different environment in order to change your opinions. Theoretically speaking, with chemicals and properly chosen language, anyone can manipulate your brain into thinking whatever they want. Do you believe this? If not, explain where I went wrong. If you do believe this, why do you consider your opinion to be worth much to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by kuresu, posted 09-11-2008 2:38 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2008 2:07 AM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 77 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-12-2008 3:13 AM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 09-12-2008 10:28 AM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 09-12-2008 11:53 AM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 09-12-2008 2:29 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 110 (481663)
09-12-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Open MInd
09-11-2008 6:58 PM


Re: Have Fun
Open Mind writes:
If you are an atheist than you must also believe in materialism.
Wrong. Why don't you find out about what you're talking about? Atheists are defined only by their lack of belief in gods.
Some Buddhists and some Animists are atheists, for example.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Open MInd, posted 09-11-2008 6:58 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024