|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions for Atheists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: And the mere existence of atheists proves this to be true. Unless you're trying to say that atheists have no motive.
quote: God wants you to wash your socks? Is that what you're saying?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: The ability to read the texts of the Hindu religion. Besides, what makes you think I'm not Hindu?
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
I realize that this may be risking that which I am warning against:
Open MInd writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1281 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1281 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024