Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 31 of 382 (497160)
02-02-2009 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by DevilsAdvocate
02-01-2009 7:48 PM


DA writes:
Occam's Razor is an axiom which stipulates that when faced with several alternate explanations of a phenomena that the hypotheses that contain the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (things that exist) is most likely the closest one to reality.
It's a bit of a stretch to think that a principle that holds at our level of existence for John, Michael and Lora, should be applicable to the Biblical God. If God created occam's razor, would his ways be subject to this rule as well?
DA writes:
Thus the idea that an all powerful, all knowing supernatural entity would go out of his way to fake the evidence countering his own existence to one particular species among millions of species on a small insignificant planet around a hum drum star among billions of stars in a galaxy among billions of galaxies in the universe, fails Occam's Razor hands down and thus is logically, philosophically and scientifically unsound...
...unless he wanted to test our faith in him by letting us denounce the Genesis in the Bible through out scientific research.
Not that i believe any of this, but i can't currently think of a way to counter such an argument if it were presented. And i have to say it sounds a billion times more logical than claiming the dinosaur fossils were 4 thousand years old . But i am not going to argue over this and will let creos pick up from here.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-01-2009 7:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 5:21 AM Agobot has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 32 of 382 (497161)
02-02-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Agobot
02-02-2009 4:39 AM


Agobot writes:
Myself writes:
Occam's Razor is an axiom which stipulates that when faced with several alternate explanations of a phenomena that the hypotheses that contain the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (things that exist) is most likely the closest one to reality.
It's a bit of a stretch to think that a principle that holds at our level of existence for John, Michael and Lora, should be applicable to the Biblical God. If God created occam's razor, would his ways be subject to this rule as well?
Occam's razor is a principle by which human beings use to judge the validity of alternate hypothesis of the existence of things/entities in the world around them. If we can detect the existence of John, Michael or Lora using direct or indirect observation than we do not even need to use Occam's razor to determine the possibility of their existence. It is mainly used in determining the validity of the existence of things/entities that we cannot observe or detect directly or indirectly no matter what they are, supernatural or not. So in the case of God, Occam's razor applies MORE than in the case of a human being such as John, Michael or Lora not less.
unless he wanted to test our faith in him by denouncing the Genesis in the Bible through out scientific research
Sure and one can believe that there are magic dragons and purple dinasours that live in a land called honah lee across the ocean. Belief should be based on some sort of evidence and reality. Otherwise it is just wishful thinking, no matter how many people believe it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Agobot, posted 02-02-2009 4:39 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Agobot, posted 02-02-2009 7:14 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 33 of 382 (497164)
02-02-2009 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by DevilsAdvocate
02-02-2009 5:21 AM


DA writes:
Occam's razor is a principle by which human beings use to judge the validity of alternate hypothesis of the existence of things/entities in the world around them. If we can detect the existence of John, Michael or Lora using direct or indirect observation than we do not even need to use Occam's razor to determine the possibility of their existence. It is mainly used in determining the validity of the existence of things/entities that we cannot observe or detect directly or indirectly no matter what they are, supernatural or not. So in the case of God, Occam's razor applies MORE than in the case of a human being such as John, Michael or Lora not less.
Everybody knows what occam's razor is, Devil's Advocate. This isn't really a board for mentally retarded, so you don't need to explain that 2+2 equals 4.
But you are most definitely wrong that a God must follow the path of least resistance. This is most definitely not how religions portray God. God in scripture is omni-powerful DA, you should focus your attention on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 5:21 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 9:30 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 34 of 382 (497165)
02-02-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Agobot
02-01-2009 6:49 PM


You're addressing the wrong point. What's at issue isn't whether I can actually prove that creationists are "deeply and fatally wrong." Thinking scientifically, I cannot prove anything. I can only support my position with evidence that can never become "proof", a concept that doesn't exist within science..
The topic of this thread is why creationists insist on demonizing opponents by characterizing them as atheists when they are not.
So what's going on in the minds of creationists who do this?
Do they rationalize, "I have brought the enemy evolution low by falsely characterizing a person of God who was running for school board as an atheist, thereby causing him to lose the election."
Or do they think, "He accepts evolution, and evolution is against God, therefore he must be an atheist, even though he goes to church and teaches Bible class."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Agobot, posted 02-01-2009 6:49 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by olivortex, posted 02-02-2009 8:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 02-02-2009 8:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by Agobot, posted 02-02-2009 1:30 PM Percy has replied
 Message 304 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:47 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 35 of 382 (497168)
02-02-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
02-02-2009 8:31 AM


had to vote.
I think the second one sounds real.
"we all have to fight ourselves one day."
Edited by olivortex, : oops

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 02-02-2009 8:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 36 of 382 (497170)
02-02-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
02-02-2009 8:31 AM


So what's going on in the minds of creationists who do this?
Simple.
To a fundie/creo:
X (person running for office) does not believe in Genesis creation
Atheists don't believe in Genesis Creation
X is an atheist
Just mislogical logic.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 02-02-2009 8:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-02-2009 9:46 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 37 of 382 (497172)
02-02-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
02-02-2009 1:51 AM


Re: Theistic Evolutionists
Hi, PaulK
PaulK writes:
WHere would those who believe that God created (and/or sustains) the natural forces we observe so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, to produce intelligent life fit into your classification?
Oh, it wasn't meant to be exhaustive: the point was just to show Buzsaw why theistic evolutionists shouldn't be considered creationists.
But, what you're asking about was what I was calling the "Darwinian God Proponent."

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2009 1:51 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 382 (497175)
02-02-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by bluescat48
02-01-2009 10:47 PM


Re: An eye opener for Buz
bluescat writes:
One point is that many take Genesis as allegorical, rather than literal.
There is no conflict in this sense. Others believe that God is used evolution as a process.
1. The conflict would be that there would be no purpose for such an allegory; no lesson from it; only deception.
2. The NT writers cited Adam as the first man. Throughout scriptures the Genesis record is not treated as allegory. The book also is the genesis of the messianic nation, Israel.
3. If folks regard Genesis as a fable or allegory, how do they know the life and mission of Jesus, the christ of Christianity is not also fable. These folks are not making much sense of their theistic position. The same would apply to deists who acknowledge that there are god beings having supernatural powers in the universe.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by bluescat48, posted 02-01-2009 10:47 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by kuresu, posted 02-02-2009 9:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2009 11:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 39 of 382 (497180)
02-02-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
02-02-2009 9:03 AM


Re: An eye opener for Buz
The conflict would be that there would be no purpose for such an allegory; no lesson from it; only deception.
Well, I guess all of Aesop's Fables can be tossed down the drain. After all, what's the purpose of decidedly false stories?
I suppose there is nothing to learn from any fiction whatsoever.
Thank you buz, I can now go tell my teacher in Style and Variations in Speech and Writing in Swedish that reading "En Komikers Uppvaxt" is utterly pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2009 9:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 40 of 382 (497181)
02-02-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Agobot
02-02-2009 7:14 AM


Agobot writes:
Myself writes:
Occam's razor is a principle by which human beings use to judge the validity of alternate hypothesis of the existence of things/entities in the world around them. If we can detect the existence of John, Michael or Lora using direct or indirect observation than we do not even need to use Occam's razor to determine the possibility of their existence. It is mainly used in determining the validity of the existence of things/entities that we cannot observe or detect directly or indirectly no matter what they are, supernatural or not. So in the case of God, Occam's razor applies MORE than in the case of a human being such as John, Michael or Lora not less.
But you are most definitely wrong that a God must follow the path of least resistance. This is most definitely not how religions portray God. God in scripture is omni-powerful DA, you should focus your attention on that.
Um, I never said that the existence of God follows the path of least resistence. On the contrary I am saying that the existence of a supernatural entity unnecessarily complexifies the issue of the existence of the universe rather than simplifies it because now we have to ask "Where did God come from?" and other philosophical and moral baggage that comes with adding a supernatural intilligent agent to the "Where did the Universe come from?" argument. The belief in God just adds more layers to an already "confuscated" reality.
Thus I go along with what Occalm's razor stipulates: that the simplist rational explanations usually accurately portray reality and thus removes the supernatural, and God along with it, out of the equation. I may be wrong and later proven wrong but I have yet to see anything convincing me that the existence of the supernatural much less God is real.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Agobot, posted 02-02-2009 7:14 AM Agobot has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 41 of 382 (497182)
02-02-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by bluescat48
02-02-2009 8:52 AM


Simple.
To a fundie/creo:
X (person running for office) does not believe in Genesis creation
Atheists don't believe in Genesis Creation
X is an atheist
Just mislogical logic.
Actually it is more accurately like this:
X does not believe in the same INTERPRETATION of the Genesis creation that the YEC fundie/creo does
Atheists don't believe in Genesis Creation
X is therefore an atheist
Creationist arguments such as this are chalked full of logical fallacies i.e.:
a. The false dilema fallacy
b. The guilt by association fallacy
c. The hasty generalization fallacy
d. The strawman fallacy

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 02-02-2009 8:52 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 382 (497188)
02-02-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
02-02-2009 9:03 AM


Re: An eye opener for Buz
If folks regard Genesis as a fable or allegory, how do they know the life and mission of Jesus, the christ of Christianity is not also fable.
We don't know, we have faith.
We are the blessed who believe without seeing.
These folks are not making much sense of their theistic position.
It makes way more sense than Genesis being literal and inerrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2009 9:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Woodsy, posted 02-02-2009 12:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 43 of 382 (497193)
02-02-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2009 11:07 AM


Re: An eye opener for Buz
We don't know, we have faith.
We are the blessed who believe without seeing.
What an ingenious dodge religions have invented! Using this, anything can be asserted without any accountability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2009 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2009 12:55 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 382 (497198)
02-02-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Woodsy
02-02-2009 12:26 PM


Re: An eye opener for Buz
We don't know, we have faith.
We are the blessed who believe without seeing.
What an ingenious dodge religions have invented! Using this, anything can be asserted without any accountability.
Yes, it could.
I wonder if it was really invented by religions though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Woodsy, posted 02-02-2009 12:26 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 45 of 382 (497203)
02-02-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
02-02-2009 8:31 AM


Percy writes:
The topic of this thread is why creationists insist on demonizing opponents by characterizing them as atheists when they are not.
I think you'll have an answer to this question when you can explain why the nonsense spurred by atheists gets a different treatment to nonsense brought forth by creatinists. Why is a certain kind of nonsense somehow more acceptable than another?
Maybe it will explain why you are sometimes treated as if you were an atheist.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 02-02-2009 8:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Huntard, posted 02-02-2009 1:43 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 02-02-2009 1:44 PM Agobot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024