Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 91 of 375 (498798)
02-14-2009 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by dronestar
02-12-2009 3:20 PM


Re: To summarize then
Hi, Dronester.
dronester writes:
We are here for a reason?
About three thousand children die everyday from starvation EVERY DAY. It is a horrible way over a long period of time to die? What's the "higher purpose" for that?
About three thousand children die of malaria EVERY DAY. Consider all the other terrible diseases that kill children every day. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
Thousands of women are raped and murdered everyday. What's the "higher purpose" for that?
I have never been able to understand this line of argument. Why is it that "higher purpose" is automatically equated with "people not experiencing bad things"?
Would you have all "bad" things removed from existence?
If so, how would you determine what is "bad"?
Are spiders "bad"?
Are runny noses "bad"?
Are forest fires "bad"?
Are deer droppings "bad"?
Are people who disagree with you "bad"?
What is it that makes something "bad," who gets to decide which things are "bad," and why should such things be avoided?
Would you argue that a world with only "goodness" and "happiness" all the time would be able to serve some sort of "higher purpose"?
If so, what purpose do you feel could be served in such a place?
I think such a place would be boring and meaningless: why would a "higher power" want to create something boring and meaningless?
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dronestar, posted 02-12-2009 3:20 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 1:11 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 122 by dronestar, posted 02-17-2009 7:20 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 92 of 375 (498799)
02-14-2009 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
02-11-2009 8:29 AM


Re: Strawman Attempt
Buzsaw
Your silly strawman totally misses the point. I've never seen a heat wave with my naked eye. I've never seen God with my naked eye. I've observed the effects of both. Get it?
In accordance with your posts here as a supporter of the persecution of those who believe in other religions, particularly Islam, and indeed even bragging about forcing your religion on your own children by any means necessary at dreamcatcher, your observations mean nothing other than a stupid and arrogant abuse to most anyone, be they religious or not.
{ABE} Case in point. When RobinRohan died, you were the only person who smugly condemned him to hell while even Faith hoped he had somehow made a path to 'paradise.' So if I were you I would refrain from condemning anyone whose relationship with God does not fit in with your authoritarianism. {/ABE}
By your posts you apparently hold virtually everything Jesus ever said, particularly in The Sermon on the Mount in utter contempt.
Get it?
Edited by anglagard, : bad brackets
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2009 8:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 02-14-2009 4:33 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 02-14-2009 5:26 PM anglagard has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 93 of 375 (498849)
02-14-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
02-13-2009 7:05 PM


Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
RAZD writes:
Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
You couldn't be more wrong. In relation to the questions of the formation/creation of the universe, it is you, as a creationist deist, who has an active belief that limits you to being in a universe created by deities. Even a strong atheist who claims deities to be impossible is only limiting himself by excluding deities from the effectively infinite number of possibilities we could speculate on in such an unknown area. Other non-theists, including weak atheists, are open to all possibilities.
So, deism is an invisible point in the blue circle of your diagram. It is thinking with the confirmation bias of one who comes from a theistic culture to suppose otherwise. The probability of any proposition in relation to the ultimate origins of the universe being correct is always extremely remote, so there's no point in believing anything in that area.
And I am still amazed at the virtual absence of acknowledged agnostics. Anyone want to propose a reason for this?
Enjoy.
It does seem surprising. However, it maybe that an increasing number of agnostics in an environment like EvC are realising that they are atheists. It doesn't take a genius to realise that, if you take the agnostic point that we cannot know if there are gods or not, then we also cannot rationally believe in any gods, belief in evidenceless propositions being active and requiring Faith. Agnostics lack faith in gods, just as I do, and they're included in the broad definition of atheism.
I'm sure that many of us on this thread can and probably have described ourselves as either or both at some time. We are the Faithless and you are the Faith-full. Religious faith automatically leads to confirmation bias in discussions like these, and when theists try to justify their faith, reason gets up and leaves the room pretty quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 7:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 10:25 AM bluegenes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 375 (498852)
02-14-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by bluegenes
02-14-2009 9:28 AM


Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
You couldn't be more wrong. In relation to the questions of the formation/creation of the universe, it is you, as a creationist deist, who has an active belief that limits you to being in a universe created by deities. Even a strong atheist who claims deities to be impossible is only limiting himself by excluding deities from the effectively infinite number of possibilities we could speculate on in such an unknown area. Other non-theists, including weak atheists, are open to all possibilities.
Not really. The deist belief in god/s explains why, not how. Science only explains how, ergo no conflict at all.
You are trying to criticize philosophy and faith with science, and it just doesn't have the tools to answer the questions of philosophy and faith.
Philosophy still uses logic, however assumptions are required that are inherently untestable (or it would be science), and faith takes a step away from logic. Outside of faith lies concepts that no one has even begun to conceive, and the delusions of the insane?
Agnostics lack faith in gods, just as I do, and they're included in the broad definition of atheism.
I wonder if it really would have more to do with a fear of appearing undecided - there is, imho, a lot of cultural bias against being undecided, no matter what the topic is.
And we still have Message 4:
quote:
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Summarized in Message 89
quote:
And again in Message 84
quote:
Nor have I seen any evidence in 83 some odd posts so far on this thread to cause me to think otherwise.

Deists see {B} as much larger than {A} and full of possibilities, while atheists seem to see {B} as narrowly different from {A} and with any significant difference being "deeply and highly improbable" - to use your phrase.
You complain about my not understanding what you are saying about what you believe, yet all the evidence from all these posts keeps pointing back to this basic distinction still being valid.
To refute this position, one would need to demonstrate actual flexibility in considering possible pieces of evidence than has been shown. Instead every suggestion of possibility has resulted in ad lapidem fallacy, arguments from incredulity, and straw man falsehoods all the while claiming it is a more rational argument. Strangely, I don't find that behavior supportive of your position on atheism.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 02-14-2009 9:28 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by bluegenes, posted 02-14-2009 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 95 of 375 (498854)
02-14-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
02-14-2009 10:25 AM


Re: To summarize then ... or not ... or then again ...
RAZD writes:
Not really. The deist belief in god/s explains why, not how. Science only explains how, ergo no conflict at all.
Really? So you mean that the deities don't do a "how"? They don't create the universe. They play no physical role that could have been played by things other than deities? And, even more interesting, a faith in unknowable gods about whom you know nothing can tell you the "whys' of the universe? Wow!
But let's concentrate on the "why". If you don't know why the universe "is", or whether there is a "why", why believe anything on the subject other than that? Isn't honesty preferable to this strange thing called "Faith"?
RAZD writes:
You are trying to criticize philosophy and faith with science, and it just doesn't have the tools to answer the questions of philosophy and faith.
I'm not aware that I'm using scientific arguments against your deities. It's difficult when neither of us seem to actually know what they are. Have you picked up the idea that faith can answer questions? Or rather, that it could answer them truthfully? Thinking of most of your fellow faithful here on EvC, for example, wouldn't you say that the word seems to have a stronger association with delusion than truth? Without the existence of this thing called faith, you'd never have a single argument about the age of the earth, would you?
Philosophy still uses logic, however assumptions are required that are inherently untestable (or it would be science), and faith takes a step away from logic. Outside of faith lies concepts that no one has even begun to conceive, and the delusions of the insane?
Outside? I'd suggest that there's an overlap.
To refute this position, one would need to demonstrate actual flexibility in considering possible pieces of evidence than has been shown. Instead every suggestion of possibility has resulted in ad lapidem fallacy, arguments from incredulity, and straw man falsehoods all the while claiming it is a more rational argument. Strangely, I don't find that behavior supportive of your position on atheism.
I think what your doing is trying to manage to have a faith in deism, while implying that you're flexible. In my flexible opinion, you don't actually know (and cannot know) anything about the "whys" of the universe. Therefore, deciding to have a faith that you do (if that's the case) is a symptom of rigidity, not flexibility. I haven't actually seen any convincing positive "possible pieces of evidence" for deities presented. You've speculated about people feeling that they've had spiritual experiences possibly meaning something, then you accuse people of fallacies when they reject such speculations. Let's deal with that one, flexibly.
Here on EvC we have plenty of members who claim spiritual experiences which have led them to be "born again" and filled with the holy spirit, etc. The end result is often that this holy spirit enables them to know more about cosmology than the cosmologists, more about biology than the biologists, and more about geology than the geologists, etc. You spend a lot of time and effort trying to break through these supposedly inspired "spiritual" delusions, but to little effect. So, although that in no way proves that there are no such thing as true spiritual experiences, it does offer very strong evidence that the world is full of people who have false ones.
Hence, your only real effort to present what you call "possible evidence" cannot be said to be being met with inflexibility, rather, as we can both see that same evidence on EvC, your suggestion that the confirmation bias in relation to "spiritual experiences" is on the side of the atheists seems to rather backfire.
Anyway, I'm sure we'll never agree on all this. In relation to the topic, we could claim that we're inadvertently doing a good job of refuting Moose's suggestion that deists = atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 10:25 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 1:17 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5270 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 96 of 375 (498855)
02-14-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Blue Jay
02-14-2009 1:56 AM


Re: To summarize then
I have never been able to understand this line of argument. Why is it that "higher purpose" is automatically equated with "people not experiencing bad things"?
Would you have all "bad" things removed from existence?
If so, how would you determine what is "bad"?
Are spiders "bad"?
Are runny noses "bad"?
Are forest fires "bad"?
Are deer droppings "bad"?
Are people who disagree with you "bad"?
What is it that makes something "bad," who gets to decide which things are "bad," and why should such things be avoided?
Would you argue that a world with only "goodness" and "happiness" all the time would be able to serve some sort of "higher purpose"?
If so, what purpose do you feel could be served in such a place?
I think such a place would be boring and meaningless: why would a "higher power" want to create something boring and meaningless?
Assuming you're backing the Judeo-Christian view of God and his infinite goodness, your answer seems a little bit silly. Yahweh and Christianity both fail by their own definition of "good". Anyone who has any experience with either can see this.
As for what constitutes "good" and "bad", I would say that, taking an atheistic / naturalist point of view, anything that is beneficial to your survival and ensures the passing on of your genes is "good", and anything that hinders these things is "bad".
No deity needed.
In fact, religion only serves to muddy the discussion of right and wrong, seeing as how it's utterly subjective, and also seeing as how the Hebrew war god Yahweh constantly and without fail contradicts his own rules concerning morality.
Edited by RDK, : No reason given.
Edited by RDK, : No reason given.
Edited by RDK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:56 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 1:25 PM RDK has replied
 Message 105 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 4:38 PM RDK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 375 (498856)
02-14-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by bluegenes
02-14-2009 12:27 PM


Final?
... your suggestion that the confirmation bias in relation to "spiritual experiences" is on the side of the atheists seems to rather backfire.
I've never claimed to be immune from confirmation bias nor cognitive dissonance, just that I attempt to have an open mind and consider the possibilities to the best of my ability, however limited (see signature).
Anyway, I'm sure we'll never agree on all this. In relation to the topic, we could claim that we're inadvertently doing a good job of refuting Moose's suggestion that deists = atheists.
I don't think there is any doubt that there is a difference, exactly where the line is remains indeterminate at this point. It could be a wide band of agnosticism, or apatheism (don't know and don't care).
Certainly both can come close to that undefined line, but neither crosses it.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by bluegenes, posted 02-14-2009 12:27 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 98 of 375 (498857)
02-14-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RDK
02-14-2009 1:11 PM


Re: To summarize then
Welcome to the fray RDK.
No deity needed.
The topic of this thread is not about the invalidity of religions per se, but about the difference between atheism and deism.
I'll assume your an atheist: how do you define atheism?
Enjoy.
It appears that you've picked up some of the tricks on this board (lurking?), however here are some tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 1:11 PM RDK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 1:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5270 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 99 of 375 (498861)
02-14-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
02-14-2009 1:25 PM


Re: To summarize then
Welcome to the fray RDK.
Thank you.
The topic of this thread is not about the invalidity of religions per se, but about the difference between atheism and deism.
True enough. But the point I am trying to make was that for an atheist, morality doesn't require a deity. I'm not sure how it works for deists; I'm not a deist, and I can't speak for everyone. Seeing as how deists tend to be nothing more than atheists in practice but weak theists in philosophy, morals can get pretty subjective, especially when you don't have a magical 2,000-year old book telling you what's okay and what's not.
I'll assume your an atheist: how do you define atheism?
Thanks for asking!
The dictionary describes atheism as:
-noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580-90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism
...key word here being "disbelief". The prime indicator of an agnostic would merely be "lack of belief".
Atheism can come in two levels. Strong atheism can be interpreted as a distinct disbelief that there is indeed no god, and weak atheism can range from merely a weak version of strong atheism to a harder form of agnosticism. It depends on personal preference, really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 1:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 2:03 PM RDK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 375 (498862)
02-14-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by RDK
02-14-2009 1:54 PM


Back to Basics
Seeing as how deists tend to be nothing more than atheists in practice but weak theists in philosophy,...
Gee, thanks.
I'm not sure how it works for deists;
Morality is naturally derived, and it depends on your culture and species (morality is different for a predator than a herbivore).
...key word here being "disbelief". The prime indicator of an agnostic would merely be "lack of belief".
So you would agree with Message 4?
quote:
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Atheism can come in two levels. Strong atheism can be interpreted as a distinct disbelief that there is indeed no god, and weak atheism can range from merely a weak version of strong atheism to a harder form of agnosticism. It depends on personal preference, really.
With the defining element being disbelief, just as there can be strong theism and weak deism with the defining element being belief?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 1:54 PM RDK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 2:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5270 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 101 of 375 (498864)
02-14-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
02-14-2009 2:03 PM


Re: Back to Basics
Morality is naturally derived, and it depends on your culture and species (morality is different for a predator than a herbivore).
...so you're saying that, as a deist, you believe some form of deity set the laws of the universe into motion without weaving any inherent, objective moral system into it? That morals are subjective?
So you would agree with Message 4?
quote:
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
The example you used (A = B, .:. all B = A) to say strong atheism is logically fallacious is in fact not true, and I'll explain why.
We are all practical atheists in a sense. I doubt any of you believe in Zeus or Thor or Shiva, or any of the innumerable gods of Hinduism, nor any other ridiculous deity that has been worshiped by war-mongering savages down the line of human evolution. In essence, you can be considered an atheist to those deities. The fact of the matter is that strong atheists just go one step further.
In science, it is both practical and logically prudent to disbelieve, or at the very least have a lack of a belief, in things that do not otherwise present themselves as containing merit of belief. You do not simply give a blank check to every single possibility concerning how things work in order to "balance things out" or give things "equal opportunity".
In science, hypotheses require evidence before gaining merit; I.E., they go through many rigorous processes before attaining theory status. A prime example of this is creation science vs. evolution. They are not on the same par for obvious reasons.
TL;DR version: absence of evidence implies only one thing: that the evidence is not there (or that we just haven't found it yet). Is it practical to believe in things that we have no evidence for? No. And it's not rational either.
I'm sure the scientists who proposed the idea of dark matter back when we didn't know about it yet were laughed out of town by every other scientist in the business. Does that make it right? Probably not, because now we know about dark matter. Was it logical at the time to believe in something we have absolutely no evidence for? Yes.
Theists are mentally jumping the gun when they employ faith as a reason to believe in something that we otherwise would have no reason to believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 2:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 3:43 PM RDK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 375 (498866)
02-14-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RDK
02-14-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Back to Basics
...so you're saying that, as a deist, you believe some form of deity set the laws of the universe into motion without weaving any inherent, objective moral system into it? That morals are subjective?
Yes, essentially, "morality" is a part of the natural world of a species. Would you expect a cat to have the same morality as a rabbit?
Thus "morality" is a function of our evolutionary history rather than some absolute rules. Would you have a god defining morality for bacteria?
The example you used (A = B, .:. all B = A) to say strong atheism is logically fallacious is in fact not true, and I'll explain why.
Try (Math Characters in HTML TheBest Page (Mathematics Characters for web, sans TeX/LaTeX)). Yes it is a logical fallacy. One that the evidence shows atheists using ...
And here you fall into the same trap of the other atheists so far, in requiring a scientific approach to philosophy and concepts that are not subject to scientific evaluation.
Theists are mentally jumping the gun when they employ faith as a reason to believe in something that we otherwise would have no reason to believe in.
For the theists faith comes first, explanations later. The definition of faith is belief without evidence:
Faith
faith -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
This means that any argument against faith based on evidence and the scientific method is invalid. Science explains how, faith explains why. And no matter how well you can explain how things work the way they do, this does not answer the question of why they work that way.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 2:15 PM RDK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 4:01 PM RAZD has replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5270 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 103 of 375 (498867)
02-14-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
02-14-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Back to Basics
Yes it is a logical fallacy. One that the evidence shows atheists using ...
And here you fall into the same trap of the other atheists so far, in requiring a scientific approach to philosophy and concepts that are not subject to scientific evaluation.
Show me one single thing that does not require a scientific approach and I'll concede your point.
The main focus of science is determining how the natural world works. Philosophy REQUIRES a rational system of thought, or else you're just another jabbering creationist who has no idea of the nature of the kind of psycho-babble he spews.
For example, here's a quote from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
"Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved."
This should be fairly self-explanatory.
This means that any argument against faith based on evidence and the scientific method is invalid. Science explains how, faith explains why. And no matter how well you can explain how things work the way they do, this does not answer the question of why they work that way.
Faith explains nothing except that the employer of said faith is an irrationalist and should be treated as such.
Believing something that does not show adequate evidence or logical proof will invariable get you nowhere. You're confusing the field of philosophy with religion (faith). Philosophy requires no faith; in fact, philosophy is by and large an impractical field. That's why it's "philosophical".
Philosophy means literally "love of wisdom". It deals with the metaphysical. Faith, or adherence to a particular religion, may fall under the category of philosophy, but they are not the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 3:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 5:17 PM RDK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 375 (498870)
02-14-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by anglagard
02-14-2009 2:14 AM


Re: Strawman Attempt
anglagard writes:
In accordance with your posts here as a supporter of the persecution of those who believe in other religions, particularly Islam, and indeed even bragging about forcing your religion on your own children by any means necessary at dreamcatcher, your observations mean nothing other than a stupid and arrogant abuse to most anyone, be they religious or not.
This is a blatant lie and personal attack. If you think this is not a lie you need to either copy and paste or link documentation that Buzsaw has supported the persecution of anyone.
anglagard writes:
{ABE} Case in point. When RobinRohan died, you were the only person who smugly condemned him to hell while even Faith hoped he had somehow made a path to 'paradise.' So if I were you I would refrain from condemning anyone whose relationship with God does not fit in with your authoritarianism. {/ABE}
This is another lie and personal attack. You need to either copy and paste or link documentation that Buzsaw has ever condemned anyone to hell.
anglagard writes:
By your posts you apparently hold virtually everything Jesus ever said, particularly in The Sermon on the Mount in utter contempt.
Anglagard, are you even aware of half of what Jesus taught? Are you aware that Jesus taught every bit as much, if not more, about Hell as he taught about Heaven? I can quote mine numerous statements about Jesus relative to hell, torment and destruction, if that's what you need to get your thinking balanced.
Anglagard, you need to get something above novice level of an understanding of the Biblical record before attempting to aire objective criticism of Christians and Christianity.

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 92 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 2:14 AM anglagard 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 105 of 375 (498871)
02-14-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RDK
02-14-2009 1:11 PM


"Higher purpose"
Hi, RDK. Welcome to EvC!
RDK writes:
Assuming you're backing the Judeo-Christian view of God and his infinite goodness, your answer seems a little bit silly.
Well, assuming you're backing the phlogiston model of chemistry and its view of the magical powers of mercury, your answer seems little bit silly.
-----
RDK writes:
As for what constitutes "good" and "bad", I would say that, taking an atheistic / naturalist point of view, anything that is beneficial to your survival and ensures the passing on of your genes is "good", and anything that hinders these things is "bad".
This is exactly what I was going for: "good" and "bad" are inevitably subjective.
So, if a "higher purpose" is to involve a diversity of entities, it must either allow conflicts of interest or enforce unanimous agreement.
Which of those two options sounds more likely to serve a "higher purpose"?

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RDK, posted 02-14-2009 1:11 PM RDK 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