Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 20 of 414 (551313)
03-22-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Den
03-22-2010 12:11 AM


I asked him whether Atheism has any beliefs which are unique to Atheism?
Apart from disbelief in gods, no, none whatsoever.
You might as well ask: "Do people who don't believe in Santa Claus have any beliefs which are unique to disbelief in Santa Claus".
Well, no, no we don't, not particularly. The one thing that we have in common is our disbelief in Santa Claus.
Apart from that, I don't see anything. I mean, you don't believe in Santa Claus --- do you? And I don't believe in Santa Claus. But is that a reason why we should have anything else in common?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 12:11 AM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 24 of 414 (551318)
03-22-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Den
03-22-2010 6:40 AM


Once you commit to Atheism doesn't ruling out a possibility disable you from continuously objectively investigating it?
Or to put it another way: "Once you commit to the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't ruling out the possibility that 2 + 2 = 5 disable you from continuously objectively investigating it?"
Well, in a sense, yes. But imagine the alternative. Suppose that you did in fact spend your life "continuously objectively investigating" the proposition that 2 + 2 = 5.
Would that not be a waste of your life?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Den, posted 03-22-2010 6:40 AM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 414 (551489)
03-22-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
03-22-2010 8:28 PM


Any well known ones, ones who broadcast their conservative opinions? I'm not taunting you - I'd honestly like to know.
In the skeptic movement, people like Michael Shermer, Penn & Teller, and James Randi are way to the right.
I can't think of any atheists who are social conservatives, because obviously social conservatism involves worshiping the primitive taboos of a Bronze Age tribe, which would be stupid. But there's plenty of non-believers who are conservatives qua conservatives.
They're not united by evolution?
In the same way that they're "united" by the belief that 2 + 2 = 4.
Actually, now I think of it, not even that much. A lot of creationist dogma was invented by the atheist and damn fool Fred Hoyle.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 03-22-2010 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 414 (551544)
03-23-2010 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Den
03-23-2010 12:31 AM


Thank you for sharing your views on Atheism. From reading your comments it is very easy to see from who/where your influences stem.
I now have a better understanding of what Atheism means, it means to be a free thinker, and free thinking to an Athiest means repeating what someone else has said.
Cheers
Den
I have bad news for you --- you're still wrong.
Yeah, it's sucky to be you, isn't it?
But stick around, you might learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 12:31 AM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 414 (551546)
03-23-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Den
03-23-2010 1:17 AM


Haha sorry, but I feel half the time Im just listening to Dawkins repeat himself.
I think its interesting that Athiests can argue that their commitiment to a non belief doesnt dampen their objective thought process, I have thus proposed a new topic of allowing these people the opportunity to prove such claims - new topic section ; Why Athiesm = Impossible to find any answers.
I know from the weakness of my own debilitating ego that I must not commit myself to anything unless I am completely certain, this is why I question your resolve on a matter which is completely unprovable at this point in human history.
Thanks for the discussion, I will try to be more grown up in future.
Given the time, the effort, and the pompousness that you put into this post, you must surely have meant something by it. And yet your meaning escapes me.
You promise to start a new thread which may clarify your position. Thank you. I look forward to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:17 AM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 414 (551550)
03-23-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Den
03-23-2010 1:29 AM


You wont find an Athiest actively trying to pursue evidence of such beings or forces, which is why I think it proves they are wrong in claiming that an Athiest remains objective. An agnostic remains objective, an Athiest has made their mind up, so they are intellectually bound on the subject.
Well, how much time have you spent "actively trying to pursue evidence of" pigs with wings?
None whatsoever, am I right?
And yet you would consider your belief that there are no pigs with wings as "objective", am I right? And you don't consider yourself "intellectually bound" as you consider me, even though I have wasted much of my life searching for God, and you have never wasted a single second of your life looking for pigs with wings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:29 AM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 86 of 414 (551577)
03-23-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Den
03-23-2010 5:26 AM


You dismiss the notion of intelligent design from a perceived lack of evidence. Can you please provide an example or examples of the evidence which you would require in order to be convinced of the existence of intelligent design and/or a supreme being?
Sure. The nonexistence of all the intermediate forms in the fossil record. The nonexistence of the law of faunal succession. The nonexistence of the correspondence between cladistics as revealed by genetics and cladistics as revealed by morphology. The nonexistence of the confirmation of evolution by biogeography. The nonexistence of the facts in genetics which make evolution certain and inevitable. The nonexistence of all the experiments in which we can see evolution happening, for example the nonexistence of beneficial mutations. In short, the nonexistence of all the facts proving that evolution happens and has taken place.
Your turn. What would you have to see in nature such that you couldn't fantasize that God made it by magic? You see that nature is stupid, wasteful, and cruel, and yet you still attribute it to a God who is wise, prudent, and benevolent. Is there anything, anything at all, that you couldn't attribute to your imaginary friend?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 5:26 AM Den has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 9:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 98 of 414 (551640)
03-23-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Den
03-23-2010 9:47 AM


I'm not following your line of argument.
You brought up the issues of rape and infanticide (here) as though you thought that they were bad things.
But now when I agree with you that they are bad things, you shift your ground completely and insist that they are "perfect".
Please explain yourself further.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 9:47 AM Den has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 115 of 414 (551703)
03-23-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by marc9000
03-23-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Non Collectors
Non stamp collectors don't spend a sizable portion of their time criticizing and trying to eradicate stamp collecting, like Dawkins, Harris, and millions of atheists who buy their books spend time trying to eradicate religion.
That's because no stamp collector ever did this to glorify his stamp collection:
It would be nice if we could just regard religion as a harmless eccentricity, but we can't, because it is not harmless.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 9:02 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 118 of 414 (551712)
03-23-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by marc9000
03-23-2010 8:33 PM


You're saying that a Christian could engage in a 5 or 10 minute conversation with you about human origins and you'd never say a word about evolution?
Well obviously if anyone engaged me in a ten minute conversation about human origins, then I'd mention evolution --- just as if someone engaged me in a ten minute conversation about what two plus two is, I'd mention the number four.
What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 8:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 414 (551732)
03-23-2010 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by marc9000
03-23-2010 8:17 PM


Re: Differences Differ
There are respected polls that clearly show a correlation between science and atheism.
We own the soft impeachment.
Could you also produce a poll showing that we're good at math?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 8:17 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 132 of 414 (551752)
03-24-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Pauline
03-24-2010 1:23 AM


Re: Belief is active, and disbelief the default.
Still, the question remains. What part of man is the source of physically un-detectable ideas and concepts?
The brain.
Interesting fact: the word "brain" does not appear even once in the Bible. The folks who wrote it seem to have been under the delusion that people thought with their hearts.
My point is, you can never see the chemical basis (I don't think there is) for a person's belief/disbelief.
As a matter of fact, you can see the physical basis for religious beliefs using brain scanning technology.
If you ask someone what they believe personally, they use one part of their brain. If you ask them to think about what someone else might believe, they use another part of the brain.
Now, guess which part of the brain they use when you ask them what God thinks.
Go on, have a guess.
Yes, that's right. When people think about what God's opinions are, their brain activity looks exactly the same as when they think about what their own opinions are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 1:23 AM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 3:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 135 of 414 (551762)
03-24-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Pauline
03-24-2010 3:39 AM


Re: Belief is active, and disbelief the default.
So whats the name if this technology?
It's called functional MRI.
You can read the entire paper here for free. Enjoy.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 3:39 AM Pauline has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 414 (552291)
03-28-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


This is the situation ... The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception ...
But this is not the situation. For example, I can deduce from your existence plus the tenets of human biology that at some point you were a zygote formed by the union of a human sperm with a human egg, even though I wasn't watching at the time.
Let me give you an example in reverse:
A Biologists discovers foot prints in an area which he belives belong to a feline animal, however the animal has never been seen.
The biologist writes a paper in order to prove that a feline animal must be present in the area since the prints have been discovered.
A mathematician reads the biologists paper and says this is wrong, these are not feline foot prints, and since no one has ever seen such an animal in this area, that there is no evidence that a feline animal exists here.
When the Biologist asks the mathematician, OK then you reject my theory, you reject that the evidence of prints belong to a feline animal, you say that there is no evidence of feline animals in this area, then tell us, what should a feline foot print look like?
The mathematician responds " I dont know, dont ask me", "you have to prove it Mr biologist".
Is the mathematician called Dembski?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Den, posted 03-28-2010 3:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 414 (552292)
03-28-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Den
03-27-2010 10:51 PM


Intelligent Design
If they reject what others put forward as evidence, while making the statement that there is no evidence, then to vailidate and prove their arguement they must be able to provide examples of what the evidence should be.
The trouble is that the concept of the "Intelligent Designer" has (I think deliberately) been so vaguely framed that one cannot propose any necessary consequence of his existence.
One could think of things that he/she/it/they might possibly do, and which would constitute proof --- except that we can't say that the Intelligent Designer can do anything in particular, because no cdesign proponentist will say what their Intelligent Designer can and can't do. Apart from having the capacity to intelligently design ... something, but they don't have to be clear about what, nor what methods were used to instantiate his design.
Nor do they specify his motivation, which means that if we could say that he could do something, we couldn't conclude that he would do it.
To give a concrete example, if we could observe miraculous acts of fiat creation --- if we could see brand-new new species like unicorns and griffins popping out of the air by magic --- then this would undoubtedly carry a great deal of weight. But the definition of the "Intelligent Designer" is not such that it is clear that he can do this, and even if he could it's not clear that he'd want to.
If anyone will be more clear about what the Intelligent Designer did, and how, and why, and what sort of things he wouldn't do, then the notion of his existence might have some predictive power, and would be susceptible to investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Den, posted 03-27-2010 10:51 PM Den 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