|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
The only thing required for being an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Everything else is wholly independent of that.
So I ask you all: 1. Does Atheism has any beliefs which are unique to Atheism? 2. Is the so called "freedom" of Atheism just the illusion given by an endless empty space that traps and imprisions the intellect?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I'm pretty sure no intellect is trapped because of atheism. Some of the greatest thinkers were atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
CosmicChimp writes:
Fairies, leprechauns, trolls, sprites, vampires, succubi and so on. None of these are gods.
What the heck is a supernatural being?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
Nope. Let me introduce you to Ralism, a group of people who believe aliens are responsible for the development of life on earth. They're also atheists.
They're not united by evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
But that's not how the term is used. An atheists is a person who lacks a belief in god. That's it. Some are "more" atheist then others, and say there are no gods, or that gods are impossible. But that's it really, nothing in there about supernatural powers or beings, or even ID (Raelism coiuld be considered some form of ID).
I believe you would classify someone such as you describe as Agnostic, any person who label themselves as Athiest rejects the notion of gods, supernatural beings, intelligent design etc is my understanding of the term. You wont find an Athiest actively trying to pursue evidence of such beings or forces...
James Randi.
which is why I think it proves they are wrong in claiming that an Athiest remains objective.
Since it's not the case, I guess they are.
An agnostic remains objective, an Athiest has made their mind up, so they are intellectually bound on the subject.
Are you agnostic about The Dread Cthulhu? Thor? The great big Arkleseizure? Are you really?
Its that simple, there is nothing to argue, but some still dont understand the simplicity of this reasoning.
Myabe because it is wrong? Edited by Huntard, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
Depends on what the claim is. If the claim is "I can move objects with my mind!", I suspect he'll put the person in a room with objects the person says he can move, and then see if they can indeed move the object without touching it/blowing against it, or something or other. Then I'd suspect a study for the brainwave patterns would be conducted. But nobody has ever gotten past the first test, as far as I know.
James Randi.?Exactly what type of evidence is he looking for? 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?
ID is not about a supreme being, or so we are told. I'd have to see the design proces in action, that would convince me. I am told however by IDists that that is impossible.
How can you find evidence when you dont know what the evidence you are looking for is supposed to be?
It all depends on the claim that is being made. If someone claims "This is designed!", I ask them for evidence of the design process.
Anyway I cover a few scenarios in the new topic, I would love to hear everyones views.
I'll go there once it gets promoted. Kind regards,Huntard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
Let me try something here and see how it goes. I'm not asking you to provide proof, I asking what do you require as proof? What evidence would you require to believe in Snarklepom? No, this is not a trap, please try and answer the question, I promise it's not to make fun of you, it's to make a rather basic point I hope will get across.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
The word most certainly does, and that's about as far as Snarklepom goes.
First there is proof so far that at minimum Snarklepom exists in your imagination, since if it did not, you would be unable to write it down, therefore this evidence is expressed in your written text. For anyone to define or prove Snarklepom in reality, I guess if you wanted to make the case Snarklepom existed in reality you would first have to describe or define what is Snarklepoms purpose in our collaborative reality?
Almost what I had in mind, but very close indeed. It's not the purpose that is of concern here (which was to make a point). Of concern here is that Snarklepom has not been defined at all. So if you ask me, what evidence would you need for god, my first response would be: "What is god?". There are some rather nice videos on the subject I think would help clarify this all a bit, here they are:
Linky
Linky Nice try, but I dont think you can drawn a comparison since intellegent design has been attributed or dedicated to a purpose, snarklepom has not - yet.
True, but what is an intelligent designer, other then the fact that it is intelligent and designs things. Does this make the dilemma concerning your questions clear?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
Ok, so what is the intelligent designer? If he's unevidenced in any way, why should I even believe he exists.
1. The source of intelligent design is beyond the scope of human sensory perception, i.e. sonar, radar, magnetism, gravity, ID like these other invisible forces is something beyond the grasp of our senses, and like our discovery of these other invisible forces above ID is also not beyond the scope of our concious understanding and perception. 2. The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception(while maths and physics can), making Biological science unqualified and incapable to examine the theory of ID.
We're not the ones trying to replace evolution (a biological science) with ID here. If that's not the field that ID is about, leave it alone.
3. Biologist such as Dawkins reject all theories on Intelligent Design from the 5 arguements in Summa theologica written by St Thomas Aquinas to Micro Bioligist Micheal Behe's arguement of irreducible complexity. At the same time Dawkins and his Athiest supporters make the claim "there is no evidence of an intelligent designer"
They make this claim because it is true. I haven't seen any evidence either. I already told you what I'd require as evidence for the claim "This is designed", that's seeing the design process, not simply asserting thi is the case. If you're asking me what I want as evidence for an intelligent designer, then first ask you: "What is an intelligent designer. Of you're answer to that is "we can't know", then we're done, there is no evidence for a designer, and therefore, I see no reason to believe it exists.
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.
I gave you my view on things, care to comment on them?
Let me give you an example in reverse:
But that is not what we are saying at all, is it? I gave you what I need as evidence for the calim "this is designed", and I'll wager a guess that evidence would convince Dawkins and the others as well.
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". This is the Dawkins arguement which you have tried and failed to repeat with your Snarklepom, since you cannot provide the function of snarklepom your arguement is fundamentally flawed
I wasn't arguing for the existence of Snarklepom, I was trying to show you why saying "there is an intelligent designer" is a flawed claim. You haven't defined what an intelligent designer is other than intelligent and designing things. I could say the function of Snarklepom is to illustrate this point. Now he has a purpose, now what?
tell me what part or function Snarklepom id reponsible for in our reality and I will prove it exists, though what it ends up being others may have a different name for what you call and label Snarklepom.
It's funtion is to make the point that undefined things cannot be proven.
For example if you say Snarklepom is a creature that flies around and eats nectar and pollen from flowers, I might say your snarklepom is what others call a butterfly, if you tell me Snarklepom is the creator and master of life and matter then I will tell you that your Snarklepom is what others call God or the intelligent designer.
But those aren't primary attributes of god. Tell me, what is god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
Of course I have. The fact that you don't answer these questions does not mean I should somehow know the answers to them. I haven't had anyone define me what god is. I have looked high and low, but I have not received an answer on that question from anyone.
First read my last post again, the fact you have raised these questions validate my arguement, you have not educated yourself on the opposing arguments. The fact you must ask these questions, exposes the problem with the current one sided education system...
I'll have you know I went to a catholic school, where we were taught the ctholic religion. Even back then, this question as never answered (granted, I never aske it, but looking back on the period, I can't esteem an answer from then either).
we are creating a system of drones, one class called Athiest the other Religious. The only way mankind will move forward is by creating objective people,...
That's what the current system does. I am objective, at lesat I think I am, I want evidence before I start believing in something, so far,I have seen no evidence for an intelligent designer, nor for god.
to do this we must educate children on both sides of the argument and let each one of you decide for yourselves..
Should we teach them the earth is flat as well\/ THat fairies exists, that uniorns do? Where does it end? Should any belief be taught, to let all the children "decide for themselves"?
and those who are smart enough to not only consider and mimic other peoples points, but to make your own!
That's what the current system already does.
Only you can answer your two questions by educating yourself on the opposing argument. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself?
And you know I haven't because? Also, don't shift the burden of proof here, I don't claim god exists or that he doesn't exist, I want to see evidence for him, but before I know what evidence I'd need to see, I'd need to know what god is. Since nobody seems to know, there can never be pointed to any evidence and said: "There you go, evidence for god!".
instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it?
I don't agree with everything Dawkins says about it. He should keep his trap shut more often, is what I think about him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
He can assert that all he wants. Fact is he can't show that there is anything more then the observable. And as long as something is not observable, we can't know anything about it, so we can't say anything about it with certainty either. Making teaching it completely useless.
Or, if he has found a method to actually know something about the unobservable, I'd like to hear it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Den writes:
That's where I began as well. I looked for evidence for god, and didn't find any. I therefore don't believe he exists. Just like I don't believe Snarklepom exists.
I nor anyone else can show you the truth, the search for the truth is a choice you must make to undertake yourself, it begins when you let go of your ego and accept that you know nothing, this is where I began. You are mistaken regarding the scientific community, Dawkins is seen by many scientists as a joke, his argement has been destroyed by countless scientists, search for the relevant Dawkins debates on google.
I paint no picture of god whatsoever. I ask you for evidence of god. As long as that isn't provided, I don't believe he exists. It's really that simple.
All you Athiests same as Dawkins paint a false image of God, and then choose to disbelieve in your own delusion, for the God I believe in is not the same God you choose to disbelieve in. You use atrocities committed in the name of Religion to revolt against God...
I revolt against religion for the atrocities it commits. I can't revolt against something I don't believe exists.
yet you do not ask which of these attrocites are inspired by Jesus or the 10 commandments
Probably none. The bible is bigger then just those two things though. Plenty of atrocities to take from that (note, this is a revolt against the bible, not against god).
I didnt know I believed in God until I met you Athiests here
Somehow I doubt that.
now I know and to you all I am greatful and can only hope that you choose to open your eyes and search for the truth.
That's what I'm doing. Got any evidence?
Its not an easy road to find with all the misinformation out there, only with absolute determination, independant thought and a complete objective outlook will you will find the truth.
Absolutely. Now, where is this evidence again?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024