|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
I recently had a conversation regarding Atheism with an old Athiest friend who is a 67-year-old engineer and a mathematics wiz.
I asked him whether Atheism has any beliefs which are unique to Atheism? - before making any comments remember the question pertains to "unique beliefs". His answer was "we do not believe in a God or Supernatural being". I responded: Well that is not a belief, that is a disbelief of someone else's belief. So I ask again, what beliefs are unique to Atheism? His next answer "We accept Evolution as fact" My response: Well you don't have to be an atheist to hold that belief, religious, agnostics anyone can hold that belief, it is not unique to Atheism. So I ask you all: 1. Does Atheism have 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 imprisons the intellect? Edited by AdminPhat, : spelling in title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
Once you commit to Atheism doesn't ruling out a possibility disable you from continuously objectively investigating it?
or less likely due to human ego to look outside the limiting boundaries of a committed belief? or in this case a dis-belief. What positive purpose is there to committing to Atheism? I just do not get it, I prefer to look at things from both sides and keep my options open. From where I stand I think there's good arguements on both sides that are getting us no where!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
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. CheersDen Edited by Den, : corrected a word
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
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. Edited by Den, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
NWR ^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, 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. Its that simple, there is nothing to argue, but some still dont understand the simplicity of this reasoning. Edited by Den, : added NWR reference Edited by Den, : typo sorry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
James Randi.?
Exactly what type of evidence is he looking for? I cover this in my new topic; My question is to the Athiest; 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? How can you find evidence when you dont know what the evidence you are looking for is supposed to be? Anyway I cover a few scenarios in the new topic, I would love to hear everyones views. CheersDen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
I think the design process you mentioned is an interesting comment, I hope to discuss it in the new topic, so I wont carry on the discussion here.
CheersDen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
Dear Dr Adequate
I dont feel you have answered my question, I'm sorry if I've missed something in your answer, not meaning to be impolite but maybe if you refraimed from sarcasm I could understand you better. You say Nature as stupid,wasteful and cruel? Thats just your perception of reality. Everything is perfect, take that new pencil on your desk, break it, its now a perfect broken pencil. Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect, Nature is a perfect cycle of transformation, from the sun which transforms Hydrogen to Helium, to the plants that transform light into plant matter, to the tiger which transforms antelopes into baby tigers. Nothing is wasted, Nature in all its forms is perfect. I've kindly asked Admin to make it a new thread, I changed the subject to "A question for all Athiests to consider" lets see how they reply, fingers crossed. CheersDen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: If it is not hard as you say please provide an answer. I'm not asking you to provide proof, I asking what do you require as proof?
quote:Arent most vets dealing with the problems created by man made incestually inbred animals such as mutated cats, dogs and livestock? Anyway I think your are missing the point that perfection is a subjective matter, I dont believe that perfection and imperfection exists, its all perfect, I know you might find that hard to grasp, I probably need to work out how to explain this better. CheersDen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
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? 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. Edited by Den, : fixed a squeak!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
quote:Perfection and imperfection is based on a completely subjective decision. So I actually mean that everything just is. You might have to think about it for a while and try to explain it to yourself, cause I've done my best, a good theology teacher can probably explain what Im saying alot better. Edited by Den, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: A diseased or dead and decaying body to you apears imperfect, however it is perfect to the microbes and other fauna which inhabit and exploit the decaying tissues. A broken birds nest is imperfect to the bird, however its perfect to the fungi which attack its decaying sticks. This is why I accept that perfection is completely subjective to the individual, either man or animal. I cant make it any clearer simpler than that. ------------------------------------------- I think this thread has too many off topic discussions going on, its a bit confusing for me to follow or work towards any meaningful outcomes from the original discusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
This is the situation,
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. 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". 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. 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". 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, 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. 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. Edited by Den, : Correction Edited by Den, : fix typo Edited by Den, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: So biologists new this before the development of the microscope? You are obviously completely wrong. It is simple fact that nothing exists to a biologist until they can "see" something. Please before you respond to me in future have a better think about your arguement, I dont mean to be rude but I dont have time to explain every basic detail twice. As for the rest of your arguement you have obviously not done your research well, there is more to Intelligent Design theory than just a priest standing in a church asking you to please have faith! If you want to be a good debater you can start by getting a real grip and understanding on the opposing arguement first hand. Start with lets say St. Thomas Aquinas writings in Summa Theologica, and go from there, why not look at it yourself? instead of just accepting and agreeing with everything that Dawkins says about it? Im on the fence, I havent made my mind up, that is because I am still trying to educate myself on both sides of the argument, what pisses me off is people reading Dawkins work and just taking his side without any attempt at being objective, this goes against the principals of the science which the Dawkins Drones claim to uphold so dearly. CheersDen Edited by Den, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Den Member (Idle past 5128 days) Posts: 36 From: Australia Joined: |
My quote:
This is the situation ... The science of Biology cannot examine anything beyond the scope of human sensory perception ... Your reply
quote: My response :So biologists new this before the development of the microscope? Your response:I did not in any way say or imply this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does this rebuttle of yours mean then?, please dont explain, anyone with half a brain cell left in their head can understand the flaw in your arguement. Please kid, no more, I dont have any more time for this. Edited by Den, : Added line to seperate my sentence
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024