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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 185 of 280 (576004)
08-22-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by GDR
08-20-2010 6:56 PM


Re: General Comments
GDR writes:
Can you go into more detail. For instance, where else would you suggest looking.
This is an excellent example of a common logical fallacy. "I can't think of another answer" isn't a good reason to think that your conclusion is the only correct answer.
For instance, Creationists might say "I cannot think of how the human eye might come about other than by supernatural creation." Their ignorance of any other avenue of its existence does not constitute evidence in its favor, or its exhaustiveness.
Consider this: Science may be unable to tell us what happens inside a completely sealed and isolated room, but neither is philosophy likely to enlighten us. Science is similarly blind to the existence or nature of a potential afterlife, but why should we think philosophy has a better view? Because it is the only answer that currently occurs to us?
GDR writes:
I would agree with your statement if I knew without doubt that all sacred texts are nothing more than something that someone dreamed.
Shouldn't you be looking for particular sacred texts which are beyond a shadow of a doubt *not* something someone dreamed, rather than the other way around?
In the case of data of questionable reliability, it seems reasonable to discount it until such a time as it is proved accurate and reliable. It is not reasonable to demand inclusion and consideration of all questionable data until such a time as it is proven false.
This goes back to the common thinking error that spurs the reminder: The burden of proof lies upon the claimant to prove their claim, not the beholder to prove it false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by GDR, posted 08-20-2010 6:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by GDR, posted 08-23-2010 1:57 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 280 (576497)
08-24-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by GDR
08-24-2010 2:26 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
My experience has led to a strong belief in the scripture as laid out in the Bible as I find it completely consistent with the scripture of creation. I would include such things in that 2nd scripture as imagination, life experience, our relationships as well as science.
...
This view of course comes strictly from imagination.
...
Of course there is no verifiable evidence for that, and the only verifiable evidence for the Bible is the fact that it exists, but of course its accuracy can't be verified by any other means. In the end of course Christianity is a faith...
Out of curiosity, in what other circumstances would you consider the likelihood of something being objectively real is increased by its conformity to your imagination? Would say, consider a lottery ticket more likely to win because it is closer to the number you imagine would be lottery-winning material? Would you cross a road that you imagine is clear without looking?
I find it interesting that you admit the Bible's veracity isn't supported by any evidence. Surely you are aware that there are similar religions out there, but you presumably don't believe in them. So why believe the Bible? Because it is closer to your imagination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by GDR, posted 08-24-2010 2:26 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by GDR, posted 08-24-2010 10:54 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 280 (576905)
08-26-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Minnemooseus
08-25-2010 1:17 AM


Rejecting a claim
Minnemooseus writes:
As I see it, atheism is "the lack of a belief in God" (a-theism = without theism). A logical (or is it?) extension to this is "the belief there is no God".
That isn't a logical extension at all, and it is clear when you consider any other circumstance. For instance:
Suppose someone claims that a particular lottery ticket will win the lottery, for certain. I would be inclined to disbelieve their claim citing their inability to make such a conclusion with any accuracy. They don't know that, in other words.
Yet, I am similarly unable to conclude that the ticket won't win with certainty. Even if I am ignorant of the exact odds, my conclusion to reject their claim of *knowing* the ticket will win does not imply that I *know* the ticket will lose. This even holds true if the odds were 50/50.
Rejecting someone's claim of knowledge does not necessarily imply knowledge of your own. This stems from the usual method of rejecting a claim, which is to have contradictory knowledge of your own. However, other methods exist such as the claim having insufficient supporting evidence of its own or lacking a plausible avenue of obtaining supporting evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-25-2010 1:17 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-26-2010 8:56 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 280 (576908)
08-26-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by GDR
08-25-2010 2:46 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
I can say that I can't accept that so I must be a theist.
I can't help but notice that you are not talking about knowledge of reality, but rather your acceptance of a concept. In other words you don't reject a naturalistic origin of the universe and life because it doesn't jibe with the evidenced reality of things, but rather because you "can't accept it".
Are you sure you are comfortable with summarizing your religious faith as an inability to accept reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by GDR, posted 08-25-2010 2:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 6:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 280 (576991)
08-26-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by GDR
08-26-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
Bikerman made the point that one could become an atheist by rejecting the case for theism and I was just attempring to point out that it works both ways.
Rejecting a deistic assertion that doesn't jibe with reality can make you an atheist, but how is rejecting reality that doesn't jibe with deistic assertions on the same level? I have to disagree, it doesn't work both ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 6:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Bikerman, posted 08-26-2010 7:20 PM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 221 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 7:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 280 (577017)
08-26-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by GDR
08-26-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
We can say that we can't know but that doesn't address the issue.
If we actually don't know, then it not only addresses the issue but is the only honest approach.
GDR writes:
There is a case to be made for the existence of that intelligence and there is a case to be made against it. We can evaluate either case and agree to it's veracity or we can evaluate either case and reject it and embrace the other.
Or we can limit our claims of knowledge to those things we actually *know*, and thus neither accept the existence of a deity or proclaim that we know one does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 7:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 10:40 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 280 (577019)
08-26-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Minnemooseus
08-26-2010 8:56 PM


Re: The God lottery - and what about Hank
Minnemooseus writes:
The worldly existence of lotteries is certain while the concept of "God" is nebulous - It is hard to even define the possibilities of what "God" is.
My meaning was that a particular claim about a deity equates to a lottery ticket; it might be right, it might not. We don't know the odds, and within that pool of possible tickets is the ticket that says "No gods exist". There isn't really a "drawing" per se, one is right even if it is never chosen.
Minnemooseus writes:
Removing most of the extraneous baggage of worldly religions, I would state that the bare-bones definition of "God" would be "some extremely (if not omni) powerful entity who may choose to do (hopefully good) things for you".
See, this isn't required. Each ticket equates to a particular claim; the existence of the lottery isn't equated with the existence of the deity, the potential of the ticket winning is equated with the potential of the deity claim being correct.
Minnemooseus writes:
But while I would feel highly confident that no million from Hank is coming my way, I am considerably less confident that such a Hank might actually exist.
Or you could reasonably admit that you have no way to determine that Hank and his million don't exist, but that the evidence provided in support of the claim isn't sufficient for you to consider the offer legitimate.
In that case you are not making a positive claim so you bear no burden of proof. Considering you *have* no proof that seems the most appropriate position to take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-26-2010 8:56 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-26-2010 10:42 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 280 (577036)
08-26-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by GDR
08-26-2010 10:40 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
Sure it's an honest approach but it has nothing to offer as to whether there is a creative intelligence behind our existence or not.
Dishonest approaches which have more to offer on issues we don't actually have knowledge about are called "lies".
Just, you know, FYI.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 10:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by GDR, posted 08-26-2010 11:09 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 280 (577600)
08-29-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by GDR
08-29-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
Like all of us, it is a search for truth and I'll take it where ever I can get it.
What specific reason/s do you have to think that religion provides you truth?
Considering you obviously consider the vast majority of religions ever as being completely wrong, including the vast majority of existent religions, I wonder why you consider religion a conduit for truth. If the vast majority of science today was completely wrong would you question the field and method's ability to reveal truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 5:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 7:10 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 280 (577626)
08-29-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by GDR
08-29-2010 7:10 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
Beyond, "I think therefore I am" we can't be sure of anything. It is a search for truth but there is very little or nothing that we can be absoultely sure of. Christianity, and the world view it represents rings true for me and the longer that I try to live within that world view, and experience it, the more it rings true for me.
Oh, I was thinking you were speaking in the context of objective reality, not whatever felt good in your subjective world view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 9:57 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 280 (577656)
08-29-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by GDR
08-29-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
There is no such thing as objective reality.
Q.E.D. , I rest my case.
Man, I am on a ROLL tonight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 9:57 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 11:36 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 270 by nwr, posted 08-30-2010 12:30 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 280 (577662)
08-29-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by GDR
08-29-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Theology and Imagination
GDR writes:
Clever. Here I thought we were having a discussion while you think that you're scoring points in some kind of debate.
We are having a discussion, I simply established where you are coming from. Providing the correct context to a discussion can be very insightful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by GDR, posted 08-29-2010 11:36 PM GDR has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 280 (577672)
08-30-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by nwr
08-30-2010 12:30 AM


Re: Theology and Imagination
nwr writes:
You should perhaps consider the possibility that perhaps GDR does not mean what you took him to mean there.
Perhaps GDR will explain what he meant there, unless he expects me to do all of the work.
Of course I don't see how "There is no such thing as objective reality," could mean anything but that GDR does not think that an objective reality exists. This seems to mesh with his philosophy of searching for "truth" in religious ideals which "ring true" to him rather than have any objective basis in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by nwr, posted 08-30-2010 12:30 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by nwr, posted 08-30-2010 1:23 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 273 by GDR, posted 08-30-2010 1:56 AM Phage0070 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