|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member  Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
fearandloathing writes: Thus it appears that fearandloathing believes in no distinction between A1 and A2. Either that or he wonders which subcategory you classify him as.
There are nuts on both sides, but I dont see any evidence of a belief system atheist live by. Atheist agree there is no god, 1 common belief is not a system. Please explain what other beliefs I have, as I am unaware of being part of any belief system, rather the opposite. Jon writes: A: There are atheists. There are unreasonable people. There are unreasonable atheists. 1. There are unreasonable atheists who admit to holding unreasonable positions. 2. There are unreasonable atheists who are unwilling to admit the unreasonableness of their unreasonable positions. B: There are theists. There are unreasonable people. There are unreasonable theists. 1. There are unreasonable theists who admit to holding unreasonable positions. 2. There are unreasonable theists who are unwilling to admit the unreasonableness of their unreasonable positions. Anglagard writes: Yes. Technically, by math and science alone, the default position should be agnosticism. Neither theists nor atheists have any definitive proof for their position.(...) Science is meant to serve humanity, not become its master, a point too often lost.Thus agnosticism is probably the most logical position to take. Dr.Adequate writes: Who declared such a position as a default? The default position should logically be that such a claim can not yet be scientifically investigated...
in science the default position is that any given class of objects does not exist --- which in the case of deities constitutes atheism.Adequate writes: Thats refreshingly honest! Well, that depends on what you mean by "God". If you mean the guy who created the world 6,000 years ago, then the atheists have evidence that is as definitive as anything is; if you mean an omnibenevolent ruler of the Universe, then the atheists have evidence that is at least highly compelling; if you mean an intelligent being who made the Big Bang go bang then the existence of such a being is plausible.. 
Anglagard writes: Two equally valid beliefs, at any rate. As to science and indeed logic itself, it seems to me we have two propositions: 1. God exists 2. God does not exist Are they not equal propositions? Neither can be examined scientifically. Absence of evidence equals simply that. No further hypothesis can be made.
Anglagard writes: Thats my belief as well.
I still hold the default position should be agnosticism until moved, either by logic or epiphany. AZPaul3 writes: What exactly is "religious thought"? Does it have characteristics that differ from your personal beliefs? Can you assert anything apart from observational differences?
We know where religious thought comes from, Jon. These threads are full of that evidence. AZPaul3 writes: Quite a broad indictment.
We know the veracity of the religious texts are highly suspect. Crashfrog writes: The only reasonable explanation....?
Well, I'm one such individual, and there's nothing religious about it - there's just no evidence at all for Jesus outside of the Bible, which is a work known to be next to useless as a historical document. None at all. Nothing. For the world of 0 AD's largest, most complete bureaucracy to be possessed of such a lacuna is impossible; the only reasonable explanation is that there was no such thing as Jesus. Jon writes: And so we continue.... I find that many Christian 'fanatics' tend to believe they are right because they think evidence supports their position; they think that their holy books are accurate reflections of reality; they think that reading those books and examining the evidence with a 'real' open mind are the only things needed to realize they are right: The earth was created 6000 years ago. Atheist 'fanatics', on the other hand, tend to be of the opinion that by being an atheist they are automatically tuned in to all matters of reality, reasoning, and science; by rejecting the notion of any gods, they've 'magically' thrown off the shackles of irrationality and ignorance in all matters of truth; if you just open up your mind and accept their position that there aren't any gods, then you'll realize them to be right on everything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Dr.Adequate writes: Now, it follows immediately from this principle that rules of the form: "Objects of class X do not exist" must be provisionally accepted as true in the absence of positive evidence that would lead us to suppose that there are instances of class X. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is certainly evidence of it, and is in fact tacitly taken to be so by the universal consent of mankind, even those who use the phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And this applies to the various classes of supernatural beings just as much as to anything else. OK, and I suppose that if I were to be honest, I myself dont consider atheism to be "as likely true" as I do the Christian God. I would, perhaps, not take circumstantial evidence against my biased beliefs as readily as I would confirmation bias, thus my only purpose in argument is for the sake of said argument.Perhaps what frustrates Jon is that as a self proclaimed agnostic theist, he is frustrated when people do not follow his very arguments that have kept him from becoming an atheist all these years.
Dr.Adequate writes: I never claimed to be totally open minded. It is they who should be. Always they. ...the only explanation for you not sending me the money is that you do not really think that the chances are 50:50, and that your lip service to equiprobability is the mere conventional hypocrisy of one who wishes to be thought open-minded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
crashfrog writes: I cite confirmation bias as my reason. I will readily admit that my idea of a personal Christian-type God was indoctrinated. I prefer to believe that there is a God. How about you? Why do you actively prefer to believe that there isn't one? Surely evidence is a mere formality! The only reasonable explanation....? Yeah. Supposed that Jesus Christ existed, except that his name wasn't "Jesus Christ", he didn't have twelve disciples, he didn't give the Sermon on the Mount, he didn't perform any miracles, he wasn't captured and executed by the Romans, and he didn't rise from the dead three days later. Can you really say then that there was such a person as "Jesus Christ"? Edited by Phat, : added features! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
