Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 165 (616854)
05-24-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Modulous
05-24-2011 5:18 PM


Re: weakly supported suggests no strong opinions
It's hardly a controversial proposition, and one that seems strange to want to outright deny.
Strange indeed! And one purpose of this thread was to examine the motives of people who go to such trouble to outright deny such things as an historical Jesus.
I also note that it is possible to examine the same evidence and conclude otherwise
It's certainly possible for there to have been no Jesus. But the militant (often shoddy) reasoning used by some folk to prove there was no Jesus suggests a deeper motive than a search for some sort of truth.
It seems that in this regard, Jon has hoisted himself on his own petard.
Boom!
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2011 5:18 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 107 of 165 (616855)
05-24-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 5:31 PM


I dare ANYONE to prove I'm Wrong
Crashfrog writes:
If they can't be corroborated then they provide no support, not even weak support, for the existence of a Jesus.
The manifestation of your strong atheism is seen by me as if you dare there be a God...any god...(or any clever human intellect) that can prove your basic assertion wrong. Logically, you probably have a rather basic case which would be unremarkable among atheists in general. It is the emotional aspect of your zeal that puzzles me.
Did it ever5 occur to you that just as you have reasons for deciding what you believe or don't believe, others do also? Humans do not operate entirely on concrete evidence in everything we do in life.
Each of us may have had something as trivial as a dream, or something as profound as a life altering event that predisposes us to want to believe in a God or in other cases to throw the idea away in 100% certainty that it cannot hold water.
ABE: To me, the behavior of my colleague when engaging in an argument or debate with me is nearly as telling or important as their evidence. Why would Price and Gregory Boyd even be friends?
Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 5:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 6:39 PM Phat has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 108 of 165 (616857)
05-24-2011 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Phat
05-24-2011 6:29 PM


Re: I dare ANYONE to prove I'm Wrong
The manifestation of your strong atheism is seen by me as if you dare there be a God...any god...(or any clever human intellect) that can prove your basic assertion wrong.
I'm surrounded, constantly, by people who believe that there's an intellectually valid case for belief in God, but who always tell me to go ask someone else when I politely ask them to present it. "Well, I believe on the basis of faith, of course, but I'm sure that there's an intellectual case, too! Why don't you go ask some other theist about it..."
I'm fascinated by these mental lacuna, where people are (apparently) hypnotized into the belief that there's a substantial amount of good evidence for something they believe, but aren't actually able to present any of it.
Humans do not operate entirely on concrete evidence in everything we do in life.
I don't expect every human being to join me on my quixotic quest to only believe things on the basis of good evidence - oh, wait, yes I do because that's the definition of being a "reasonable adult."
You're quite correct - humans don't operate entirely on good evidence. In fact humans are subject to a wide variety of cognitive biases that frequently lead us to poor conclusions. But that doesn't mean we should embrace the suck, or that because its easier to be unreasonable, we should be ok with it.
Each of us may have had something as trivial as a dream
Do you believe that a dream is a good reason to believe something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Phat, posted 05-24-2011 6:29 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Phat, posted 05-24-2011 6:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 109 of 165 (616858)
05-24-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 6:39 PM


Re: I dare ANYONE to prove I'm Wrong
As far as the dream goes, yes I do. I certainly wouldnt cash out my bank account or move to Africa on the basis of a dream, but if the dream gives me a new unction on how to respond to an unreasonable Boss, for example and I feel comfortable in regards to the nocturnal suggestion, I may well take it into consideration and act based on it. Call me a loon, I dunno. To demand solid evidence for every single decision that I make presupposes that I am wise enough to make the best decision in all cases. I don't think that highly of myself. Too much pride is not a good thing, in my opinion. So what if I'm wrong now and then? People learn more from failure than from continual smug assurance that we must be logical beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 7:02 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 110 of 165 (616861)
05-24-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Phat
05-24-2011 6:44 PM


Re: I dare ANYONE to prove I'm Wrong
To demand solid evidence for every single decision that I make presupposes that I am wise enough to make the best decision in all cases.
Hey, you're probably not! Having good evidence isn't going to keep you from making a mistake.
But it's bound to help, don't you think? I mean what on Earth do you possibly gain by not insisting on the best evidence before you make decisions?
That's what I don't get. Everybody tries to tell me how it's not reasonable to be the guy who doesn't just believe things all willy-nilly - that I'm too hard to convince, that it takes too much evidence to get me to make up my mind, and so on. Well, ok - but what's so great about doing it your way? What's so great about making it easier for people to fool you? What's so great about making it more likely that you'll make a decision based on poor evidence?
Please, I'm seriously dying to know. What are the advantages of believing things on the basis of poor evidence or no evidence at all?
People learn more from failure than from continual smug assurance that we must be logical beings.
Is that what you think my attitude is? "Smug assurance that we're logical beings"? Jesus, Phat, not at all. Nobody is more cognizant of the failure of human cognition than I am. Nobody is more suspect of the human ability to reason than I am.
Nobody. All this insistence on good evidence and rationality - that comes from my deep and abiding humility about the capacities of human reason. You can't just shoot from the hip when it comes to thought because the human brain isn't good at thinking clearly. It takes concentration, discipline, and good information to get it right. You have to be careful or you wind up all kinds of wrong - maybe when lives depend on it. I'm all in favor of making mistakes as part of the learning process, but sometimes you have to get it right no matter what, or someone else suffers the consequences.
It has nothing to do with pride. I'm not at all a prideful person. I'm a person very much aware of his own limitations, which is why I don't trust myself to arrive at conclusions on any basis but good evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Phat, posted 05-24-2011 6:44 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Stile, posted 06-02-2011 10:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4262 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 111 of 165 (616932)
05-25-2011 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jon
05-24-2011 11:11 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Jon writes:
I gave two examples in the OP of irrationality. Positions that are neither evidenced nor rational can, in my opinion, only be called 'beliefs'.
The examples you gave are just individuals who believe certain things. None of these things are inclusive of atheism.
Again, I fail to see on what basis you are trying to group them together.
As said (by me an others, multiple times), I don't think anyone actually believes that atheists have a monopoly on rationality.
I'ld certainly argue that with respect to beliefs in the supernatural, athiests are being more rational then theists.
But that's just one point. Which is what atheism is: a single stance on a single issue. Whatever else atheists claim are pretty much individual beliefs by defenition, unless there is something more then just their atheism, like for example if they are neo-nazi's. But in that case, their beliefs come from their neo-nazism, not from their atheism.
I'm sorry, I just fail to see your point. I have no idea what you are arguing for to be honest.
If the above is all you meant (that atheists do not have a monopoly on rationality), then it seems to me that you are simply stating the obvious.
Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" - Dr Gregory House

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jon, posted 05-24-2011 11:11 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 11:59 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4262 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 112 of 165 (616934)
05-25-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 11:23 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm not sure any particular break-down is more correct than another, but I don't think you can force people to break it down the way you have chosen.
Define your faith as you see fit. It's not about forcing any kind of break-down. It's about what words mean.
You are a theist if you have an active, positive belief that a god exists. You are an atheist if you do not have such an active positive belief.
You need to believe in gods to be a theist. If you are not a theist, you ARE an atheist. Wheter you are a 'weak' or 'strong' atheist is utterly irrelavent. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.
(a)theism and (a)gnosticism deal with DIFFERENT things and they are NOT mutually exclusive. One is about your faith, what you believe, the other is about your knowledge, what you know.
believe and know = gnostic theist
believe on faith alone = agnostic theist
not believe and know = gnostic atheist
not believe and not know = agnostic atheist.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Another way to distinguish atheism from agnosticism is
1 = belief that god exists
0 = no belief either way
-1 = belief that god does not exist
0 = weak atheism
-1 = strong atheism.
Stop being so afraid of the word "atheist". Because that is why these discussions exists... Because people are "afraid" to out themselves as atheist because of how theists have demonized the word. While it's just a stupid word to identify someone who is not a theist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:23 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 12:04 PM ScientificBob has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 165 (616968)
05-25-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ScientificBob
05-25-2011 5:18 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
If the above is all you meant (that atheists do not have a monopoly on rationality), then it seems to me that you are simply stating the obvious.
Yes, but the things that irrational atheists are irrational about tend to have a type, or so I have observed.
I'm curious if anyone has observed likewise.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ScientificBob, posted 05-25-2011 5:18 AM ScientificBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Theodoric, posted 05-25-2011 12:12 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 119 by Trae, posted 05-26-2011 5:14 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 130 by ScientificBob, posted 05-30-2011 9:22 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 165 (616969)
05-25-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ScientificBob
05-25-2011 5:43 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
believe and know = gnostic theist
believe on faith alone = agnostic theist
not believe and know = gnostic atheist
not believe and not know = agnostic atheist.
Perfect breakdown. We use a two-word identifier to discuss belief and knowledge. Thus a person is (Gnostic, Agnostic) and (Theist, Atheist).
I personally think that claiming gnosticism on any of these is ridiculous, but that is not the type of irrationality I was thinking of when I started this thread; there have, afterall, been many threads about that sort of thing.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ScientificBob, posted 05-25-2011 5:43 AM ScientificBob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2011 12:08 PM Jon has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 165 (616970)
05-25-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Jon
05-25-2011 12:04 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
believe and know = gnostic theist
believe on faith alone = agnostic theist
not believe and know = gnostic atheist
not believe and not know = agnostic atheist.
Perfect breakdown.
What if you don't know what you believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 12:04 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 120 by Trae, posted 05-26-2011 5:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 131 by ScientificBob, posted 05-30-2011 9:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 116 of 165 (616972)
05-25-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
05-25-2011 11:59 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Yes, but the things that irrational atheists are irrational about tend to have a type, or so I have observed.
It seems though that no one agrees with your idea of irrational. I know I am waiting for you to post something that is irrational that defines these "extremist atheists".
You refuse to defend you Jesus idea. Oh wait I think I have it figured out.
Jesus existed, but he didn't do anything at all that is in the bible. Just some guy probably named Morris that wild stories started up about. How can you equate the Biblical Jesus to a historical person if that person was nothing like the bible guy?
Is Jesus an amalgam of different people, different stories and fables and myths? Probably. But to say that means a historical Jesus existed is plain ludicrous. You might as well say Robin Hood and King Arthur existed.
Is that what you mean? That Jesus existed in the same way as Robin Hood and King Arthur?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 11:59 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Bailey, posted 05-28-2011 1:37 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 165 (616982)
05-25-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
05-25-2011 12:08 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
What if you don't know what you believe?
Then you're all out agnostic I suppose: you know not even yourself.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2011 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2011 1:20 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 165 (616986)
05-25-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jon
05-25-2011 1:13 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
What if you don't know what you believe?
Then you're all out agnostic I suppose: you know not even yourself.
Seriously. I don't think it's unreasonable. And it should be reflected in a "perfect" breakdown.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 1:13 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 119 of 165 (617139)
05-26-2011 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
05-25-2011 11:59 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Jon writes:
Yes, but the things that irrational atheists are irrational about tend to have a type, or so I have observed.
I'm curious if anyone has observed likewise.
Would you list these ‘things’ in a concise manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jon, posted 05-25-2011 11:59 AM Jon has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 120 of 165 (617140)
05-26-2011 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
05-25-2011 12:08 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Why, then, wouldn't you not be an agnostic atheist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-25-2011 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2011 9:50 AM Trae has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024