Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 84 of 165 (616750)
05-24-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
First of all, I didn't go over the entire thread. In fact, I just read your opening post and wanted to give you my 2 cents about that.
One thing is pretty clear to me (and I'ld guess to anyone): atheists do NOT have a monopoly on rationality and theists do NOT have a monopoly on irrationality.
Atheists are perfectly capable of believing all kinds of pretty silly stuff for sure.
Having said that... I think you go one step to far in lumping them all together in some sort of group. Although it's not entirely clear to me what this "group" represents according to you, it seems as if you are trying to call it some sort of "religion" or something.
Either way, I think it's wrong to lump them together. It seems to me that the ONLY thing you can be sure of that they have in common is... unbelief in gods.
I'm also not quite sure what you mean with "irrational beliefs"... What "beliefs"? If you call them "atheist", the only thing we can really know about them is what they do NOT believe... right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jon, posted 05-24-2011 11:11 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 87 of 165 (616759)
05-24-2011 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by anglagard
05-22-2011 6:07 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
anglagard writes:
Technically, by math and science alone, the default position should be agnosticism
I frequently encounter such distinction. However, it seems to me that this is false. Agnosticism is not a replacement for atheism.
You are an atheist if you are not a theist. You can be an agnostic atheist for sure, but you're still an atheist if you are not a theist. There's only 2 options: you believe or you don't. Saying "i don't know" is the same as not believing (positively). Not believing = not being theist = you're an atheist.
Anglagard writes:
Neither theists nor atheists have any definitive proof for their position
True. But theists have the burden of proof...
And atheists have science on their side which contradicts the theist mythology for the most part.
Now if we factor in the humanities, which already has the term human within, perhaps a case can be made against strong atheism based upon which serves which, Utopian socialism or objectivism, Kurtzwellism, Skynet, or HAL9000.
None of those things are derived from atheism, as there is nothing to derive from atheism (aside from an unbelief in gods).
I'm willing to accept that some doctrines or rules within theistic systems rule out such possibilities (as in: christians would not build a communist society where religion is practically forbidden)...
But that's the theistic system prohibiting/ruling out something, which is not the same as atheism promoting something...
I look at it this way...
Suppose latin americans (and only latin americans) have a gene that makes them immune to HIV. HIV is rampant in africa. From these two points, it would be very wrong to conclude that being African leads to being infected with HIV... Right?
Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 6:07 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:23 AM ScientificBob has replied
 Message 133 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 2:51 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 91 of 165 (616771)
05-24-2011 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by anglagard
05-22-2011 11:33 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
anglagard writes:
The deal is:
1. Does God exist
2. Does God not exist
I say indeterminate, deal with it as an adult as the good dr would do or deal with it like some ignorant HS jock as crashfrog would do.
Do you have any understanding about the difference between "positive claims" and "negative claims" and what that means in context of the burden of proof?
Have you ever heared the brilliant sentence
"what is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence"?
Let's draw an analogy...
You are driving on the high way at high speed. Suddenly, I claim that there is an invisible rock in the middle of the road. I have no evidence to offer, you "just have to believe me". I'm being very serious about it, because I genuinly fear for your life.
You, off course, see nothing at all on the road. You ask me how I know and I say "I can feel it" or "deity/angel/spirit X told me".
Will you slam your breaks? Honestly...
Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:33 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 2:21 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 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 4263 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

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 130 of 165 (617646)
05-30-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jon
05-25-2011 11:59 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Jon writes:
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.
I haven't, really.
I consider myself an anti-theist. I would even perhaps consider myself a gnostic atheist - with respect to all possible gods that humans have claimed thusfar (not to ALL possible gods you could possibly come up with).
After all, one only needs to read the bible to realise that the god of the bible is bullocks. And the same goes for every scripture from any god.
We can't test gods, but we can test what is attributed to them.
In that sense, I feel like I can perfectly say that the BIBLICAL god definatly does not exist as described in the bible.

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

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 131 of 165 (617647)
05-30-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
05-25-2011 12:08 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Catholic Scientist writes:
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?
Then you can not say that you DO believe.
And if you can not say that you DO believe... guess what... then you are an atheist.
You need to believe something to be a theist. Anything other then having that active, positive belief => 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 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 9:43 AM ScientificBob has replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 135 of 165 (617749)
05-31-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by anglagard
05-31-2011 2:51 AM


Re: What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
anglagard writes:
It does appear to me there exists some movement to deny the word agnostic by various language police, however in those parts of the US I am familiar with, it is a perfectly acceptable word used to communicate a rather simple concept, namely that of 'no opinion regarding the existence of any purported 'deities'.
I didn't deny that that is the general sentiment. I'm just saying that it is rather stupid.
I didn't deny the word agnostic either. I'm just saying that it's not a replacement for theism/atheism.
You need to actively believe something to be a theist. ANYTHING other then that makes you an atheist.
You can still call yourself an agnostic while you are an atheist. Even while you are a theist. These words are not mutually exclusive. I don't care how many people redefine the word.
You are an atheist if you are not a theist. You can put all the qualifiers you want on it, it won't make a shred of difference.
Contrary to popular belief, atheism does NOT necessarily include the claim "there are no gods". It only expresses a lack of positive theistic beliefs. This seems obvious.
anglagard writes:
But theists have the burden of proof...
And atheists have science on their side which contradicts the theist mythology for the most part.
Assuming the five senses you use to apprehend reality perfectly represent actual reality.
That's why you test your conclusions. I don't know about any scientific thing that relies on your personal observation or "feelings" alone...
But every religion seems to operate on that exclusively: emotions and personal (unverifiable) stuff.
Also, perhaps you could share with us this other way you imply exists of observing reality - if not through the use of your 5 senses...
It seems to me that if you have none of your 5 senses available... you are pretty much braindead in a coma...
anglagard writes:
Perhaps this accused moron is asking people to think outside the box more than they would like to consider.
Outside the box is good. Outside of reality and reason isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 2:51 AM anglagard has not replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 136 of 165 (617750)
05-31-2011 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by anglagard
05-31-2011 2:21 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
anglagard writes:
The term proof to me is either a very tight term or a very loose term depending upon which field the term is used, which is why it can become confused in the popular parlance. The term proof in legal terms is not the same as the term proof in mathematical terms. In mathematics, proofs depend upon postulates. In law, well, postulates are usually referred to as prejudicial.
But we are talking about claims of existance... not claims of guilt or math equations.
Claims of non-existance are completely pointless and I would argue that it is very dishonest to ask for "evidence" for claims of non-existance.
Claims of existance need to be substantiated with evidence. Claims of non-existance can't be substantiated with evidence.
You can't "prove" that unicorns aren't real, but you CAN prove that they are by finding one.
anglagard writes:
My argument is that there is neither a proof for or against any assumed deity in any assumed reality. Perhaps not politically correct, but honest.
Not honest at all imo, as argued above.
I would even say that there is MUCH evidence against the claim of existance of god(s), through the absolute absurdity of the mythology that comes with the claims.
In the end... remove the mythology parts which can be proven incorrect and the parts for which no evidence exists and not much of it is left...
anglagard writes:
And this little story is supposed to impress me more than any previous 'proof of God' coming from Pascal, Aquinas, Bacon, or the ancient Greeks? Have you indeed come up with a simile that 'proves' all religion wrong?
No. It demonstrates that you can intellectually ignore baseless bullshit claims of existance without evidence to back it up, Einstein.
I'll be clearer then, since your IQ of 145 seems not enough to apply the lesson to your own quote.
The deal is:
1. The rock exists
2. The rock does not exist
It's "indeterminate", but yet... you don't slam your breaks. You don't even change lanes. So for some reason, you seem to go for option 2 anyway - eventhough it's "indeterminate".
How is the god claim any different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 2:21 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by anglagard, posted 06-04-2011 1:22 PM ScientificBob has not replied

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 153 of 165 (620405)
06-16-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 9:43 AM


Re: definition
Atheism means "the absence of theism".
Seriously, you have never heared of "weak atheism" and "strong atheism".
Strong atheism is what includes the claim that no gods exist.
It's essentially the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.
"I don't believe in" vs "there's no such thing".
Again: you need to actively believe certain claims to be a theist. If you do not have that positive belief, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.
I can't say it in a simpler way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2011 10:45 AM ScientificBob 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