|
Author
|
Topic: Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 11 of 165 (616479)
05-22-2011 6:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM
|
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Jon writes: I think many forms of anti-theism can rightly be called systems of irrational beliefs. I agree completely. Technically, by math and science alone, the default position should be agnosticism. Neither theists nor atheists have any definitive proof for their position. 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. Science is meant to serve humanity, not become its master, a point too often lost. That being said it is important to remember one of the humanities, namely history, which clearly shows science has saved more people's lives than religious intolerance ever managed to murder even in its wildest dreams. There is more to human life than Vulcanism.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
My post was specifically designed to elicit responses, thanks for being first. 
Dr Adequate writes: I disagree. Math doesn't come into it; and in science the default position is that any given class of objects does not exist --- which in the case of deities constitutes atheism. So we agree in disagreeing. Some would argue that mathematics is so pure and so beautiful, it must come from a 'higher being.' I have both read and personally met advocates of this position. Indeed I have had an epiphany of the soul while studying higher mathematics. While this obviously does not prove any existence of a higher intelligence to me, I can understand how such an experience may to others. 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?
In science such an attitude is conjoined with a willingness to revise this position if positive evidence is forthcoming; but if that qualification to disbelief is what you mean then I don't think you should call it agnosticism; or at least you should say that it is the point at which agnosticism overlaps with "negative" or "weak" atheism, in which case the two are not, as your post would suggest, mutually exclusive. I sort of understand your point, however I do consider agnosticism to be the inherent default position until shown to be otherwise by either the concept of beauty or science.
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 Obviously wrong, blatantly wrong.
if you mean an omnibenevolent ruler of the Universe, then the atheists have evidence that is at least highly compelling Largely an artifact of primitive people needing to answer their kids questions but having no decent answers, a situation much improved on today, yet still imperfect.
if you mean an intelligent being who made the Big Bang go bang then the existence of such a being is plausible By which statement you yourself have argued against strong atheism, there is a difference between plausible and impossible.
and if by "God" you mean my left leg then the theists have been right all along, though even in that case I wouldn't actually worship it. I'd feel silly. Who wouldn't, glad to see your sense of humor is intact, as that is the best defense against both stupidity and senility. My argument in this thread is not necessarily for any belief, my argument is against the absolute certainty of strong atheism, which to me states the evidence rules out any possibility of anything remotely what anyone may have referred to as 'God.' (yeah I know, a pretty broad brush). I still hold the default position should be agnosticism until moved, either by logic or epiphany. Edited by anglagard, : another one of those creep in mispellings
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 18 of 165 (616505)
05-22-2011 11:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
05-22-2011 10:07 PM
|
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Are you accusing me of worshiping a stone head simply for the crime of not being your intellectual slave? Please let us know when you are ready for adult conversation.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2011 10:07 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:00 AM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
dr adequate writes: Well, no. In science, the non-existence of a class of things is always the default position. But I have said that already, so let me illustrate it. It is very kind of you to post that which I already know for a second time, however, repetition does not equal truth. 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.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 23 of 165 (616513)
05-23-2011 12:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
05-23-2011 12:02 AM
|
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
crashfrog writes: I don't understand what I possibly could have done to merit this invective. Can you elaborate on how I've managed to cause you such apparently tremendous offense? I'm still pissed off about you saying economics is bullshit. Other than that, I think you are a reasonable guy.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:02 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:15 AM | | anglagard has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 25 of 165 (616515)
05-23-2011 12:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
05-23-2011 12:15 AM
|
|
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
OK Manzi, I actually think we are both pretty much on the same side, but we should both be careful. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:15 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
ScientificBob writes: 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? No, am the most mentally deficient person to ever have 367 semester units, become a college dean, and an IQ tested at 145. Please feel free to insult me further. 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. Science is about evidence, not any supposed 'proof.' 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.
Have you ever heared the brilliant sentence
"what is asserted without evidence can be dissmissed without evidence"? Yeah, no shit, it is usually ascribed to Christopher Hitchens. Also, use a spellchecker, superior life form.
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...
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. 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... 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? Give me a break, ubermensch.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
ScientificBob writes: I frequently encounter such distinction. However, it seems to me that this is false. Agnosticism is not a replacement for atheism. The English language is not the same as the French language in that English words, such as 'agnosticism' are defined by those who use the term, instead of some national academy of self-proclaimed guardians of some national 'heritage.' 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'.
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. Seems like math, your philosophy requires postulates. Perhaps this accused moron is asking people to think outside the box more than they would like to consider.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
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".
I made two points: 1. The term 'agnostic' is a perfectly good English word used in order to describe the condition of not knowing enough to give a definite opinion either way in regard to the existence or non-existence of any purported deities. 2. Such purported deities existence or non-existence can not be proven. Jon made one point: Atheists can become irrational once they become too militant (summarized). Which point would you or anyone else like to rationally address, that is, other than the one you have already emoted?
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 145 of 165 (618641)
06-04-2011 1:43 PM
|
|
|
Of Windmills and Irish Babies
The OP is like a windmill. So what is your personality type? Don Quixote or Sancho Panza?
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
Straggler writes: If lack of proof, and thus lack of certainty, is all that is required for "agnosticism" then I am agnostic about pretty much everything. Including your existence and (depending just how philosophically pedantic one wants to get) maybe even my own existence as well. But I don't think such an all encompassing use of terminology is very helpful outside of pedantic philosophical circles. Well, you could always think therefore you are.  Actually, your comment is my point. Evidence is not proof. That is one reason why I consider this entire line of discussion, as well as the concept of evangelical atheism, ironic to the first degree.
What we can say is A) That there is absolutely no remotely reliable evidence that such things do actually exist. B) That there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that humans are intensely prone to inventing such things for reasons unrelated to their actual existence. On this basis I believe that any concept of god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced and high confidence albeit tentative position. Yes, according to realism and pragmatism, these are the best arguments for atheism. Are realism and pragmatism proven? Is science a subset of philosophy? And is it not a supreme irony that Dawkins gives Pantheism, Taoism, Deism, and Unitarianism a free pass in chapter 1 of the God Delusion, yet argues against the self-definition of Agnosticism in chapter 2? Arguing against individuals being allowed to self-describe their belief system seems a bit authoritarian to me. If using the term agnostic means atheist-lite, then just reset the Google translator in your brain, don't pretend to become the dictator of the English language. (not meant for you in particular, but rather a more universal disagreement with Dawkins and his followers, in this case). Pardon me for not including Russell in this discussion as a forefather, but he is the dude who thought all reality could be reduced to logical constructions - that is, until Wittgenstein.
If you want to pursue this it may be better placed here Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....? Yeah, you're right (assuming the postulates of realism and pragmatism).
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2011 5:49 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by Straggler, posted 06-16-2011 2:33 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 164 of 165 (620587)
06-17-2011 11:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by Jon
06-16-2011 3:16 PM
|
|
Re: definition
Jon writes: The discussion seems to be centering on distinctions between atheism, agnosticism, and non-theism. But this could never be on topic, since the OP clearly lays out extreme atheism/anti-theism as the relevant group. Fence riders just don't fall into this category. Why is there so much discussion going into them? Jon Yes, am off topic despite the ironic humor relative to the OP I have found in those who state they are the self-appointed emperor of the English language. Therefore I am out of here. Should anyone choose to debate whether or not one should be allowed to use the term agnostic because it is not politically correct, I am easy to contact, my new email address is in my profile. Later Jon, good luck.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 3:16 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2