Printable View
I think an atheist can have faith in non-divine phenomena. I find it inconsistent that they do. Currency is not 'fact based'. As I said above, it is an expression of confidence in the future stability of said government's coffers and it's ability to repay you. By it's very nature, this is speculation and is not 'fact' based. A fact is a known detail. It is not known that the US will not default on it's treasury bills or refuse to honor it's own currency next year.
As I mentioned when I corrected myself, I also incorrectly described the argument as a defense of faith. It is not and was not intended to be. Blaise Pascal was defending the value of asking the question in the first place. Damn you, James Leon. Not really, but get it right next time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
:bow:
Ah ok. Didn't read that far. Amusing argument anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I see no reason to distrust everything that can't be proven. I can't speak for other people but my reason for not believing in god isn't that he can't be proven, it's how I was raised. There's an infinite number of things that can't be proven or disproven. Most can be dismissed as irrelevent (I am god, the whole world is an illusion etc). I place religion in among those. I think having an "I'm not sure" position for all of these would be unnatural and for me dishonest. Yes, I'm sure we don't actually live in the Matrix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Science doesn't require any emotional commitment. I believe in say, the big bang, but I could care less* if it's actully true.
* :tongue3:
Well, if we really want to get into semantics, and sometimes it's important, you don't believe in the theory of the big bang, you hold it to be true. Belief implies faith, and science is supposed to be immune from faith. The scientific method requires skepticism of just about everything, and at the end of the day, you simply adhere to the most likely explanation of phenomenon as true.
Religious belief requires faith of things unknowable. Scientific theories do not claim that the knowledge is unknowable, only that we don't have complete knowledge at this time.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Its certainly not faith based. My local store unfortunately doesnt accept anything but cash or credit card anyway, so gold is out :clown:Quote:
Currency is not 'fact based'
But I still dont see what trust in currency has to do with not believing in supernatural beings. Maybe you are confusing atheism with say paranoia?
CBR
I don't really know how the universe was created really, or how/why we exist. In the beginning, as far as I know, there just....was. Until somebody can explain it better to me, I will keep asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I don't really have faith in my fellow man (although sometimes, I try to), and I will use whatever currency is available for me to use for expediency's sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Science is immune from faith. We have a lot of evidence proving that the Big Bang happened.
Now what happened before the the Big Bang...that's a whole other issue.
And Don, you never defined God for me (one of the conditions for you starting an argument with me).
Sorry, DA, I missed that blurb. And I'm not trying to argue with you, if it appears that I am, I'm being unusually obtuse, even for me.
I apologize for the length of this, but my defintion of what I believe is not a simple answer. Feel free to quit reading at any point.
I have rather traditionalist Chrisitan views of the identity of God, primarly stemming from the Trinity as revealed in the Bible and properly defined in the Nicene creed. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Each of the three of them sharing a common nature, yet existing as three separate entities.
God the Parent (now here's where I become a heretic, because I frequently pray to God the Father as God the Mother, I cannot believe in God the Father as uniquely male). This would be the source of life and all that is. God the Father/Mother has personal qualities, but doesn't exist as a unique person, as you or I do or Jesus does. More the sum total of all divinity.
God the Son. God incarnate. Spiritually timeless, but lived physically as a human being from approximately 7-4 B.C. to 26-29 A.D. Was made flesh to come to Earth and offer Himself as a perfect sacrafice to make ammends for our sins, thus depriving the devil dominion over us at the end of our physical lives here on Earth. Used the time leading up to said sacrafice to enhance our understanding of God, our purpose and role here in life and what God expects of us.
God the Holy Spirit: The Will of God made phyically manifest here on Earth. Be it a pillar of fire, a dove, what have you, it is God's decision to intervene directly here on Earth (something I don't believe God does very often).
I believe God created us because that is the nature of God, to create. We are God's ulitmate creation but one that eventually severed our ties with God, thus necessitating the need for Jesus' sacrafice. We're the little brother that fell down the well. In Eastern religions, there's a strong undercurrent of belief that we are in Hell. If you define Hell as a separation from God, then I agree with this. We are 'marooned' in this temporal existence due to our pride and hubris.
I believe in Heaven and Hell, but I don't believe in them as reward/punishment. When you die, I believe the divine spark that's in each of us continues on. Now, you either have conditioned your soul through your existence here on Earth to be prepared to enter communion with all the other souls in Heaven (and ultimately, return to communion with God) or you haven't, and you're forever locked out of the chance to rejoin. Not as punishment, but because it's of a different nature than you are.
I believe this 'conditioning of the soul' is a lot like physical conditioning. Imagine the communion of heaven to be like a marathon, run by a group of people running in a pack. If you've been training, you can run right along with them and not get tired. But if you're out of shape, you won't even want to. The pack will leave you behind, and you're on your own. I think it is the realization of this new reality that Biblical authors tried to metaphorically describe as eternal suffering, because once your soul realizes it's not going back where it belongs, it will ache for eternity. But I don't believe in lakes of fire or flame whips. The best way I can describe Hell, as I understand it is thus: Imagine being at a family party. Everybody in your family is overflowing with joy. Happy to see each other, happy to be together. Oblivious to the world outside. This party is taking place in a well-lit solid glass house. Outside, it's the dead of winter... dark, forbidding and chilling to the bone. For one reason or another: anger, shame, jealousy... you storm out and go outside. When you try to get back in, you realize there's no door. You're outside, in the cold and the dark, and it appears like your family has forgotten who you are. They're merrily going along without you. Now take that feeling and multply it by a million, and that's the 'damnation moment', the moment the soul realizes it will never reach Heaven.
To reiterate Banquo's point Don:
You sure you worshiping the correct God? There are many of them and you might not be right.
It is Banquo's contention that there are many. I don't see things the same way. I don't view a huge pantheon and we have a choice whether we want to pledge our allegiance to Zeus or Ra or Raven. But yes, I'm pretty sure I'm worshiping God in a manner God finds pleasing (at least I hope I am).
DC: following the logic of Pascals wager still leaves you with the question wich particular religion is in the right.
That question is impossible to answer, until the time it is revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
It all boils down to what you believe, what you finding fitting, and which one appeals to you.
If it were a matter only of your personal faith, that would be fine. But almost all modern religions feel it necessary to involve themselves in other people's morals and indeed politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Thus the question is entirely valid, and requires an answer. If Rupert's god tells me I should despise homosexuals, but Fred's god tells me I should cuddle one on a daily basis, and both try to influence my political representative, how do I know which is right? Which is my moral compass?
@ Don, I don't contend that there are many gods but that mankind has conceived of many gods and spirits. Most of these impose different requirements on the believer. The "logical" position that it is better/safer to believe in a god as an insurance policy is fallacious, since most of them demand one does something to earn the reward. If one does the wrong thing, even for the right reasons, many of these jealous gods (yours being a prime example, tolerating none but he) visit eternal punishment.
Frankly, I don't know why tree spirits fell out of vogue. IIRC they were really hot chicks with strategically placed leaves (a forest being kinda like a Beirut's Ultimate Fantasy Babe thread) and you can see trees.
Hey! Someone with my exact views! There are a few points/views I'd like to make/raise:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerard Byram
@ Sasaki - I'm atheist but I still can't sleep in because I work on Sundays! There, your divinity is disproved.:beam:
@ DC - I have heard this argument several times. To put it in other words, you are telling me that I should believe in God because it is the convenient thing to do. I will not dispute this notion, though I think this argument is absurd. Yes, I would like to believe that after I die I will go to a paradise and everything will be fine and dandy. However, life rarely works out that way and I fail to see why I should make an exception here. There are many negative aspects of life that I'd like to not believe in, but sadly there is often no alternative option. Yes, many of these aspects are concrete and religion is not, but this argument just provides evidence to my theory that people believe in Heaven because they can't face up to the possibility that there is not happiness after death. To me it is why fairy tales are so popular. And it is also why you will sad endings are much rarer in books and movies. People just won't accept a 'bad' ending.
@ lancelot - it is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? I was raised Roman Catholic, and they preach that God's love is unconditional, and that he is very forgiving of even the most extreme of sins. Yet Christians hold the belief that the simple act of disputing the existence of said God is enough to damn you to the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity. I've even heard some Christians say that Gandhi is in Hell just for choosing not to believe in the Christian God. It doesn't paint a very loving or forgiving picture of God, does it? It seems to me that this God is not loving after all but actually evil and intolerant.
Finally, @ GB - I agree 100%. I do not believe there is a God and the arguments about the creation of the universe are absurd because the same arguments could be used against the existence of God. Also, my view of life after death is that there is none. After you die you go back to the same state you were before you were conceived - oblivion. Unfortunately, in this view, it means that we will never actually know if God existed, because after death we won't be able to say or think: "Oh, I guess I was wrong/right after all." On the bright side, at least we won't be able to think: "Well, this really sucks." Yes, it is quite a pessimistic view because we won't actually discover what death brings, and I hope it doesn't occur this way, but my beliefs are what they are.
Never heard of Ignosticism before but I've had similar arguments months ago.
Understanding is a function of knowledge. No knowledge, no understanding. Hence one cannot define anything without any knowledge of it.
Example:
1) Define "Yfkgmaoggwokf". Try.
a) You have no knowledge nor any proof of "Yfkgmaoggwokf".
b) You can't define it either.
c) You can't claim it exists.
However, if you replace it with "GOD":
1) Define "God". Well?
a) You have no knowledge or proof of "God"
but magically,
b) God is the creator of the universe etc etc.
c) and God exists.
:skull:
Exhibit A:Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
The scratch marks on my back... :2thumbsup: :clown:
I'll let you fill in the dots.
Could be a lot of really confused and annoyed looking pacifist Buddhist monks in Valhalla...Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
:laugh4: :laugh4: Thanks, BDC, for the best mental image in the thread so far!:viking:Quote:
Could be a lot of really confused and annoyed looking pacifist Buddhist monks in Valhalla...
Here's what I don't get about agnosticism:
If you are having a conversation with someone and they asked you what you thought of the Flying Spaghetti monster, would you really say "I'm sorry, but due to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not subject to our causal laws and such, I cannot ascertain whether or not His Noodliness exists"? I think the most rational answer there would be "No".
Or how about (for some of the more conservative people): If someone asked you if you were actually a woman trapped in a mans body would you really say "I'm not sure, I can't prove it one way or another, it is a definite possibility"? Even if you said that would you really be thinking that?
Sasaki, I think it's more about humility than anything else. When you consider how vast and mysterious our universe is, it makes more sense to say "I'm open to the possibility," than to say "There is no God." Anybody with half a brain and a healthy dollop of imagination can surmise that there's more to life than can be easily perceived or measured.
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. This isn't a good or bad thing, it just is. To a greater or lesser extent, we are all bound by limitations of our minds, imaginations, and perspectives. There's no harm in being humble, and admitting that we don't know everything, and by virtue of our nature we can't know everything.
How do you know we can't know everything? You can't prove that. That's the other problem with Agnosticism. They say you can't prove or disprove god, but they never prove that you can't prove or disprove god. It's an objection to taking a firm position on god, and yet it itself is a firm position. I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Also, I don't think the universe is that vast or mysterious.
edit: you did answer my question as to why someone would say that in conversation though. I don't see that personally though. And I still don't get the philisophical position.
Eh? Are we talking about the same universe? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Maybe. You can't prove the universe is vast :tongue3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think I've already made my feelings clear about the use of the word "prove" in this context. Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.
Call it Lemur's Corollary to Godwin's Law.
Yes, agnosticism essentially rejects proof entirely, saying nothing can be proven, but it's basis for rejecting proof is no more sound than claiming there is no god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Just to be absolutely clear -- I'm not rejecting proof as a tool or a concept. I'm saying that its use as a demand or offering in a chat board context is not only counter-productive, but detrimental to the argument of the user. I'm classifying "prove" in the chat board context much the way "Nazi" gets classified in the most common readings of Godwin's Law.
There's a much ruder version of what I'm trying to formulate, but it wouldn't be appropriate for the Org.
I agree sure, but you can't discuss Agnosticism without using "prove". It's like trying to discuss republicans without using the word "pork".
I must agree with Sasaki. If you would've told someone from medieval times that we could travel to the moon, light actually has weight, there are colours which the eyes can't see, that certain microbes can kill a person etc. etc. etc. they would've said you were insane and burnt you at the stakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Point I want to make, in 'just' a 1000 years (and especially the last 200 years) sience has taken a giant leap. I don't think that, unless humanity is destroyed soon [very possible] this trend will stop. Thus in a few hundred years we will have massive amounts more knowledge about the universe, maybe then we'll finally get rid of all those silly religion threads :laugh4:
I guess my belief is that knowledge is fractal, and that the more we learn, the more we'll discover we don't know. Which is not in any way to imply that it's a zero-sum game -- far from it. More knowledge is great! Huzzah for science!
But how many physicists have predicted the "end of physics"? How many careers have been flushed down the bottomless hole known as the Grand Unified Theory?
We should learn everything we can, but we will never learn everything. Prove me wrong!:laugh4:
No problem, after about 18 reïncarnations we can come here and discuss the fact that there's no god...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There's just reïncarnation which enables us to discuss this topic till the end of days ~D.
So how many physicts have dropped their GUTs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
=][=
I agree that science appears to be fractal, but fractals have simple explanations (their formulas are simple, even if the output is infinite in complexity).
=][=
Two problems I have with this. Specifically why bother posting anything at all if you cannot get any closer to a proof/truth/understanding/etc?Quote:
Anybody who claims they can "prove" something in a chat board, or anybody who demands that something be "proved" in a chat board, well, they should at least lose style points.
Secondly your own arguement if correct will form a paradox and disproves itself. :wall:
Why bother posting? Certainly not to prove anything. Is anybody going to "prove" evolution to Navarros? There are no rules as such, no way to declare something proved or disproved, and no way to reach someone who has an entrenched position. Rather, I see this as spirited conversation, with ebbs and flows. And I like it that way. I'd much rather be in a good conversation than in a debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
All Cretans are liars? Not exactly. I'm asserting that proof is an irrelevant concept in this context. And I'm not trying to prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Of course there's a god...It's me..I realized it a while back when I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself.
Thank you I'll sign autographs after the show...
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianofsmeg16
There is no way to prove that there is a God! However, give me any other theory of the origin of life/earth and I'll disprove it! It is the logical conclusion that there is a God, however it cannot be proven by natural means (since God is supernatural) and gets down to a conviction of faith.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
By definition, logic and faith are two mutually exclusive things. Therefore, it cannot be a "logical conclusion that there is a God" and "gets down to a conviction of faith" at the same time, sorry.
If you ask me, I believe that there aren't any bloody gods to claim superiority over me. There are, however, hobbits, elves, morlocks, Argonians, and Smarties -- all of which are proven to exist and are related to the humanfolk one way or another.
I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.
It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.
Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?
Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?
Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt.
The logic that I'm refering to is that if there is no other way for the earth to have come into existance, than it must have been through a god, since the earth is in existence! (I just stated that I could prove any other theory wrong).Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
This argument is absurd. How did God come into existance? Fight fire with fire, I say. The exact arguments you are using for the existance of God I can use against the existance of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Well, when a theist resorts to the old 'Faith' tactic, then this is an admission that you can't prove the existence of God ... although they will usually still try if pressed. Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Wiki interpretationQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
However, Merriam-Webster does not recognize the word.
From what I can derive, it is a position in which explicitly declares the meaninglessness of the Big Question; whereas agnosticism in general dances around the topic with an "I'm not sure," Ignostics, in my interpretation, would say "I don't care."
In a way, it might be closer than Occam's Razor that it first appears.
I said right off the bat that belief in God is a matter of faith!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
'Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.'
Really? Are you just saying that or do you have faith in it (the belief that having faith is irrational)?
I would really like to here your theories! No, I wouldn't - I would REALLY REALLY like to!
What! My arguement was not that God came into existense!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
As for Him coming into existence, He didn't! He has always existes and there for could never 'come' into existence!
If you don't want to believe it, don't! It is my personal conviction. Having spent many years studying the origin of life, and argueing AGAINST Christianity, I came to that conviction because al else seemed wrong! Not only that but the Bible seemed way to accurate for a book of Its years to NOT be divinely inspired!
"Irrational" does not necessarily come with the negative connotation it has in everyday speech. In this particular case, it merely is an adjective to describe a position not supported by the use of logic, often referred to as "faith."Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
OED doesn't recognize it either, but if people are using it then I suppose it exists. I like the 'apathetic agnosticism' definition, but as most agnostics I know are apathetic anyway the term would seem just a little redundant.
But that doesn't make any bit of sense. How can something exist but not have a creation? How can something just have always existed? Why did "all else" seem wrong? Was it your personal conviction? Because if you are arguing with logic and rationality, then you can't possibly believe that God has always existed. I just don't understand how this could happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Your about to argue yourself into a circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
Yeah...if something can't exist without being created, than how does anything exist?
Yes, I'm going to stop before it gets any more confusing...~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Good point, it's just hard for me to imagine God always existing. When was there a beginning? How did this beginning come about? Why does God exist? Why does the universe exist? If there was no beginning, then how is this possible? Man, I have to stop...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.
The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.
edit: you might want to read what I wrote - did I claim the theist arguement does not contain logical fallacies, or did I state something else? Are you attempting a strawman arguement by arguing a position that I did not claim in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
And neither can you justify a claim as false by simply attempting to disprove existance by lack of evidence. That is also a major logical fallacy. So if you agree that the theist argument is one type of logical fallacy - you have to also realize attempting to disprove God's existance based upon lack of evidence of his existance is also a fallacuous postion to take.
Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.Quote:
Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.
I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.
My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
As for your later assertions, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I will re-cap my earlier post as you clearly did not read it:
"I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.
It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.
Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?
Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?
Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt."
I think we have the next Richard Dawkins here. Only rather better at it already...
I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.
Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.
Oh dear, I had to assume that you hadn't read the original post because it basically answered the position you accused me of assuming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
A theist states or assumes that something exists, i.e. God, which cannot be either quantitatively or qualitatively proven by any sensible criteria, therefore the onus is on him to find proof of God's existence. The atheist doesn't have to do this because the lack of such proof already supports his position.
You have a penchant for this 'Straw Man' chap I have noticed, but I can assure you that he exists only in your own mind, and you call him 'God'. ~;) :laugh4:
Oh, and I am quite satisfied that my reasoning is valid. It may not ultimately be correct [Please no God, don't send me thereeeeeeee! :oops: ], but it ain't bogus.
It seems that your continuing your strawman arguement once again, pretty much the normal course of events for discussions concerning religion. For someone who attempted to strawman my statement into a logical fallacy that did not exist - you have demonstrated a penchant for making many different types of logical fallacies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Lol! Being a generous sort I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. A desperate tactic, yet quite useful in maintaining a completely untenable intellectual position. :beam:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Tsk Tsk - it seems your still maintaining the strawman method of approaching an arguement. :dizzy2:
It's not a strawman dude, he just misinterpretted what you wrote.
Oh I could have some fun.........:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Is this where you wanna be when Jesus comes back?:inquisitive:
Most amusing Redleg. You persist with this 'Straw Man' accusation, bandying the term about as if it was some magical formula to ward off the evil of a reasoned argument. Yet, you never take the trouble to advance your own position any further, or evince any understanding of the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.
Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.
Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket. :laugh4:
Thank you. I was thinking along these lines, but I couldn't seem to put my thoughts into an understandable argument.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
Or could it be that you have not bothered to pay attention to my postion because you have trapped yourself in your own strawman. Your assuming that I have taken a postion on Ignosticism, which you will discover if you go back and read - I have not. What I have stated is that one can not prove existance based upon the lack of evidence of his non-existance, and the converse is true one can not disprove existance by the lack of evidence of its existance. If you had been paying attention you would of noticed that postion. In other words I have no desire to attempt to prove God's existance nor his non-existance, since it always ends with ad hominem statements, and ancedotal evidence would not constitute proof, because you did not observe it nor could you replicate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Yep, which you did, don't attempt to deny it. Shall we review your initial statement to me.Quote:
So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.
Where in my postion of your about to argue yourself into a circle did I state a postion on the existance of god... You took the strawman route because you did not understand the statement. Good show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Ah again with the strawman arguement. Rather lovely isn't. Your arguing against a postion that I have not taken, which is exactly what a strawman arguement is. Have a nice day....:smash:Quote:
Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.
Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket. :laugh4:
Well, there's no resolution to this, seeming as you are stuck in your 'Straw Man' wonderland. :dizzy2:
Ciao!
:laugh4:
Who is to say that God came first?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
I find it funny that you are belittling theist and agnostics saying that they are out of it, that atheism is the only logical choice considering Ockham’s methodological procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
I don’t know much about you Red Peasant but I might assume you are a student at Oxford. You seem to be regurgitating something a professor or lecturer might have said. You might even be one.. I don’t know.
It is funny how they always seem to drag religion into the scientific sphere where it does not belong.
You can’t use logic or a scientific methodology like Ockham’s on the metaphysical sphere that religion resides in.
Do you even know anything about Ockham? He was deeply religious himself being a friar and a great theologian.
The logical point of view if I should even dare to use that word is agnosticism, because that at least acknowledges the fact that religion and religious questions are metaphysical and hence not applicable to logic or science.
The answer to any such metaphysical question is: “There is no way of knowing”.
Warning a rebuttal in the same manner of ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Actually one should say that it is yourself stuck in denial, and I am rather amused by that.
I simply find it completely absurd that some people look at the development of life and the universe and feel the need to give that development such an awful personality or character, based primarily on concepts of Sins and judgement of Sins (and calls it love and benevolence).
Seriously, just looking at the god of the Bible for the moment - here is a tyrant who approves of ritual human sacrifice, rape, child abuse, animal abuse, mass murder, slavery, discrimination against anyone who does not conform, and unthinking violence... and anyone who questions this God's 'unconditional love' gets sent to a special place where they are horribly tortured for all eternity... :skull: :whip:
If you don't believe me, then read the Bible... :book:
One can't try to disprove the existence of Deities any more than try to prove their existence; but common sense tells me that characterizing the development of life and the universe in this way is completely absurd. :thumbsdown:
to believe in this sort of 'God' is intellectually embarassing. :clown: