129 replies to this topic

[markdohle]

The Silver Thong, on 03 October 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

and here you loose all credibility. Has Euphorbia ever called for the death of anyone have they caled believes evil and should rot in dirt, NO so your example tells more of your extrimism no one elses.

Well no, not yet ;-).  But all throughout  the world, atheist kill believers on a regular basis.  China and North Korea today, in the past other countries.  Atheist have bloody hands as well in fact the 20th century attest to that reality.  It is people who are the problem, not atheism nor faith, just people doing what they do best.

peace
mark

Edited by markdohle, 03 October 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[markdohle]

Timonthy, on 03 October 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

What is more irrational:
Trying to prove something that there is no evidence for? And believing it anyway?
Or not believing in something because there is no evidence to support it whatsoever?

I'll rephrase: Is it more irrational to believe in something there is no evidence for, or to not believe in something there is no evidence for?

Faith in God is not irrational and there is evidence.  The anthropic principle points to a creator, though does not prove it.  The fact that we live in a rational universe ruled by laws, and creatures who are in fact rational points to a rational creator.  Philosophical proofs can be convincing to many, or to put it better, show believers that do in fact have reasons to believe in God.  Since the universe had a beginning and is not eternal, well that points to a creator as well, though not absolute proof.; Science for many has nothing to say on the God issue and a mistakes for them to do so in my opinion.  Dawkins a great man of science makes a fool of himself when speaking on God and faith-heads as well as many of the new atheist.    In fact it resembles a cult.  Just go to one of their web pages and see for yourself.....though you may be a new atheist yourself.

peace
mark

[markdohle]

Hasina, on 03 October 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Well now, that was just harsh and mean spirited. Quite uncalled for.

This is one problem that I have with a few agnostics, and anyone else really when they think they 'see both sides', if you don't really have a stance on an issue, how can you have an understanding of either end? If you claim agnosticism, then claim atheists don't understand theists, and vice versa, what makes agnostics so special that they understand both sides? Or in this case, you so special?

I think he was responding to the atheist tendency to think those who don't agree as crazy....perhaps you are like that, I don't know, hope not.  He reacts against what he interprets as an injustice, though like you say, he may do the same thing when he is riled ;-).  I think we can respond to an indivudual in any group from some past experiences which clouds communication, transference can be a big block to listening and actual communication.

Peace
Mark

[Seeker79]

Hasina, on 02 October 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Indecision is still a decision. Just shrugging and saying 'well, there might be a god or there might not be, I'll just sit and wait' is not reasonable at all. Agnostics are only viewed as 'reasonable' because they can sway from side to side and prop up either end of the argument without having to take a real position. I prefer conviction to this 'welp we just don't know' rhetoric.
You yourself make a stance now by saying both are flawed but never think that this agnostic view point just makes you cross eyed. Being 'undecided' isn't a stance, it's a defense against making a desicion, which everyone has to make at some time or the other, even to ourselves. Humans are a 'this' or 'that' kind of species. It's what got us to the moon and kept us from being eaten by lions on the savannah. If my views are flawed, I'll change them, but not until proven otherwise.

You are under the illusion that belief is a decision. It is not. Certainly beliefs can be backed up, but you don't choose to believe or not believe you just do based upon your own psychology.

Agnostics are simply being honest. They don't know. Which is true because no one really can. Whatever/however created this universe probably lies outside of it, therefore that information is inaccessible by material means. Agnostics are not defending anything they are stateing the only actual truth that can be recognized. "we don't know." to say otherwise must be inaccurate. Note, opinions are another matter. I'm an agnostic theist but that is truth then an opinion. I recognize I cannot know for sure if there is a god or the nature of such a being. My experiences could be all psychological and physiological, but I am convinced there is, so I have an opinion. and no my beliefs are not choices, they just are. I could not possibly believe any different if I tried. Potentially new evidences could sway me, but I wouldn't have a choice in that either.

Edited by Seeker79, 03 October 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 03 October 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

I just think you are generalizing. In my experience, atheists are more like myself than the vocal few you see all over the internet.

Your kidding right? You don't see your self as a vocal atheist?

[Seeker79]

Emma_Acid, on 03 October 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

There is no such thing as different types of proof.

What!!!! You must be jokeing. There is no "proof" of anything. Scientific knowledge is expressed with statistics with degrees of accuracy and margin for error.

There are many kinds of evidence. Empirical, circumstantial, annecdotal etc...

All the kinds of evidence evenchually break down, there for a prudent thinker looks at all of it.

If 10,000 people witness a murder and identify the culprit it's much more likely to be true than if one person does. Plural of anecdote isn't proof, but it gets closer and closer.

The same thing with circumstances... The more circumstances that point to a specific conclusion the more likely it is to be true.

Empirical evidence is great, but when it breaks down its useless for decision makeing, and without the whole picture small truths say nothing about the larger ones that they are apart of.

100 billion years from now ( something like that) our galaxy will sit alone. We will have no way of knowing that other galaxies exist. We will not know that space expands, we could not possibly have a big bang theory, our entire cosmological knowledge base will be completely different. Thories based purely on fundamental Empiricism is and must be an utter failure.

Edited by Seeker79, 03 October 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[Hasina]

Seeker79, on 03 October 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

You are under the illusion that belief is a decision. It is not. Certainly beliefs can be backed up, but you don't choose to believe or not believe you just do based upon your own psychology.

Agnostics are simply being honest. They don't know. Which is true because no one really can. Whatever/however created this universe probably lies outside of it, therefore that information is inaccessible by material means. Agnostics are not defending anything they are stateing the only actual truth that can be recognized. "we don't know." to say otherwise must be inaccurate. Note, opinions are another matter. I'm an agnostic theist but that is truth then an opinion. I recognize I cannot know for sure if there is a god or the nature of such a being. My experiences could be all psychological and physiological, but I am convinced there is, so I have an opinion. and no my beliefs are not choices, they just are. I could not possibly believe any different if I tried. Potentially new evidences could sway me, but I wouldn't have a choice in that either.

I believed in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the monster under the bed, etc and so forth. Why did I believe in those things? The half eaten cookies, the quarter left for me under my pillow, the scary stories my sisters would tell, I believed because I had these 'proven' facts to support them, I chose to believe in them because the evidence (and my sisters were pretty trust worthy till proven otherwise) pointed towards their existence. If a person just chooses to believe because well gosh darnit it's a nice story, well that's just silly.

Honesty really has nothing to do with it, theists believe they're being honest when they say 'this god did this and I have the proof' and the same with atheists. Yes, true, there's no proof what happened before the creation of the universe but one example is not a very good one to just up and decide 'we don't know'. I have to agree more with Batfastard then anyone else, atheist or theist, agnostic or agnostic theist, it only really matters to those who 'believe' whether a god exists or doesn't exist. For me, atheism fits into my world view. Does it matter whether a god exists? Not really, no, especially not one who does nothing.

[The Id3al Experience]

Emma_Acid, on 03 October 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Ah, the tedious old "science can't address my beliefs" shtick. Sorry, if something can't be addressed by the scientific method, it doesn't exist. Science is just a tool, a way of approaching our understanding of the world around is.

Rather than me not understanding rationality, you don't seem to understand science.

Believing in something that has no empirical evidence for it is irrational, and your made up definitions aren't going to change anyone's minds.

I find this post quite ignorant. Considering science is still only a baby, to say if science cannot proof it, it doesnt excist.

Science doesnt have an opinion on right or wrong, exsistance or non exsistance. it is just a tool like you say.... Therefore to say something doesnt exsist because science hasnt proved it to be, is completely insane and irrational(as this is the word being used alot)

It ONLY implies that science may not be effective to measure this phenomena until it has advanced.

Or it may not exsist, but to say it isnt now is completely ignorant, insane and irrational.

[Seeker79]

Hasina, on 03 October 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Yes, true, there's no proof what happened before the creation of the universe but one example is not a very good one to just up and decide 'we don't know'.

Well.... We don't. Anyone claiming that they do is simply inaccurate. You can have an opinion about it and Mabey on of those opinions is right, but it is still an opinion.

You did not choose to believe in the toothfary, you simple did until you had reason not to.

[Hasina]

Seeker79, on 03 October 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

Well.... We don't. Anyone claiming that they do is simply inaccurate. You can have an opinion about it and Mabey on of those opinions is right, but it is still an opinion.

You did not choose to believe in the toothfary, you simple did until you had reason not to.

Once again, true, we don't, but it's still the same as your concept of belief, opinion still has a right to exist and still has a right to be used as a empirical conclusion or 'belief'

I did choose, I was introduced to the concept of the Tooth Fairy, I was told 'there is a tiny woman with fairy wings who comes into my room at night and takes my baby teeth and gives me a quarter for them'. I had the proof, those quarters, I had my parents backing it, I choose to follow the evidence, there was a Tooth Fairy. Maybe that's a bit analytical, but it's how the human mind works. Evidence, Choose, Conclusion, Belief.

[Seeker79]

Hasina, on 03 October 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Once again, true, we don't, but it's still the same as your concept of belief, opinion still has a right to exist and still has a right to be used as a empirical conclusion or 'belief'

I did choose, I was introduced to the concept of the Tooth Fairy, I was told 'there is a tiny woman with fairy wings who comes into my room at night and takes my baby teeth and gives me a quarter for them'. I had the proof, those quarters, I had my parents backing it, I choose to follow the evidence, there was a Tooth Fairy. Maybe that's a bit analytical, but it's how the human mind works. Evidence, Choose, Conclusion, Belief.

That's still not a choice. You are who you are evidence sways you. after seeing the evidence, your mind believed, with that bit of evidence and who you are, you could not have made a choice of disbelief because you would continue to believe despite a desire not to. You could express disbelief but deep down you still would. Nobody chooses to truly believe anything. They either do or don't. One can choose to be skeptical of their benefits and seek more answers and evenchually change them, but that is another matter.

[Hasina]

Seeker79, on 03 October 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

That's still not a choice. You are who you are evidence sways you. after seeing the evidence, your mind believed, with that bit of evidence and who you are, you could not have made a choice of disbelief because you would continue to believe despite a desire not to. You could express disbelief but deep down you still would. Nobody chooses to truly believe anything. They either do or don't. One can choose to be skeptical of their benefits and seek more answers and evenchually change them, but that is another matter.

This discussion has gotten a bit more semantic then I wish it would have gotten. Answer me this, why do Creationists continue to hold onto those views when it's quite obvious the evidence points towards evolution as the driving force behind the diversification of life on planet Earth? If you're saying the evidence leads to belief, that it's not a choice, then why does this evidence not change their 'beliefs'?

Belief is defined as being:
noun
1. something believed;  an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Source: http://dictionary.re...m/browse/belief

None of those fit with how you think evidence works with 'belief'.

Edited by Hasina, 03 October 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[seishin]

To escape something, one would have to reason that they are trapped--it is perceived to be so.

Based upon this, I would argue that we all feel trapped in some way.

Reality can, therefore, only be defined by our perception of things.

If you are not trapped, then your are trapping. If everyone is doing this, then we are all, in fact, slave and master to/of perception.

[Seeker79]

Hasina, on 03 October 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

This discussion has gotten a bit more semantic then I wish it would have gotten. Answer me this, why do Creationists continue to hold onto those views when it's quite obvious the evidence points towards evolution as the driving force behind the diversification of life on planet Earth? If you're saying the evidence leads to belief, that it's not a choice, then why does this evidence not change their 'beliefs'?

Belief is defined as being:
noun
1. something believed;  an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Source: http://dictionary.re...m/browse/belief

None of those fit with how you think evidence works with 'belief'.

You were not reading my posts. I said based on your own psychology. How evidence sways you is going to be different than Somone else. For some people all they need is faith others are empirical fundamentalists, still others need to see it for themselves. I remember when I was Christian, I tried very hard to believe in the events of the christ story, I just couldn't.  In the end I had to be honest with myself.

[Hasina]

Seeker79, on 03 October 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

You were not reading my posts. I said based on your own psychology. How evidence sways you is going to be different than Somone else. For some people all they need is faith others are empirical fundamentalists, still others need to see it for themselves. I remember when I was Christian, I tried very hard to believe in the events of the christ story, I just couldn't.  In the end I had to be honest with myself.

True enough, but the evidence in the religious sense is usually based on faith and belief, evidence from the scientific sense is what you can observe, what you can feel and prove again and again, then there's a difference.

Edited by Hasina, 03 October 2012 - 10:01 PM.