Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Evolution and a supreme being.
Options
Comments
-
Stop now, you're in danger of flagrant misuse of science in the manner of which the word "quantum" gets thrown about.mylastparadigm wrote: ».Secondly: anyone ever hear of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. More or less, it means you cant define the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously. On a deeper understanding, this means that uncertainty underlies the most fundamental functional particle in our universe.0 -
"...there quite literally is no pro-god arguments left..."
if that is the case, why do you think most people still believe in a god? like i said earlier, one can hardly write off 85% of the world population (or whatever it is) as blind sheep.
im genuinely interested in your views. im not trying to bait you or anything. i think we could all do with a little more listening and a little less preaching.0 -
Jimoslimos wrote: »Stop now, you're in danger of flagrant misuse of science in the manner of which the word "quantum" gets thrown about.
im afraid the science im talking about is sound. this is an arguement forwarded by paul davies, its not mine im afraid. anyone who is interested in good science and the interplay between science and the great questions would enjoy his writing.0 -
[QUOTE=smish;78486552]When one reads the bible, one most read it from the point of view that all in it is of symbolic nature.
.[/QUOTE]
I did. Including the 'Jesus' bit0 -
mylastparadigm wrote: »thats not true in my experience. people dont believe blindly. you have to allow that all men share the same credibility as you allow yourself. You chose in good faith so you have to allow that to everyone else. many struggle with the idea of a god, find it hard to believe, maybe dont believe at all but want to.
i dont think you should write off 85-90% of the worlds population (theists) as blind sheep. just like you should not write off anyone here who does not believe in a diety, equally.
with regard to science being the virtue of doubt, i see very few posters here giving an inch to admit that he or she might be wrong, atheists and theists alike.
I never said they don't believe blindly, nor am I writing off 85-90% of the world's population as sheeple. As for posters here now showing that idea, I think that's immaterial because most people know that many scientists don't even show a tendency to admit they could be wrong. Then again, I would make the argument that most scientists don't even know what science is and have little if any knowledge of the philosophy of science. But that's a topic of a different thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
There are a number of reasons why this is the case.mylastparadigm wrote: »if that is the case, why do you think most people still believe in a god? like i said earlier, one can hardly write off 85% of the world population (or whatever it is) as blind sheep.
In the vast, vast majority of cases, the existence of God is taught as fact from a very young age and the person is rarely, if ever, challenged to consider whether or not it's true. Look at the thread which discusses things you were incorrectly taught and you can see how powerful the stuff you learn at an early age becomes. To a certain extent any old nonsense that you're told when you're very young will persist as absolute truth in your mind until someone shows you otherwise. This isn't necessarily religious stuff - how many people do you know touch wood, or talk to magpies?
Religion by and large thrives because it actively discourages critical thinking and often builds into its rules that such critical thinking is forbidden. Or at the very least something to be ashamed of.
In many cases, questioning the teaching you were brought up with carries a stigmastism that draws at best disapproval from one's parents and peers, and at worst can lead to being killed. It's a positive feedback loop where one is constantly encouraged to defend the beliefs at all costs and in doing so you cause others similarly act in its defence.
So it takes a truly rebellious person to challenge the doctrine that they were brought up in and which is staunchly defended by their family.
It's only when doctrine is no longer held in widespread reverence (as i most western countries), that this questioning nature can spread to those who would otherwise stick with it for fear of being ostracised.
In Ireland, we're kind of at the tipping point on that. Irreligiousity is widely being considered as "normal", but we still have large numbers of people who continue to blindly claim affiliation to a religion that they don't actually adhere to.0 -
mylastparadigm wrote: »by respect i mean just not being nasty to each other, keeping in mind that belief makes up a fundamental part of both science and religion.
So you said but I think it is only true to a degree for science. Nothing is 100% proven to be true in science but I am not sure that licenses the wheeling in of the term "belief". Science is not the practice of belief, but of implementing and running with whatever appears most likely to be true at any given time.
What is most likely to be true at any given time is established based not only on the data available to us but other methodologies such as prediction and falsification and so on.
So science is not really about "We believe X to be true" but more about "Of all the things that can explain Y, X is at this time the best and most well supported explanation so we will run with it".
This is in no way at all comparable to what we would call "belief" in religion which is quite often based on not verifying ones ideas in any way, especially with god belief based on god of the gaps, or on wishful thinking, fear, pascals wager or any other number of motivations for believing something with no evidence, argument, data, reasons or any other substantiation whatsoever.
Science in essence is therefore basing an opinion on truth based solely on the evidence one has available without making up evidence that is not or ignoring evidence that is.
Religion on the other hand almost makes the use of made up evidence, or the ignoring of established evidence, it's bread and butter.mylastparadigm wrote: »you kinda took a swipe at them by saying they weren't capable. i dont think that was fair.
Perhaps you do not but I warrant you think so for the wrong reason. It is not that I am saying they are not capable in the sense of it can be done but they simply are not up to the task.... like lifting a car is possible but I certainly can not do it. I mean they are not capable in that the position can not be supported.
In other words my capability comment was directed at the possibility of the position to be established and defended. Not on the inability of theists to do it. As such I rather think my comment is fairer than you first thought.
In short, if a position is untenable then of course they are incapable of defending it.mylastparadigm wrote: »can you comment on why you think atheists are so vocal about something, that by definition, they are not part of?
I can indeed and have done so on quite a number of occasions on this forum and others. Mainly because the question gets asked often. Militant Homophobe and Christian Apologist Dinesh D'Souza for example makes it one of the first things he says in any debate on the subject of religion. He always asks "Where are all the books, speeches and debates against the existence of unicorns? Why are atheists so obsessed with God?"
The answer is simple. Many of us feel we have no choice. Take myself for example. I have a massive interest in many areas. Politics, ethics, child education, morality, sexuality, womens rights, gay rights, abortion issues to name but a few of a long list.... and not one thing on that list am I able to practice without the god fearing coming in and espousing god based views without establishing that base even exists.
To understand what that feels like I invite you to forget about religion for a moment... as you said its an emotive topic.... and come with me on a short analogy.
Imagine you work in politics and you are sitting with all your other politicians in a room. Into this room walks a guy with a piece of paper full of statistics. He suddenly starts espousing all kinds of things BASED on those statistics and little else. Ideas for laws, morality, education curriculum in schools and more.
You ask him where the statistics came from, how they were compiled and by who. He refuses to answer but tells you he believes they are all accurate.
You ask again, saying it is important, but now all he does is get offended that you would even ask or doubt him. He even proposes and tries to implement laws saying you can not question him and calls these laws "Blasphemy".
You laugh at his unsubstantiated statistics but then... to your horror... you notice that all the other politicians are believing him and going along with these baseless and clearly made up numbers. They do not care that there is NO REASON whatsoever to think the statistics true, accurate or anything but invented by the guy holding the page.
THAT is how people like myself feel and I resist the use and application of the god concept for the exact same reasons people should question and resist the application of a page of statistics without even a scrap of history or substantiation behind them.
Resisting baseless, unevidenced and unsubstantiated claims like the existence of god in our halls of power, education and science is exactly what the heart of "secularism" is all about. You can believe there is a god all you like, but if you walk into those halls with that belief before you then prepare to meet resistance from the likes of myself.
I hope the analogy helps understand it a bit more. There is more to it than that of course but that is one core motivation I think I can offer you. Another core motivation is that religions strength in the past came from not being questioned and from inventing newer and more insidious ways to silence dissent, questions and opposition. That was a horrific state of affairs and today I think the onus is on all of us to make sure that wherever a bad or false idea is espoused that someone who does not know better might hear it.... that we ensure the counter arguments and information always pop up right there beside it.
And I am proud of my own part, however small, in ensuring that this is what happens.
Another relevant, comical and interesting aspect of this discussion you will find in this link here when Micheal Nugent was asked of an Atheist Conference why one would even HAVE such a conference. After all, he was asked, would it not be the same as people who do not collect stamps all getting together to talk about not collecting stamps. I think his answer sums it up nicely and is applicable to your question too.0 -
Religion isn't all that different from science, and oddly in the very same way as you described in your first example.mylastparadigm wrote: »So, while science and logic definately point us in a direction, at the Nth degree, science leans a little on belief too. It must to allow us to carry on.
Both attempt to use logic and as they both do this, they are, by definition, axiomatic, which is the greatest limitation of logic.
For example, if 1+1 does not equal 2, then however flawless (or more correctly especially if flawless) the logic that follows, the entire field of mathematics will end up being false. Religion also comes with axioms, except it tends to ascribe them to 'faith'; initial starting points or presumptions from which the rest is logically extrapolated. Of course, where science and religion differ is that science tends to minimize these presumptions, while religion will often offer us grand axioms - aptly named leaps of faith.
Where science may presume that the shortest distance between two points is a line, religion will make the far more ambitious presumption that a rather large piece of literature is the Word of God.
Often the logic that follows is fairly sound. If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then Harold Camping's prediction of the end of the World, meticulously calculated using this source, would also be correct. Except of course, using that same source, his calculations may be disproved on the basis of Matthew 25:13. All within the same perfectly logical framework - as long as you accept that the initial axioms, that is.
Of course, this does not mean that religion is the only system that may be based on shaky axioms. Science has done this in the past quite a few times too. Nonetheless, even a religious person would have to admit that religion does tend to make the larger leaps of faith in this regard and, logically, the larger the leap the greater the chance it's wrong.
Personally, I choose to believe in God. Or a Creator. Or Spaghetti Monster. Why? Partially because my knowledge of quantum mechanics is too limited to make a direct and detailed examination of its findings and also because I'm suspicious of any science that is so dependant on probability.mylastparadigm wrote: »if that is the case, why do you think most people still believe in a god? like i said earlier, one can hardly write off 85% of the world population (or whatever it is) as blind sheep.
But mainly because it makes me feel a little better.
It's like Christmas; I know it's all nonsense - based upon something that even the gospels don't fully agree upon, full of unrelated silliness like Santa, reindeer, tinsel on trees and so on and, of course, historically simply replacing the function a number of pagan festivals that preceded it.
But I'm also very fond of it. And it's fun. And it gives me an excuse to overeat.
Truth can often be overrated.0 -
There are a number of reasons why this is the case.
In the vast, vast majority of cases, the existence of God is taught as fact from a very young age and the person is rarely, if ever, challenged to consider whether or not it's true.
you are not affording the people the choice and respect you made for yourself. i really feel you have to afford everyone the credit you afford to yourself.Religion by and large thrives because it actively discourages critical thinking and often builds into its rules that such critical thinking is forbidden. Or at the very least something to be ashamed of.
i would have thought the romanticism of religion and its promises was the main reason it thrives. i have to be honest with you, growing up we were told what we believed by the nun in school. it had the exact opposite effect on us, in fairness. do you think i would be shamed in the last ten years for discenting? i can tell you, i haven't. by anyone.In many cases, questioning the teaching you were brought up with carries a stigmastism that draws at best disapproval from one's parents and peers, and at worst can lead to being killed. It's a positive feedback loop where one is constantly encouraged to defend the beliefs at all costs and in doing so you cause others similarly act in its defence.
in fairness to you, that sounds like the middle east or that direction. and in that case, i would agree.So it takes a truly rebellious person to challenge the doctrine that they were brought up in and which is staunchly defended by their family.
do theists posting on this forum fit your definition of truely rebellious?It's only when doctrine is no longer held in widespread reverence (as i most western countries), that this questioning nature can spread to those who would otherwise stick with it for fear of being ostracised.
In Ireland, we're kind of at the tipping point on that. Irreligiousity is widely being considered as "normal", but we still have large numbers of people who continue to blindly claim affiliation to a religion that they don't actually adhere to.
is it blind though? are they not getting something out of it? whatever it is. i still feel you have to afford people the respect to chose with the same critical appraisal as you or I.
Im sorry if it seems like im not getting my points across very well. i dont really have an opinion on this topic as a whole. but i am intereseted in listening to fair opinion.0 -
mylastparadigm wrote: »"...there quite literally is no pro-god arguments left..."
if that is the case, why do you think most people still believe in a god? like i said earlier, one can hardly write off 85% of the world population (or whatever it is) as blind sheep.
Sorry I nearly missed this. Not sure why you replied to me in one post directly with the QUOTE function then replied again two posts later without it.
However the answer is simple. People appear to be capable of believing something.... or at least claiming they believe something.... even if there is no reasons to do so. The essence of faith really is "We believe it.... because we believe it".
I do not just write this off either as you paint it. I have spent 17+ years interested in this topic and I can regale you for hours with reasons why people think there is a god, or at least act like they do.
Some do so out of fear, some indoctrination, some out of ignorance, some out of wishful thinking, some simply because they like the idea, some because they have had personal experiences that they can not explain and they grasp at god to explain it, some because quite simply they are quite mad, some because if one is not trained in recognizing and avoiding the philosophical fallacies then they are actually quite compelling and convincing, some... some.... some.... I could list these for hours.
The reasons are as diverse as ones imagination. It seems however that the only thing NOT on that list of reasons is that people believe it because there is actually any valid arguments, evidence, data or reasons on offer to actually support the idea. There would appear not to be.
Ignorance in my experience is the biggest one and most common. And I do not mean that in a demeaning way before you start worrying about how fair or unfair I am being again. I am talking about things that we are ALL ignorant about. Such as the explanation for our universe and our presence in it. Open questions. Many people simply do not like open questions and would prefer any answer to no answer at all. The phrase for this is "God of the Gaps" and it almost always takes the form "Of course there is a god, if there was not then how do you explain.....X..." where X is some currently open question or another or.... sometimes..... a question that is closed but the speaker does not know it.
All that said one should be wary of underestimating how many people SAY they believe this stuff but actually do not. I have quite a number of experiences and the like I could regale you with which call into question whether many actually do or not. The first one that jumps into my mind is that if Christians really did believe in the Bible in the way they claim to then it would be the first book they would likely read, wouldn't you think? Yet invariably not only do the Christians I meet not read it, they are actually so ignorant of it's contents that when I present them one they are shocked at how thick it is, indicating they have never even SEEN it and have been spoon fed the same 20 passages from it for years in school and church that they think they knew it all.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Sorry I nearly missed this. Not sure why you replied to me in one post directly with the QUOTE function then replied again two posts later without it.
However the answer is simple. People appear to be capable of believing something.... or at least claiming they believe something.... even if there is no reasons to do so. The essence of faith really is "We believe it.... because we believe it".
I do not just write this off either as you paint it. I have spent 17+ years interested in this topic and I can regale you for hours with reasons why people think there is a god, or at least act like they do.
Some do so out of fear, some indoctrination, some out of ignorance, some out of wishful thinking, some simply because they like the idea, some because they have had personal experiences that they can not explain and they grasp at god to explain it, some because quite simply they are quite mad, some because if one is not trained in recognizing and avoiding the philosophical fallacies then they are actually quite compelling and convincing, some... some.... some.... I could list these for hours.
The reasons are as diverse as ones imagination. It seems however that the only thing NOT on that list of reasons is that people believe it because there is actually any valid arguments, evidence, data or reasons on offer to actually support the idea. There would appear not to be.
Ignorance in my experience is the biggest one and most common. And I do not mean that in a demeaning way before you start worrying about how fair or unfair I am being again. I am talking about things that we are ALL ignorant about. Such as the explanation for our universe and our presence in it. Open questions. Many people simply do not like open questions and would prefer any answer to no answer at all. The phrase for this is "God of the Gaps" and it almost always takes the form "Of course there is a god, if there was not then how do you explain.....X..." where X is some currently open question or another or.... sometimes..... a question that is closed but the speaker does not know it.
All that said one should be wary of underestimating how many people SAY they believe this stuff but actually do not. I have quite a number of experiences and the like I could regale you with which call into question whether many actually do or not. The first one that jumps into my mind is that if Christians really did believe in the Bible in the way they claim to then it would be the first book they would likely read, wouldn't you think? Yet invariably not only do the Christians I meet not read it, they are actually so ignorant of it's contents that when I present them one they are shocked at how thick it is, indicating they have never even SEEN it and have been spoon fed the same 20 passages from it for years in school and church that they think they knew it all.
thank you for your reply, sorry about the quote thing. im useless at this typing.
i think i could sit down for a pint with you happily.
but just to prod you a little more, if you'll let me, for the fun.
i asked why atheists spend so much time talking about god and you gave a couple of decent reasons (i dont agree with them all but whatever). then i asked if there are no good arguement for god, why do most people still believe in one and you gave me a few reasonable answers.
keeping those two things in mind, two questions come to me. why do you bother to argue anything? it seems people are not to be convinced either way. and second, lets say your arguements are sound, and the science is sound, and the reason is sound, why does anyone believe in anything they cant reach out and touch? maybe religion appeals to something unscientific in us. something a little illogical. might even call it human.
im waffleing i think. :-)
im eventually goona get this thread back on track!
so, logically, is it reasonable to use science to argue against the existence of a god when the proxies for that god claim he is responsible for science in the first place?
im tired, i havn slept in two days and im ranting a bit.0 -
Until someone has demonstrated to me that they have considered the issue, I assume they haven't. The choice they've made afterwards isn't all that important.mylastparadigm wrote: »you are not affording the people the choice and respect you made for yourself. i really feel you have to afford everyone the credit you afford to yourself.
There have been a large number of polls and reports over the last year about people's beliefs in catholic ireland, which backs this up and demonstrates that most people haven't given it any serious thought and just go along with what they consider to be the norm.
So until a believer shows me otherwise, I'll assume that they're just going along for the ride. As they may do with me, of course.
Atheists you mean? No. I'm not afraid to admit that if it was a matter of kneeling on the ground and praying to Allah a few times a day or having my head removed, then hand me a mat and a funny hat please. I would certainly resist it now, but if I had been born into that culture, I would likely stick with it if the alternative was to leave me dead or destitute.do theists posting on this forum fit your definition of truely rebellious?
I'm rebellious in general, but only insofar as it doesn't have a severe impact on my ability to enjoy life. There are very few people willing to chain themselves to bulldozers and stand in front of tanks in order to truly rebel against injustice, especially when they were born into the system which normalised that injustice.
I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I would be surprised if any of them were so strongly opposed to religion that they would seriously suffer for it.0 -
mylastparadigm wrote: »I have a question.
While darwins theory of evolution employs logic to argue against the idea of creationism - that man and women appeared in the garden of eden - is it logical to use evolution to argue against the existence of a god?
http://www.antifeministtech.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/godzilla_facepalm.jpg
There is no need to use anything to argue against the existence of a god. All that anyone rational need do is demand that those who postulate the existence of such a being provide evidence - any evidence - in support of their claim, and they can not do that. Nor will they ever be able to.0 -
Until someone has demonstrated to me that they have considered the issue, I assume they haven't. The choice they've made afterwards isn't all that important.
There have been a large number of polls and reports over the last year about people's beliefs in catholic ireland, which backs this up and demonstrates that most people haven't given it any serious thought and just go along with what they consider to be the norm.
So until a believer shows me otherwise, I'll assume that they're just going along for the ride. As they may do with me, of course.
hmmm, in taking that stance you just eliminate your say in the discussion i feel. you know, unitl someone proves to me that they have sound evidence of a god, they are to be disregarded. that immediately puts you outside the discussion, because your opinion is immediately treated with the contempt you show others. i dont know it that is much use.Atheists you mean? No. I'm not afraid to admit that if it was a matter of kneeling on the ground and praying to Allah a few times a day or having my head removed, then hand me a mat and a funny hat please. I would certainly resist it now, but if I had been born into that culture, I would likely stick with it if the alternative was to leave me dead or destitute.
I'm rebellious in general, but only insofar as it doesn't have a severe impact on my ability to enjoy life. There are very few people willing to chain themselves to bulldozers and stand in front of tanks in order to truly rebel against injustice.
I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I would be surprised if any of them were so strongly opposed to religion that they would seriously suffer for it.
no, i meant theists. a fair evaluation of this discussion in the 200 odd posts is that the atheists have the majority of posts, the loudests and most ferocious stances.0 -
Even if you consider my opinion with contempt, it doesn't put me outside the discussion. It just lowers the value of my posts in your eyes.mylastparadigm wrote: »hmmm, in taking that stance you just eliminate your say in the discussion i feel. you know, unitl someone proves to me that they have sound evidence of a god, they are to be disregarded. that immediately puts you outside the discussion, because your opinion is immediately treated with the contempt you show others. i dont know it that is much use.
At the end of the day - see my sig - it's all about evidence. So if you don't show me the evidence, I assume you have none.
This forum, in fact the entire site is not to be regarded as a fair reflection of Irish society. It's primarily populated with white middle class males from urban or suburban areas, between 20 and 40 years of age and with a scientific or technological background.no, i meant theists. a fair evaluation of this discussion in the 200 odd posts is that the atheists have the majority of posts, the loudests and most ferocious stances.0 -
mylastparadigm wrote: »why do you bother to argue anything?
Again there is no one answer to this. However I am a little confused by this question as most of post 218 answers this. I will repeat those answers briefly but I will add another for you at the end.
The first was because I have no choice in that these bad ideas come to me in the realms of discourse I AM interested in. If I could wake up tomorrow and never have to discuss or see religion again I would happily live in that world. However it is put in my face every day.
The second was because I think there is an onus on those who know something is wrong to ensure that the truth appears beside the false claims. I do my own small part of that. I am glad to see many others do too. The internet has given us the chance to make sure that if anyone looks for information on a subject then if they find bad information they will find someone with the right information right there too.
A third however is because I know I am not perfect and therefore I know I am wrong or ignorant about somethings. I do not know what. If I did then I would correct them and they would not be wrong anymore. The mission, the journey, that we should all be on in life is to find out where we are wrong. One can do so by reading, attending lectures and more. And one should. But I have found one of the most powerful ways to highlight your own errors and failings is through discourse and debate with others. As such I am not on fora such as these to show everyone how right I think I am. I am on fora such as these to help find out where I am wrong.mylastparadigm wrote: »it seems people are not to be convinced either way.
The inboxes of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would seem to disagree with you. As a founding member of Atheist Ireland I have my own small tricking of such emails too. People are changing their mind all the time. The point however is not to change peoples minds. The point is to make sure the good arguments are out there so people change their own minds when they come across them. Hence my espousing the virtues of making sure whenever a bad argument for god pops up... the counter arguments are made to pop up in the same place.mylastparadigm wrote: »why does anyone believe in anything they cant reach out and touch? maybe religion appeals to something unscientific in us. something a little illogical. might even call it human.
Again somewhat confused by this question given that I answered it at length in post 221. I listed a lot of reasons why people believe stuff for which there is no substantiation.
A useful analogy however is to think of religion like a virus. Get past the obvious demeaning aspects of making that analogy if you can... as I know you worry about such things.... and get to the heart of why it is a useful analogy all the same.
We are not evolved to catch viruses. Clearly that would be very stupid. Why would evolution select for catching viruses? The truth is that we are evolved to do other things and viruses are evolved to utilise aspects of the human condition to better themselves. They have "learned" how to use our systems for their own ends.
Religion can be framed in similar terms. We are not evolved to think there is a god or to subscribe to religion. Religion however has evolved to take advantage of aspects of what we are evolved to do. You can read at length about the intentional stance, confirmation bias. Hyperactive agency detection and much more. All things we have evolved for good reason, but which also leave us susceptible to religious thought. Just like our cell structure has evolved for good reason but is susceptible to viral infection.0 -
Evolution is widely accepted in Ireland. So is religion. Obviously the collision didn't kill religion, so it progressed. It happens. To recap, it doesn't kill religion as it only kills biblical literalism. Or at least, that aspect of biblical literalism.mylastparadigm wrote: »1. Generally, people did not stick to the topic in the original post. Thank you to the bare handful that did.
Well, there is the embarrassing Presuppositional Apologetics.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »For obvious reasons no new ones are being created either to my knowledge.
Could you elaborate on that? Am curious on which ones you took issue.mylastparadigm wrote: »i asked why atheists spend so much time talking about god and you gave a couple of decent reasons (i dont agree with them all but whatever).
That is better than asking why shouldn't we return to the cave, but I still can't treat it as a sensible approach.keeping those two things in mind, two questions come to me. why do you bother to argue anything? it seems people are not to be convinced either way. and second, lets say your arguements are sound, and the science is sound, and the reason is sound, why does anyone believe in anything they cant reach out and touch? maybe religion appeals to something unscientific in us. something a little illogical. might even call it human.
What is the discussion if not on evidence? Favourite bible verses? Defending atheist morality? Opinions are great, but I'd rather hear substance. I think that is the point Seamus was driving at.mylastparadigm wrote: »hmmm, in taking that stance you just eliminate your say in the discussion i feel. you know, unitl someone proves to me that they have sound evidence of a god0 -
Well, there is the embarrassing Presuppositional Apologetics
Not even sure that is all that new. I heard people arguing that kind of approach over 15 years ago. Matt Slick is one of the more unsavory characters on the circuit though. Everything he says, up to and including "Presuppositional Apologetics" is geared towards trying to over come and shift the onus of proof.0 -
It is worse than merely shifting the burden of proof. It is attempting to render proof meaningless. In that, it tries to posit, one has reason on the basis of god. So, regardless of what conclusion one comes to, it must be that god exists because you wouldn't have reason without god. In truth, though, it has the common theme with apologetics for time immemorial. Circular reasoning.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not even sure that is all that new. I heard people arguing that kind of approach over 15 years ago. Matt Slick is one of the more unsavory characters on the circuit though. Everything he says, up to and including "Presuppositional Apologetics" is geared towards trying to over come and shift the onus of proof.
Edit: Ah, yes, you did say overcome, so your point as stated is correct.0 -
You know you shouldn't be on yet another philosophy/evolution/spirituality ranty flame thread.
stay and solve the universe and risk of wasting time ...or...go wash those dishes.0 -
Advertisement
-
Could we not just have a "sh1t stirring and flame wars" forum? I'm sick of this s*** clogging up AH0
-
Although I don't actually accept that mylastparadigm is truly agnostic in this discussion, I would like to thank him for at least causing me to reflect internally on whether I'm being consistent in my approach to the discussion. It'll give me a couple of hours thinking time over the weekend.
I would fncking love for any theist to come along and present even the slightest shred of evidence that any form of deity exists, because at least then we'd have something of substance to talk about. But at least the OP has given me something to think about, even if it's not the theism I suspect he's looking for.0 -
'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' - Christopher Hitchens0
-
-
In fairness Hitchins rarely claimed talking snakes, voices from above, wafers changing into the flesh of a god, ladies gettig pregnant from magic cuddles, people rising from the dead etc so you are not comparing like with like.FergusODowd wrote: »Including the claims of Hitchens
Can you give me an example of an assertation by Hitchins which had zero evidence?0 -
As has already been asked, provide an example. All this is, sadly is a soundbite. One I translate to not actually examining your own beliefs that lack evidence, but try to muddy the waters by trying to say the flaws in your methodology applies to the critics.FergusODowd wrote: »Including the claims of Hitchens
Edit: Kinda wish smish would come back here and address some of the stuff I posted in this post.0 -
mylastparadigm wrote: »The folks that don't believe in a God spend more time talking about it than the folks that do.
Makes sense. They don't have a coherent argument for the existence of God, and they know it.0 -
What is the discussion if not on evidence?
cant you see your own contradiction? why are you even talking about this if your stance says no evidence no discussion. why do atheists even give a damn? that, i cant understand. because i dont give a damn. i have my own view of things, its private, its not up for discussion, and i dont press my view on anyone else because i think that is exactly what organised religion does and similarly organised athesim. live and let live.
equally, i could ask theists why they give a damn but they could argue that they are saving my soul.0 -
Makes sense. They don't have a coherent argument for the existence of God, and they know it.
my, you are aggressive.
i wish life was so simple that all you needed was a coherent arguement or the absense of one for issues to be decided. i am jealous of your clear cut perspective... until i think of all the things in my life that are not based on coherent argument and then i am relieved.
is it possible theists are just happy out and cant be bothered to argue with you? maybe they cant take your aggression. maybe they are settled and happy in their beliefs and dont find the need to defend them constantly? the lady doth protest too much?0 -
Advertisement
-
Although I don't actually accept that mylastparadigm is truly agnostic in this discussion, I would like to thank him for at least causing me to reflect internally on whether I'm being consistent in my approach to the discussion. It'll give me a couple of hours thinking time over the weekend.
I would fncking love for any theist to come along and present even the slightest shred of evidence that any form of deity exists, because at least then we'd have something of substance to talk about. But at least the OP has given me something to think about, even if it's not the theism I suspect he's looking for.
what does it matter about what i do or do not believe? would you treat me any different? i'd hope not. but i'll put you out of your misery - i might be the only person here able to admit that i just dont know. thats all i got bro. its as simple as.
ha, im not trying to convert you im afraid. im happy to allow you go your own way as long as you let me go mine.
its a very safe stance to have - let someone come along with evidence of a god and you'll have something of substance to talk about. you'll be waiting for a long time. even dissappointed when no one comes along. does that mean you would be dissappointed if there was no god? or if there was a god you would love it?
ah, im just messing with you. symantics.0
Advertisement