September 21, 2017, 05:32:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Re: Atheism  (Read 15649 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Chlorinated
Junior Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2015, 11:05:57 PM »

It seems people are jumpng in and contributing without reading previous posts.  If you want to criticise or debate, the least you could do is read and refute my posts(as I have been doing).  I have already discussed multiverse amongst other things.  I also stated that while positive athiesm is a belief system, negative atheists(who claim to have a lack of belief) 'may' not have a belief however they still need to show their position is an intellectually tenable one.

Now let's critique Sisyphus et al who apparently have a lack of belief.  According to Sisyphus and other apparent ‘lack of belief’ atheists they:

Quote
Do not have a positive belief that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, instead they have a 'lack of belief' about the flying spaghetti.

You see, this is the problem with lack of belief\negative atheists! They have blinded themselves from reality so bad that they cannot even believe in obvious realities like the nonexistence of the flying spaghetti monster!!! Assume God is an obvious reality, how then can you convince a negative atheist about God when the athiest is devoid of his senses? This is what atheism is all about.
 
The scientific methodology cannot verify the existence or nonexistence of the fsm(or any  non observable object).  Most rational and logical people will recognise this and use good philosopical, logical arguments etc to develop a positive belief that the fsm doesn’t exist. A negative atheist on the other doesn’t use rational or logical thought (except when it suits him i.e. they are hypocrites), rather they just cop out from the whole matter and demands empirical evidence even though the aforementioned arguments are clearly applicable and sufficient to have a positive belief.   

And who said certain philosophical, rational or logical approaches aren't reliable to establishing beliefs?  In fact we do just that and in some cases we must do it - recall the criminal conviction example I gave to Ceejay. Even in science we use logic e.g. mathematics, axioms e.g. the current universe being real, probability or the philosophy of accepting truths via ‘testimony’etc.  When the reality is that we are very unlikely to see the designer creator, weighing up the arguments on acceptable philosophical, logical, mathematical, scientific grounds etc makes us realise everything points towards a designer creator.

Take the example I gave to Ceejay of going to a new planet and discovering a futuristic hotel, does the negative atheist believe it was designed? Again most people will ‘believe’ it was designed (especially if their life depended on it), however the negative atheist has a lack of belief on the matter.  Well if somebody can't believe in the non existence of the flying spghetti monster, or that the home on the planet was designed, or that someone was likely guilty of murder in a weighty court case, then they are simply in denial.  This is exactly what atheism is all about.

Negative athiesm is also a totally unnatural position to have. Assume I say a flying elephant is about to come into the room and kill Sisyphus(or any other 'apparent' 'lack of belief' athiest), do you think they:
a) run for cover
b) say they have a lack of belief on the matter and demand evidence
c) Dismisses it as some ridiculous idea based on philosophy, probability etc (i.e. does not believe in it) and continue to live their life?

Clearly the natural position C. Note the methodology the atheist uses to arrive at this belief.  Thus if the evidence for the flying elephant is equivalent to the evidence for a designer creator, we would expect the atheist to disbelieve in an intelligent cause for the universe rather than have a lack of belief on the matter.  Their claims and behaviours suggest otherwise so one wonders if they really have a lack of belief to begin with or are just in a state of denial.  The double standards is clear.

Another fallacy is that Athiests say that 'there is no evidence for a designer creator' and hence have a lack of belief.  It would be better if they stated we 'believe' there is no evidence for a designer creator.  I would say one evidence for the designer creator is the universe itself, just like the hotel on the planet is evidence for a designer maker, just like the fingerprint on a murder weapon is an evidence against the accused.  Thus the very basis of the athiest approach is based on philosophical 'beliefs' about about what can and should be considered evidences.  With athiests, it's not that the evidences are not there since the evidence is all around them, rather they just don't want to acknowledge it, are in denial or/and have ridiculous expectations about what constitutes evidence.  Thus if the very basic beliefs about their approach is wrong, it is not an intellectually tenable position.  Moreover the whole 'lack of belief' approach, is not something which science validated for them, rather as I have pointed out, it's a philosophical approach created by themselves.

The atheist believes their approach is correct/right.  Unfortunately for them and their brothers gone by, they will all be dead long before they 'see' any designer.  Perhaps they were never meant to see the designer but the universe and every other signs around them(which included all the awesome scientific discoveries they would constantly talk about) were clear, however rather then being the result of a logically deductible first intelligent cause, they chose to have a 'lack of belief' or interpret these as being freak accidents(for no reasons validated by science whatsoever) which is ironic.

I could go on but from the above I think it's clear that negative atheism is not an intellectually tenable position and is just ridiculous and suicidal.  As I said before, a positive atheist must bring arguments for his belief, while the negative athiest(if he really is one) must show his position is an intellectually tenable one.  The negative athiest cannot do that by scientific, philosophical, logical or rational means.  Thus it is not an intellectually tenable position and should be avoided at all costs.  Theism is the obvious reality and the only case we can make on good philosophical, logical, rational and scientific grounds etc.  In addition I have a further evidence(superhuman miracle existing today) to further substantiate my position.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 11:16:22 PM by Chlorinated » Logged
Chlorinated
Junior Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2015, 11:40:45 PM »

"The multiverse theory is mentioned with a scientist suggesting that if the theory is ever proven and other universes exist with different laws of physics, it would demonstrate spontaneity and randomness. This would negate the concept of intelligent design."

It might negate the 'young creationist' idea of 'intelligent design' but it would do nothing to negate the idea of a designer creator.   Oh and with regards to the multiverse theory which Ceejay already introduced, you should go back and read my comments on the subject, it seems you too have been deceived by the deceptive philosophy based psuedo scientific new athiest movement hence your touting their baseless theological/philosophical views.

Quote
I do not discount that possibilities may exist but unlike some, I do not stand behind these possibilities and claim they are 100% valid. The possibility is valid but not the fact. Presenting an argument in a debate is not proof of anything unless there is evidence. Without evidence it is only opinion and speculation.

I hope this was not directed at me.  Recall the example I gave of a jury convicting someone for murder.  Can we say the accused being a murderer is a fact? No.  A highly probable truth, yes. Note the belief is based on philosophy, logic, probability, some observational evidence etc.  I wouldn't call such approaches only 'opinions and speculations'.

Quote
Anyone that deliberately places themselves on a pedestal and tries to belittle and discount someone else's beliefs and opinions, by arguing that their beliefs and opinions are in some way more valid and therefore superior, brings into question their motives which often go beyond the discussion or argument in my opinion.


I hope this was not directed at me.  In my view, the point of debate should not be to win or loose, but to make progress, however I have no idea how you expect to do that without criticising and advancing each others ideas.  Thus far I have made intellectual and constructive points, asking questions etc so I don't know what other motives you have in mind.  On the other hand you have demonstrated your ignorance of issues and oddly keep talking about science which has nothing to do with positive atheism, neither has it validated the negative atheist approach. neither have you shown lack of belief to be intellectually tenable as per my comments on the matter.

Quote
Your opinions are as valid as anyone elses Ceejay.

Ceejays views or anyone elses views on any topic are NOT just as valid as eachothers(although everybody is entitled to an opinion\has the freedom to choose), rather it's the strength of the arguments/evidences for a particular view that matters.

Quote
I believe your opinions on the origins of creation are valid. Many scientists with years of experience support your opinions.

You seem to have fallen victim to the media propoganda of the psuedo scientific new atheist movement hence your words 'many scientist with years of experience support your opinions'.  Go read wikipedia page on multiverse and see what many scientists say about it.  Go realise that there is no empirical evidence for it whatsoever(hence by your definition it's just speculation) and that it's only being popularised now by the new atheist movement in a desperate attempt to explain the fine tuning argument(for God) which is evidence based.  Go realise that even if a multiverse exists, it doesn't mean there was no designer creator.  Go realise that you're just a blind follower of the new athiest movement, which is why your touting the multiverse and referring to 'many scientists with years of experience' without actually knowing the facts of the case (in other words blindly following your psuedo scientific atheist movement).
Btw, with regards to the origin of life, even your 'many scientists' admit the theory is just speculative and like I said it wouldn't make a difference to theism.  It seems your very own scientists regards multiverse and chemical induced origin of life as merely 'speculation'.

I believe in a designer creator and think the evidences philosophical, logical, mathematical arguments are sufficient.  If you deny that, then you need to say why and present you case that the universe is a freak accident, if instead you say you have 'a lack of belief', then you must show that is an intellectually tenable position to have.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 12:03:30 AM by Chlorinated » Logged
Talen
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 536


« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2015, 02:18:50 PM »

Hi Chlorinated,

Although I am recovering from my last relapse, I still have many off days and recently this has made me antagonistic at times (not a nice trait).  On reflection this may have coloured some of my statements.  I did read the thread prior to posting but due to my focus being limited on a couple of off days, I scanned rather than read which led me to believe this was a discussion rather than a debate.  With this, compounded with feeling antagonistic, I only saw what I perceived as contentious arrogance. I sincerely apologise for this.

I had a good day today and decided to read the whole thread again.  You do present a good argument. You imply that negative atheists have to show their position as intellectually tenable. On the basis of this to balance the argument I suggest the following.

If we take gnostic to mean knowledge and agnostic to mean without knowledge.  There are four groups.  (taken from http://www.lackofbelief.com)

Gnostic-Theist: I KNOW there is a god.
Agnostic-Theist: I won't pretend to KNOW, but I BELIEVE there is a god.
Agnostic-Atheist: I won't pretend to KNOW there isn't a god, but I haven't seen sufficient evidence to accept any god belief
Gnostic-Atheist: I KNOW there are NO gods.

In this context anti-theist means "I am angry with my god"


This would clearly show that agnostic theists would also have to show their position is intellectually tenable.

Geert Hofstede when criticising Maslow's hierarchy of needs stated

"The needs and drives of individualistic societies tend to be more self-centred than those in collectivist societies, focusing on improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement.  In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality."

Although this may suggest that many individuals living in a theocracy are just conforming, it could also suggest that many individuals would be unable to show an intellectually tenable position regarding intelligent design, in fact many would only cite dogma.  Religious belief outside of theocracies can also stem from social conditioning which could be regarded as a collective societies as well.  It could suggest that individuals in these types of groups would only site scripture.

Regards,

Talen
Logged
Talen
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 536


« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2015, 02:15:42 PM »

Apologies.  Last line should read "It could suggest that some individuals in these types of groups would only cite scripture." Also corrected a spelling mistake.

Just out of curiosity can I ask about your username? It is very unusual and abstract.  Chlorination is mainly used for the purpose of disinfecting water and symbolically it suggests purification.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 02:55:45 PM by Talen » Logged
Sisyphus
Retired Moderator
Lifetime Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1570

I have CFS/ME


« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2015, 12:38:13 AM »

I just want to say that I'm not ignoring this thread, I will formulate a reply at some point I'm just dealing with a lot of stuff in real life and replying to such a long post is a bit beyond me atm. Still I wanted to give some kind of reply in case you thought I was just being rude.

All the best.

Sisyphus.
Logged
Slow_Leopard
Code Monkey
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2451


Joint Hypermobility Syndrome


« Reply #55 on: October 05, 2015, 06:03:46 PM »

I believe in a designer creator and think the evidences philosophical, logical, mathematical arguments are sufficient.  If you deny that, then you need to say why and present you case that the universe is a freak accident, if instead you say you have 'a lack of belief', then you must show that is an intellectually tenable position to have.

@Chlorinated

Surely someone denying a designer creator is from a logical standpoint exactly the same as someone denying spontaneous creation?  You base your belief on what you think is true but you cannot prove your own position either.  Therefore the member* you are quoting should not have to agree with you simply because they cannot prove you wrong to your own satisfaction.  Your stance is based on belief and therefore it is highly unlikely they are going to be able to change your mind.  You are in effect strong arming them into agreeing with you through an inescapable (edit: and incorrect) logic loop.

I would understand your point if the member was trying to state that Multiverse is definitive fact, but from my readings of this thread there has not been anyone who has denied the possibility of a designer creator, simply people stating their belief, based on evidences, philosophical, logical, && mathematical.

*  You can use the BB tags to state which member you are quoting, to do this use syntax like the following but without the spaces:  [ quote='Slow_Leopard' ]The Quote Text[ /quote]

Quote from: 'Slow_Leopard'
The Quote Text
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 09:42:00 PM by Slow_Leopard » Logged
Slow_Leopard
Code Monkey
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2451


Joint Hypermobility Syndrome


« Reply #56 on: October 06, 2015, 03:33:15 AM »

Since I cannot sleep i went through this thread again so that I could ask some questions which I have been meaning to.

Quote from: Chlorinated
My reference to an intelligent designer is based on the observable phenomenon of design.  A car is the product of intelligent design e.g. humans designed it.  If we discovered a new planet and found a futuristic hotel made of an unknown energy which had heating system, drinking system, waste system, rooms etc (but completely unlike the materials we see on earth), if there was no evidence of intelligent life form, we would still believe this was designed and developed by a higher power and intelligent designer e.g. perhaps an alien/more advanced humans.  Similarly the earth\universe can be thought of as a sophisticated hotel with heating system(e.g. sun), drinking system(water), sewage system(river, oceans), catering (food) and so on which have been designed for human life.  The beginning of the universe is based on finely tuned initial constants which suggest the universe was set up with human life in mind.

If we found such a hotel then yes, the evidence would point towards an intelligent designer.  Comparing this to the Earth is not however a valid comparison.  By your own admission you do not deny evolution, which along with theories of solar system formation, barring the initial events can explain how the Earth came to be for both a theist and an atheist.

The reason the hotel would suggest a designer creator would be the lack of evidence toward evolution.

Regarding the fine tuned universe, it would have to be finely tuned or we would not be having this discussion.  Improbable is not synonymous with impossible.  I suspect you have heard this argument before and will resort to calling it cliché.  If you hold this view then your own unproven yet unrefutable view would by your definition also be cliché, although I do not think either are.

In many of your posts you talk about looking at the evidence and deciding based on the probabilities.  Is there anything wrong with being undecided?

It could be the case that we have only percieved to this point say 5% of the workings of the universe.  If working from such a small data sample it is possible all positions stated in this thread are wrong.

Quote from: Chlorinated
Observing anything existing outside time and space is by definition illogical since the scientific methodology is inside time and space.  Therefore you shouldn’t rely on science to explain such a thing.  This being the case, it makes sense to also use things like philosophical, logical, mathematical propositions etc in arriving at you beliefs as I showed in response to your comment about believing in God being ‘faith’ based.  As such I still wait to hear your reasons for believing the universe is a freak accident from eternal matter (as opposed to having a designer).

It is illogical to try to observe it although that does not make God any more likely to exist in this space which is imperceptible to us than say a container for universes whose own laws explain spontaneous creation in addition to holding universes which have a subset of the parent laws without visibility of the complete parent set.  Much like Encapsulation in Object Oriented Programming
Logged
Slow_Leopard
Code Monkey
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2451


Joint Hypermobility Syndrome


« Reply #57 on: October 12, 2015, 07:04:29 PM »

The atheist believes their approach is correct/right.  Unfortunately for them and their brothers gone by, they will all be dead long before they 'see' any designer.  Perhaps they were never meant to see the designer but the universe and every other signs around them(which included all the awesome scientific discoveries they would constantly talk about) were clear, however rather then being the result of a logically deductible first intelligent cause, they chose to have a 'lack of belief' or interpret these as being freak accidents(for no reasons validated by science whatsoever) which is ironic.

I purposefully left replying to these paragraphs because I wanted to think on it some more.  I take objection to this idea of persons without faith choosing not to believe in god.  I think most atheists would want there to be a god, eternal life? . . . yes please.  There is no conclusive evidence either way so people will go with their gut.  It is that simple.  The entire argument, from either side, simply consists of people bending definitions and arguing semantics to mould the discussion to their belief.  If there was evidence either way, the designer equivalent of the double slit experiment would exist.

I could go on but from the above I think it's clear that negative atheism is not an intellectually tenable position and is just ridiculous and suicidal.  As I said before, a positive atheist must bring arguments for his belief, while the negative athiest(if he really is one) must show his position is an intellectually tenable one.  The negative athiest cannot do that by scientific, philosophical, logical or rational means.  Thus it is not an intellectually tenable position and should be avoided at all costs.  Theism is the obvious reality and the only case we can make on good philosophical, logical, rational and scientific grounds etc.  In addition I have a further evidence(superhuman miracle existing today) to further substantiate my position.

I do not mean to be a dick, but was 'Intellectually Tenable' on your phrase of the day toilet paper?

Lack of evidence towards the non-existence of god is not equivalent to evidence of god.  So much of the universe could be beyond our perception, it is frankly arrogant of all parties to assume they are capable of understanding the creation of the universe.  They may be, but like many things it cannot be proven.  How many creationists have actually looked into and understood theories like the Many Worlds Interpretation.  I have enough of an understanding of matrices and dimensions (I got a degree because of it) to understand that beyond 3 (or 4) dimensions it becomes very difficult for people to visualise.

If you have miracles, by all means, lets hear them.  Just saying you have them to add to your argument is like the the 8 year old boy on the playground "Do you know what a censored is? . . . Ha ha, you don't know . . . I'm not telling you".
Logged
Slow_Leopard
Code Monkey
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2451


Joint Hypermobility Syndrome


« Reply #58 on: November 01, 2015, 12:31:31 AM »

I do not mean to be a dick, but was 'Intellectually Tenable' on your phrase of the day toilet paper?

After looking back at this I think I should appologise.  That was a glib cheap shot rather than trying to get my point across that I believe the discussion can be had with very simple words.

I have also just noticed that I locked this thread, or so the logs say.  I have no idea how that happened and hope the discussion can continue.
Logged
Talen
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 536


« Reply #59 on: December 31, 2015, 01:22:06 AM »

After further thought, research and discussion I believe the natural position to adopt is negative atheism. Scientific evidence has a higher standard of proof compared to evidence in a court room and cannot be applied in this argument. In the justice situation we accept the lower standard of proof or else criminals would never be convicted and would be free to commit further crimes ie it is a necessity.  Intelligent design creation (IDC) hypothesis, just like the Evolution hypothesis needs to hold up to scrutiny ie. be observable and repeatable. The idea of a finely-tuned universe starts with confirmation bias ie. you start with the premise that there is a god then look for things which may suggest that a god exists.

You believe in one hypothesis and attack the other with nothing more than belief which is purely subjective. If you have never heard of Hitchen's razor I suggest you look it up.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof is on you my friend.  I wait with interest to see your evidence of a miracle.  I have recently looked at the irreducible complexity argument, used by creationists and it does not hold up to scrutiny and is part of a pseudo-science created by proponents of intelligent design.

In relation to your intellectually untenable argument, have you considered people that say I don't believe, I don't think about it and I don't care. It is not an intellectual stance that requires conflict with others.  When you actually look at this, it does not even have a symbiotic relationship with theism.  Your IDC argument is only relevant to positive atheists.  You also have to question the validity of positive theism and positive atheism as there is no tangible proof either way.

Anti-theism is mentioned in this thread.  We also need to be aware of anti-atheism which is prevalent from the religious extreme right.

Logged
KieraCole
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2017, 08:36:00 PM »

Haha you're right! xD
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Black Rain by Crip

© Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
XHTML | CSS