Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Atheism Irrational?

theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 1:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Not really.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 1:45:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The editor kind of missed the point of the Russel's teapot analogy.

It was merely to establish where the burden of proof lies. One cannot disprove that the teapot exists in orbit (despite how ridiculous the idea sounds, which furthermore would have required some kind of space conspiracy in order to occut), but just because it cannot be disproved doesn't give it any merit as a proposal, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

So for me, I am an agnostic a-teapotist :-)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:45:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
The editor kind of missed the point of the Russel's teapot analogy.

It was merely to establish where the burden of proof lies. One cannot disprove that the teapot exists in orbit (despite how ridiculous the idea sounds, which furthermore would have required some kind of space conspiracy in order to occut), but just because it cannot be disproved doesn't give it any merit as a proposal, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

So for me, I am an agnostic a-teapotist :-)

The burden of proof is a clich" these days because no one can prove anything we see, taste, smell, speak or feel emotionally. In fact, all these senses are only illusions that come from invisible vibrations that aren't real. It's what us saints hear from our Creator is the real us within His mind.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 1:52:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So for me, I am an agnostic a-teapotist :-)

The burden of proof is a clich" these days because no one can prove anything we see, taste, smell, speak or feel emotionally. In fact, all these senses are only illusions that come from invisible vibrations that aren't real. It's what us saints hear from our Creator is the real us within His mind.

So that mean's you believe in Russel's Teapot?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd say so. Here's my take on the Atheist Gamble:

If there is no God, then when religious people die nothing will happen to them. It still won't have hurt them any to have been religious. Their loss is nonexistent, or very small.
If there is a God, and some people go to Heaven and others go to Hell, then an atheist's loss is infinite, and a person who goes to Heaven gains infinitely.

You've got nothing to lose from having a religion in contrast to atheism, whether God does or doesn't exist. And if God exists you've got everything to lose from being an atheist and everything to gain from having a religion.

Of course, if God's real then only one religion can be right. Having the wrong religion would be the same as being an atheist.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:13:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:02:32 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I'd say so. Here's my take on the Atheist Gamble:

If there is no God, then when religious people die nothing will happen to them. It still won't have hurt them any to have been religious. Their loss is nonexistent, or very small.
If there is a God, and some people go to Heaven and others go to Hell, then an atheist's loss is infinite, and a person who goes to Heaven gains infinitely.

You've got nothing to lose from having a religion in contrast to atheism, whether God does or doesn't exist. And if God exists you've got everything to lose from being an atheist and everything to gain from having a religion.

Of course, if God's real then only one religion can be right. Having the wrong religion would be the same as being an atheist.

Trying to reword Pascal's wager doesn't magically make it valid.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:14:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

He seems a big fan of making atheism only be the negative claim, as opposed to the rejection of the theistic claims.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:15:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:13:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:02:32 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I'd say so. Here's my take on the Atheist Gamble:

If there is no God, then when religious people die nothing will happen to them. It still won't have hurt them any to have been religious. Their loss is nonexistent, or very small.
If there is a God, and some people go to Heaven and others go to Hell, then an atheist's loss is infinite, and a person who goes to Heaven gains infinitely.

You've got nothing to lose from having a religion in contrast to atheism, whether God does or doesn't exist. And if God exists you've got everything to lose from being an atheist and everything to gain from having a religion.

Of course, if God's real then only one religion can be right. Having the wrong religion would be the same as being an atheist.

Trying to reword Pascal's wager doesn't magically make it valid.

But nevertheless it's true. You have nothing to lose from having a religion, regardless of whether God exists. But if God does exist, then you have everything to lose from being an atheist.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:19:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:15:14 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:13:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:02:32 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I'd say so. Here's my take on the Atheist Gamble:

If there is no God, then when religious people die nothing will happen to them. It still won't have hurt them any to have been religious. Their loss is nonexistent, or very small.
If there is a God, and some people go to Heaven and others go to Hell, then an atheist's loss is infinite, and a person who goes to Heaven gains infinitely.

You've got nothing to lose from having a religion in contrast to atheism, whether God does or doesn't exist. And if God exists you've got everything to lose from being an atheist and everything to gain from having a religion.

Of course, if God's real then only one religion can be right. Having the wrong religion would be the same as being an atheist.

Trying to reword Pascal's wager doesn't magically make it valid.

But nevertheless it's true. You have nothing to lose from having a religion, regardless of whether God exists. But if God does exist, then you have everything to lose from being an atheist.

What religion, exactly, is okay with you not believing in it?

Because you're advocating we join a religion we don't believe in to avoid the consequences.

The quickest rebuttal is this: there may well be a god who appreciates those who draw conclusions based on their reason, and who do not dishonestly pursue a religion just to avoid the possibility of punishment. In which case, atheists DON'T "lose", they have exactly the same chance of "winning" as anyone who picks a religion.

More to the point, I wholly disagree that we have nothing to lose from following a religion--if it's the wrong religion, and the god idea is wholly false, we are wasting our precious and limited time and energy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:20:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

Well, it's not evidence for a god.

But please, show me the "clinically proven existence of the soul".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:21:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:19:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:15:14 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:13:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:02:32 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I'd say so. Here's my take on the Atheist Gamble:

If there is no God, then when religious people die nothing will happen to them. It still won't have hurt them any to have been religious. Their loss is nonexistent, or very small.
If there is a God, and some people go to Heaven and others go to Hell, then an atheist's loss is infinite, and a person who goes to Heaven gains infinitely.

You've got nothing to lose from having a religion in contrast to atheism, whether God does or doesn't exist. And if God exists you've got everything to lose from being an atheist and everything to gain from having a religion.

Of course, if God's real then only one religion can be right. Having the wrong religion would be the same as being an atheist.

Trying to reword Pascal's wager doesn't magically make it valid.

But nevertheless it's true. You have nothing to lose from having a religion, regardless of whether God exists. But if God does exist, then you have everything to lose from being an atheist.

What religion, exactly, is okay with you not believing in it?

Because you're advocating we join a religion we don't believe in to avoid the consequences.

The quickest rebuttal is this: there may well be a god who appreciates those who draw conclusions based on their reason, and who do not dishonestly pursue a religion just to avoid the possibility of punishment. In which case, atheists DON'T "lose", they have exactly the same chance of "winning" as anyone who picks a religion.

More to the point, I wholly disagree that we have nothing to lose from following a religion--if it's the wrong religion, and the god idea is wholly false, we are wasting our precious and limited time and energy.

Okay, so what is a better way to spend our energy? Is it in temporary pleasures?
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:24:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

I've heard of evidence disproving the soul but I have never heard of clinical proof that the soul exists. Would you mind adding your clinical proof?
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:24:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Also, this:

"I should make clear first that I don"t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. "

Is nonsense. The other two are problems of solipsism, and they're recognized generally as insolvable but necessary from a practical perspective. Belief in god is neither of those things, and pretending otherwise is either foolish, or dishonest. Since Plantinga is a smart man, I'm inclined to believe it must be the latter.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:25:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:21:41 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:

Okay, so what is a better way to spend our energy? Is it in temporary pleasures?

Depends on what conclusions we draw, doesn't it.

But certainly, spending your limited time and energy in an attempt to appease a non-existent being seems like a waste, if indeed god does not exist.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:26:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:02:32 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
I'd say so. Here's my take on the Atheist Gamble:

If there is no God, then when religious people die nothing will happen to them. It still won't have hurt them any to have been religious. Their loss is nonexistent, or very small.
If there is a God, and some people go to Heaven and others go to Hell, then an atheist's loss is infinite, and a person who goes to Heaven gains infinitely.

You've got nothing to lose from having a religion in contrast to atheism, whether God does or doesn't exist. And if God exists you've got everything to lose from being an atheist and everything to gain from having a religion.

Of course, if God's real then only one religion can be right. Having the wrong religion would be the same as being an atheist.

Which is why the best choice is to be an atheist. If a God does exist then you'll have a better chance of going to the good part of the afterlife not having believed than to have been worshipping a different God.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:30:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:20:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

Well, it's not evidence for a god.

Why not, it's evidence for a spiritual realm.

If there are souls of varying free will in human beings, then it is only logical to assume there is a greater free will than all of them, which is what all people understand to be God.

But please, show me the "clinically proven existence of the soul".

Ask why the world's leading neurologists agree on the existence of the soul in the science forum please. I'll only get shouted down for providin scientific evidence while believing in God as 3000 of your fellow hard-core neckbeard atheists insist I can't do science if I provide links proving that the soul exists here.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:30:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:20:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

Well, it's not evidence for a god.

Why not, it's evidence for a spiritual realm.

Which is not evidence for an all-powerful being.

If there are souls of varying free will in human beings, then it is only logical to assume there is a greater free will than all of them, which is what all people understand to be God.

No, it isn't. That is a literal non-sequitur: it does not follow.

But please, show me the "clinically proven existence of the soul".

Ask why the world's leading neurologists agree on the existence of the soul in the science forum please. I'll only get shouted down for providin scientific evidence while believing in God as 3000 of your fellow hard-core neckbeard atheists insist I can't do science if I provide links proving that the soul exists here.

So, you don't have any, then?

Because I actually know rather a bit about this subject, and I'm not aware of any good science on the subject, and certainly nothing whatsoever which would rise to the level of "clinically proven existence of the soul"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:37:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:30:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:20:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

Well, it's not evidence for a god.

Why not, it's evidence for a spiritual realm.

If there are souls of varying free will in human beings, then it is only logical to assume there is a greater free will than all of them, which is what all people understand to be God.

But please, show me the "clinically proven existence of the soul".

Ask why the world's leading neurologists agree on the existence of the soul in the science forum please. I'll only get shouted down for providin scientific evidence while believing in God as 3000 of your fellow hard-core neckbeard atheists insist I can't do science if I provide links proving that the soul exists here.

Okay; please provide the evidence here: http://www.debate.org...
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:38:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:32:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:30:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:20:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

Well, it's not evidence for a god.

Why not, it's evidence for a spiritual realm.

Which is not evidence for an all-powerful being.

Yes it is, a soul which provides us with a free soul would be perfect and thus all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect.

If there are souls of varying free will in human beings, then it is only logical to assume there is a greater free will than all of them, which is what all people understand to be God.

No, it isn't. That is a literal non-sequitur: it does not follow.

1) Yes it is. We can only have freedom of the will when there is justice. This just soul is God.
2) You don't know what the word "literal" means.

But please, show me the "clinically proven existence of the soul".

Ask why the world's leading neurologists agree on the existence of the soul in the science forum please. I'll only get shouted down for providin scientific evidence while believing in God as 3000 of your fellow hard-core neckbeard atheists insist I can't do science if I provide links proving that the soul exists here.

So, you don't have any, then?

Are all atheists this smug?

Because I actually know rather a bit about this subject, and I'm not aware of any good science on the subject, and certainly nothing whatsoever which would rise to the level of "clinically proven existence of the soul"

There's a shittonne of experiments. Google it. Also, sop talking out of your a$s, you know sweet f a about this subject.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:38:51 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:32:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:30:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:20:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:10:52 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:38:45 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

Is disbelief in a space walrus under the surface of Pluto irrational? Both have the same amount of evidence: 0.

Zero evidence? The clinically proven existence of the soul is zero evidence?

Well, it's not evidence for a god.

Why not, it's evidence for a spiritual realm.

Which is not evidence for an all-powerful being.

Yes it is, a soul which provides us with a free soul would be perfect and thus all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect.

If there are souls of varying free will in human beings, then it is only logical to assume there is a greater free will than all of them, which is what all people understand to be God.

No, it isn't. That is a literal non-sequitur: it does not follow.

1) Yes it is. We can only have freedom of the will when there is justice. This just soul is God.
2) You don't know what the word "literal" means.

But please, show me the "clinically proven existence of the soul".

Ask why the world's leading neurologists agree on the existence of the soul in the science forum please. I'll only get shouted down for providin scientific evidence while believing in God as 3000 of your fellow hard-core neckbeard atheists insist I can't do science if I provide links proving that the soul exists here.

So, you don't have any, then?

Are all atheists this smug?

Because I actually know rather a bit about this subject, and I'm not aware of any good science on the subject, and certainly nothing whatsoever which would rise to the level of "clinically proven existence of the soul"

There's a shittonne of experiments. Google it. Also, sop talking out of your a$s, you know sweet f a about this subject.

DEAR ATHEISTS: PLEASE READ KARL POPPER AND SIR JOHN ECKLE'S "THE SELF AND THE BRAIN".

This is my evidence for the existence of souls.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:45:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:38:51 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Why not, it's evidence for a spiritual realm.

Which is not evidence for an all-powerful being.

Yes it is, a soul which provides us with a free soul would be perfect and thus all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect.

Whoa, now, from whence do you get the assertion that the soul is provided? All you said was you had evidence it existed.

If there are souls of varying free will in human beings, then it is only logical to assume there is a greater free will than all of them, which is what all people understand to be God.

No, it isn't. That is a literal non-sequitur: it does not follow.

1) Yes it is. We can only have freedom of the will when there is justice. This just soul is God.

That is incoherent.

2) You don't know what the word "literal" means.

No, I'm well aware. A non-sequitur is a formal fallacy, where the conclusion does not follow the premises. It is a phrase, and can be spoken of in that context. Further, it's latin for "it does not follow" which is literally applicable to what you said.

Save the condescension for someone who doesn't know more about language than you.

So, you don't have any, then?

Are all atheists this smug?

I asked you for it. Your response was to hem and haw. It's perfectly appropriate to point out that that seems to indicate you don't actually HAVE the evidence you claim. Otherwise it would be trivial to provide it.

Because I actually know rather a bit about this subject, and I'm not aware of any good science on the subject, and certainly nothing whatsoever which would rise to the level of "clinically proven existence of the soul"

There's a shittonne of experiments. Google it. Also, sop talking out of your a$s, you know sweet f a about this subject.

I can absolutely promise you that I know more about this than you. In point of fact, I'm renewing my CEUs on this very subject at this very time, though to be fair it's not directly addressing the "soul", but rather neurology in general.

But unsupported assertions do seem to be your forte.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:43:07 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

DEAR ATHEISTS: PLEASE READ KARL POPPER AND SIR JOHN ECKLE'S "THE SELF AND THE BRAIN".

This is my evidence for the existence of souls.

I'm fairly certain the actual title is "The Self and Its Brain".

That book contains philosophical discussions and hypotheses based at least ostensibly on neurology. There is not, by any stretch, "[clinical proof of the] existence of the soul".

So when you made your assertion, was it because you are you ignorant, or a liar? If it was ignorance, will you back away from it now and acknowledge your error?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 2:54:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:14:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

He seems a big fan of making atheism only be the negative claim, as opposed to the rejection of the theistic claims.

What's the problem with that? He's just going by the definition commonly accepted by his social circle (i.e. philosophical academia).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:02:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:54:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:14:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

He seems a big fan of making atheism only be the negative claim, as opposed to the rejection of the theistic claims.

What's the problem with that? He's just going by the definition commonly accepted by his social circle (i.e. philosophical academia).

I find it hard to believe that 62% of philosophers accepted that definition and self-identified as atheists under it.

Reading the survey, it appears they were given a dichotomy, and if you're going to treat atheism and theism as a dichotomy, then "agnostic atheist" is validly "atheist". He should well know that that's not the only definition, even if we accept that it's the "commonly accepted philosophical academia" definition. That he ignored that is unfair of him, and if he didn't know he should have asked.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:24:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 3:02:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:54:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:14:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

He seems a big fan of making atheism only be the negative claim, as opposed to the rejection of the theistic claims.

What's the problem with that? He's just going by the definition commonly accepted by his social circle (i.e. philosophical academia).

I find it hard to believe that 62% of philosophers accepted that definition and self-identified as atheists under it.


Okay. That's just a statement of your psychology.

Reading the survey, it appears they were given a dichotomy,

Yes, as in the two options were meant to be mutually exclusive. There was a ln "other vategory for those who assented to neither claim.

and if you're going to treat atheism and theism as a dichotomy, then "agnostic atheist" is validly "atheist". He should well know that that's not the only definition, even if we accept that it's the "commonly accepted philosophical academia" definition. That he ignored that is unfair of him, and if he didn't know he should have asked.

Okay, so construe his arguments as arguing against the definition of atheism found in the plato stanford encyclopedia or the IEP, then.

Again: what's the problem? I see nothing unfair about it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:50:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 3:24:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2014 3:02:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:54:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:14:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 1:21:19 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Here's an interesting interview with Alvin Plantinga:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Thoughts?

He seems a big fan of making atheism only be the negative claim, as opposed to the rejection of the theistic claims.

What's the problem with that? He's just going by the definition commonly accepted by his social circle (i.e. philosophical academia).

I find it hard to believe that 62% of philosophers accepted that definition and self-identified as atheists under it.


Okay. That's just a statement of your psychology.

And that's just a statement in isolation without an expression on your part as to relative plausibiltiy.

Reading the survey, it appears they were given a dichotomy,

Yes, as in the two options were meant to be mutually exclusive. There was a ln "other vategory for those who assented to neither claim.

I clicked on respondents, not on the actual questionaire. I see now that there was an "other". I would wager that the "others" are not checking that for agnosticism, but rather things like deism, or polytheism.

But perhaps you know the study better.

and if you're going to treat atheism and theism as a dichotomy, then "agnostic atheist" is validly "atheist". He should well know that that's not the only definition, even if we accept that it's the "commonly accepted philosophical academia" definition. That he ignored that is unfair of him, and if he didn't know he should have asked.

Okay, so construe his arguments as arguing against the definition of atheism found in the plato stanford encyclopedia or the IEP, then.

Again: what's the problem? I see nothing unfair about it.

He's arguing against an uncommonly used definition. And, frankly, he's doing a poor job of it.

He says:

" My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that"s not nearly sufficient for atheism."

Such a philosophical position would be unacceptable about any other topic. To say that"working off the assumption of the nonexistence of a thing until such time as evidence for a thing is provided" is irrational is an absurdity he would never defend in regards to anything else (except things like the existence of other minds, I suppose)

He wants to attack strong atheism, and fold it entirely into "atheists" as a whole.

He seems to purposefully ignore that the arguments he makes against teapots in space can, with only the slightest tweaking, be made against a "god" concept. He cannot reasonably be as ignorant of Russel's argument as his comments make him seem.

Plantinga thinks we should just accept the existence of God axiomatically.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 4:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 2:25:53 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/10/2014 2:21:41 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:

Okay, so what is a better way to spend our energy? Is it in temporary pleasures?

Depends on what conclusions we draw, doesn't it.

But certainly, spending your limited time and energy in an attempt to appease a non-existent being seems like a waste, if indeed god does not exist.

I think George Carlin put it best.
Pray for anything you want. But what do you say when your prayers aren't answered? Remember the divine plan. Billions of years ago, god came up with a plan, and it has been doing just fine for eons. Now you come along and pray for something that isn't in the divine plan. What do you want god to do? Change his plan just for you? What do you say? "It's gods will. Thy will be done." Fine, but if it's gods will and he's going to do what he wants to anyway, why the F*#K both praying in the first place. Big waste of time.