Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism is worth no rational consideration

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 11:03:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

Yes, when you claim, 'I believe there is a God' is most certainly a personal opinion, however you have claimed you KNOW there is a God. Big difference. Either way, the burden of proof is on you.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

It need not be inquired as it can be simply dismissed because it is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with reality.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Yes, and it is with evidence that we find out if it is right. If no evidence, it can be dismissed until evidence comes to light.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.

Yes, you have derived that you know God exists, which is illogical because there is no evidence of God's existence, hence no one can reason with you in that regard.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 8:08:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.
Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

That's not the only reason, Mhykiel. Here's another view.

Theology is a social phenomenon. In a pluralistic society, people of faith are 60-70% likely to inherit the faith of their parents. In a monistic society, the rate is much higher. So faith is inherited not because it's true but because people who love and educate you have faith.

And meanwhile, the number of faiths proliferate, each claiming absolute metaphysical truth -- this despite the fact that the claims of faith are all either secular, false or conjectural.

So we already have a better explanation for faith than that it's true: namely that it's a product of psychosocial influences.

Under the protocols of science, with that parsimonious, predictive and evidence-based explanation, we need no other unless and until some faith can provide evidence that this explanation does not serve.

In the National Academy of Sciences some 97% of scientists surveyed are nontheistic. But this rate is highest of all among psychologists and sociologists. Is that because they already have a working model for faith, that doesn't require theology?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 9:19:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 8:08:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.
Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

That's not the only reason, Mhykiel. Here's another view.

Theology is a social phenomenon. In a pluralistic society, people of faith are 60-70% likely to inherit the faith of their parents. In a monistic society, the rate is much higher. So faith is inherited not because it's true but because people who love and educate you have faith.

And meanwhile, the number of faiths proliferate, each claiming absolute metaphysical truth -- this despite the fact that the claims of faith are all either secular, false or conjectural.

So we already have a better explanation for faith than that it's true: namely that it's a product of psychosocial influences.

Under the protocols of science, with that parsimonious, predictive and evidence-based explanation, we need no other unless and until some faith can provide evidence that this explanation does not serve.

In the National Academy of Sciences some 97% of scientists surveyed are nontheistic. But this rate is highest of all among psychologists and sociologists. Is that because they already have a working model for faith, that doesn't require theology?

I believe there is a God. I'm not making any claim there. Seeing how everything that exists is contingent on something, infinite regression leads to something that necessarily has to exist ie God.

I read on some websites that this is reasonable and what logic is. And those websites tell me there is no evidence for life from matter, or for god not existing.

No this is my personal view, so I in no way can use it to tell the rest of society how to live or what is or is not morally acceptable. Except of course I will. If the schools are teachin something 90% of the people in that town want to teach, like evolution, well their dumb and need federal regulation to fix their back water town ways.

But I'm not telling you how to live from my personal believe in something that we all know can't be proven true. So it's up to you to prove me wrong.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 9:42:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

When a jury decides on a not-guilty verdict, do you consider their decison to be inapplicable to inquiry by Logic or Science and therefore not worth rational consideration?
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 9:58:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.

Atheism makes a claim (just as theism does) on the existence of God. At the end of the day, one of these two claims must be right. So, both must be rationally considered, for are initially making different claims about the same object.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 9:59:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.

Atheism makes a claim (just as theism does) on the existence of God. At the end of the day, one of these two claims must be right. So, both must be rationally considered, for both are initially making different claims about the same object.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 10:36:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 9:42:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

When a jury decides on a not-guilty verdict, do you consider their decison to be inapplicable to inquiry by Logic or Science and therefore not worth rational consideration?

The statement "I believe.." in the context of Atheism is not a legal one. Way to confuse systems of law with principles of logical epistemology.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 10:39:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 9:58:35 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.

Atheism makes a claim (just as theism does) on the existence of God. At the end of the day, one of these two claims must be right. So, both must be rationally considered, for are initially making different claims about the same object.

That's sounds too reasonable to be correct. I'll have to reference ironchariots.com to see if that is right.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 10:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.

The null set is a counter hypothesis. It helps determine what an acceptable level of confirming the H1 hypothesis is correct.

Could you articulate this Null hypothesis and the result set that shows a lack of evidence rejecting the H1 hypothesis (God exists)?

Default positions are presumptions assigned in the establishment of systems. What systems are we talking about where Atheism is the default position? It's not logic. It's not epistemology? And it's not theology? It's not any field of Science I can think of?

Can you show me in a college text book where it says god does not exist?
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 10:52:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 9:58:35 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.

Atheism makes a claim (just as theism does) on the existence of God. At the end of the day, one of these two claims must be right. So, both must be rationally considered, for are initially making different claims about the same object.

That's sounds too reasonable to be correct. I'll have to reference ironchariots.com to see if that is right.

Something is "too reasonable to be correct"? If something is reasonable, than isn't it likely that it is correct?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 11:27:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:44:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.

The null set is a counter hypothesis. It helps determine what an acceptable level of confirming the H1 hypothesis is correct.

Huh? Could you say that again in English? Null means empty, not counter.

Could you articulate this Null hypothesis and the result set that shows a lack of evidence rejecting the H1 hypothesis (God exists)?


Default positions are presumptions assigned in the establishment of systems. What systems are we talking about where Atheism is the default position? It's not logic. It's not epistemology? And it's not theology? It's not any field of Science I can think of?

I already said-- atheism is the default position in matters of theism. It is the blank slate of theism. Is this concept that difficult to grasp?

Can you show me in a college text book where it says god does not exist?

What a silly question. Can you show a college text espousing your position? And since when does a college text dictate or prove what is real?

By its very etymology, atheism means "lacking god(s)." It technically does not declare that god does not exist.

Let's try this: assuming a god exists, why should I care, and how does it affect me? How does it affect... anything?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 11:54:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 11:27:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:44:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.

The null set is a counter hypothesis. It helps determine what an acceptable level of confirming the H1 hypothesis is correct.

Huh? Could you say that again in English? Null means empty, not counter.

Then you do not know what a Null hypothesis is.


Could you articulate this Null hypothesis and the result set that shows a lack of evidence rejecting the H1 hypothesis (God exists)?


Default positions are presumptions assigned in the establishment of systems. What systems are we talking about where Atheism is the default position? It's not logic. It's not epistemology? And it's not theology? It's not any field of Science I can think of?

I already said-- atheism is the default position in matters of theism. It is the blank slate of theism. Is this concept that difficult to grasp?

So because you said so.


Can you show me in a college text book where it says god does not exist?

What a silly question. Can you show a college text espousing your position? And since when does a college text dictate or prove what is real?

So this default position is only the presumption for people who think like you do, there is no system, no reason, no logic, no basis, not even authority for it.


By its very etymology, atheism means "lacking god(s)." It technically does not declare that god does not exist.

I understand this shift of BoP, Atheist as people don't make claims because Atheism as a word is a personal subjective statement that doesn't inform us of our shared reality.


Let's try this: assuming a god exists, why should I care, and how does it affect me? How does it affect... anything?

No. Thank you Fly for being as honest as you have been. But I won't being going down another non-productive discussion with you tonight. perhaps another time when I feel masochistic.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 12:08:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

I already said-- atheism is the default position in matters of theism. It is the blank slate of theism. Is this concept that difficult to grasp?

So because you said so.

Aw, come on, man. No one is born out the womb "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Hindu" immediately. You know as well as I do that your upbringing and societal influences pushes a religion or belief more than another, and from that blank you adopt a foundation of... well, something.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 12:13:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 11:54:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 11:27:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:44:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:



Let's try this: assuming a god exists, why should I care, and how does it affect me? How does it affect... anything?

No. Thank you Fly for being as honest as you have been. But I won't being going down another non-productive discussion with you tonight. perhaps another time when I feel masochistic.

Now, why am I not surprised by your non response (i.e. null response)? And I thought it was masochism that brings us all to these sorts of threads in the first damn place...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 12:17:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 12:08:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I already said-- atheism is the default position in matters of theism. It is the blank slate of theism. Is this concept that difficult to grasp?

So because you said so.


Aw, come on, man. No one is born out the womb "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Hindu" immediately. You know as well as I do that your upbringing and societal influences pushes a religion or belief more than another, and from that blank you adopt a foundation of... well, something.

My default position as a baby was to poop in my pants and to suck my thumb. With all the growth i have done since, I think default positions, or initial presumptions, have been more often than naught demonstrated incorrect.

2nd Contention: Babies do not talk well. the environment certainly is factor in development. In as much so that the initial belief of babies may be wiped out. Since We can not "Know" what the baby is thinking, you are backing up the presumption of your default position with another presumption about baby beliefs.

3rd Contention: It may be demonstrably wrong that babies are atheist.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 12:28:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 12:17:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2015 12:08:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I already said-- atheism is the default position in matters of theism. It is the blank slate of theism. Is this concept that difficult to grasp?

So because you said so.


Aw, come on, man. No one is born out the womb "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Hindu" immediately. You know as well as I do that your upbringing and societal influences pushes a religion or belief more than another, and from that blank you adopt a foundation of... well, something.

My default position as a baby was to poop in my pants and to suck my thumb.

Which answers the question of how in tune with "theism" you were, right?

2nd Contention: Babies do not talk well. the environment certainly is factor in development. In as much so that the initial belief of babies may be wiped out. Since We can not "Know" what the baby is thinking, you are backing up the presumption of your default position with another presumption about baby beliefs.

So you feel is an refute from ignorance that I believe a baby knows exactly what it looks like it knows? Just a second ago you said the default was to poop pants and suck thumbs...

3rd Contention: It may be demonstrably wrong that babies are atheist.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Yes. They found that both Mom and God could know things that couldn't reasonably known. By 4ish 5ish, they established Mom probably isn't God. Continue the trend and what do you we find? By later ages, dad might not be able to be up your dad, Santa isn't real, I am not invincible... In any case, the initial question of how "God" got introduced is never answered.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 12:38:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 12:28:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/18/2015 12:17:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2015 12:08:53 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

I already said-- atheism is the default position in matters of theism. It is the blank slate of theism. Is this concept that difficult to grasp?

So because you said so.


Aw, come on, man. No one is born out the womb "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Hindu" immediately. You know as well as I do that your upbringing and societal influences pushes a religion or belief more than another, and from that blank you adopt a foundation of... well, something.

My default position as a baby was to poop in my pants and to suck my thumb.

Which answers the question of how in tune with "theism" you were, right?

I'm not making an assertion that babies are theist first. My point is default positions have there proper place and it is within a system. Not as a valid position when the beliefs of babies is unknowable.


2nd Contention: Babies do not talk well. the environment certainly is factor in development. In as much so that the initial belief of babies may be wiped out. Since We can not "Know" what the baby is thinking, you are backing up the presumption of your default position with another presumption about baby beliefs.

So you feel is an refute from ignorance that I believe a baby knows exactly what it looks like it knows? Just a second ago you said the default was to poop pants and suck thumbs...

Babies brains are still developing after birth. Even tho they have eyes they have poor eyesight, even though they have hands they have poor grasping ability. It maybe even tho babies have belief in god, it could be a matter of articulation.

Your default position, to me, is an argument from ignorance.


3rd Contention: It may be demonstrably wrong that babies are atheist.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Yes. They found that both Mom and God could know things that couldn't reasonably known. By 4ish 5ish, they established Mom probably isn't God. Continue the trend and what do you we find? By later ages, dad might not be able to be up your dad, Santa isn't real, I am not invincible... In any case, the initial question of how "God" got introduced is never answered.

I'll clarify it may be, one day, demonstrable what babies belief, but not today.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 1:24:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 9:19:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 8:08:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We already have a better explanation for faith than that it's true: namely that it's a product of psychosocial influences.
Under the protocols of science, with that parsimonious, predictive and evidence-based explanation, we need no other unless and until some faith can provide evidence that this explanation does not serve.
I believe there is a God. I'm not making any claim there.
Actually, the thing that you believe in is not simply a metaphysical creative being; it's a transferrable authority. From your own behaviour, you believe that:

1) this being has the authority, ability and intent to judge and reward or condemn every human on earth;
2) its criteria for doing so are knowable, and that your faith alone knows it; and that
3) you have been vested with both the obligation and authority to strive for this view to be made the dominant paradigm for humanity, and hence to criticise, insult, alienate and slander anyone who resists it.

These authorities are integral to what you believe God is -- so for you God is not simply a being; it's a claim of social status and privilege for yourself.

What's significant about this is that your beliefs in 1-3) have nothing to do with your observations of physics, and everything to do with the unproven claims passed on to you from other people -- namely the unknown authors and various interpreters of various ancient texts adopted by your faith as canon -- and who themselves have gained privilege from their beliefs.

Whatever atheists may believe individually about cosmogeny -- be they agnostic or gnostic -- they're pretty much unanimous in saying that your authorities for 1-3) are invalid. That you cannot claim authority over others on weak or absent objective evidence, and some (like me) believe it's obnoxious and evil to try.

So atheists in general may prefer to treat your whole faith as false, since you will not separate your claim of divine existence from your claim of authority. (That's not their choice by the way -- it's a legitimate and pragmatic reaction to yours.)

Consider this: if you believed in a benevolent creator that didn't grant you the knowledge and authority to tell others what to think and how to live, your conversations about your faith would only be with people who shared it or were interested. You'd have no reason to criticise harmless people who lived in other ways, or who rejected that belief, because you'd have no authority to do so.

In a secular society, people of diverse faiths -- including non-faith -- can get along with disparate views just fine unless or until someone starts undermining secularism, and giving their theology authority: over science, over secular morality, over legislation, over civic custom and the frameworks of governance.

Then, anyone may object, but atheists are likely to be among the first.

So every time you argue cosmogeny, biology or metaphysics you're missing the point, Mhykiel. What you should be arguing is how immensely better off we'd be if everyone believed what you did. Because that's what you're driving through with belligerence on ID, with your ludicrous burden of proof rhetoric, and your tortured and disingenuous redefinitions of God.

And while you're considering that, you might also reflect on whether you're truly a libertarian or more a self-satisfied Christian individualist.

Do you really think you have the insight, the patience, the tolerance or the generosity to let others live harmlessly as themselves? Would others outside your faith agree?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 1:30:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 1:24:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/17/2015 9:19:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 8:08:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We already have a better explanation for faith than that it's true: namely that it's a product of psychosocial influences.
Under the protocols of science, with that parsimonious, predictive and evidence-based explanation, we need no other unless and until some faith can provide evidence that this explanation does not serve.
I believe there is a God. I'm not making any claim there.
Actually, the thing that you believe in is not simply a metaphysical creative being; it's a transferrable authority. From your own behaviour, you believe that:

1) this being has the authority, ability and intent to judge and reward or condemn every human on earth;
2) its criteria for doing so are knowable, and that your faith alone knows it; and that
3) you have been vested with both the obligation and authority to strive for this view to be made the dominant paradigm for humanity, and hence to criticise, insult, alienate and slander anyone who resists it.

These authorities are integral to what you believe God is -- so for you God is not simply a being; it's a claim of social status and privilege for yourself.

What's significant about this is that your beliefs in 1-3) have nothing to do with your observations of physics, and everything to do with the unproven claims passed on to you from other people -- namely the unknown authors and various interpreters of various ancient texts adopted by your faith as canon -- and who themselves have gained privilege from their beliefs.

Whatever atheists may believe individually about cosmogeny -- be they agnostic or gnostic -- they're pretty much unanimous in saying that your authorities for 1-3) are invalid. That you cannot claim authority over others on weak or absent objective evidence, and some (like me) believe it's obnoxious and evil to try.

So atheists in general may prefer to treat your whole faith as false, since you will not separate your claim of divine existence from your claim of authority. (That's not their choice by the way -- it's a legitimate and pragmatic reaction to yours.)

Consider this: if you believed in a benevolent creator that didn't grant you the knowledge and authority to tell others what to think and how to live, your conversations about your faith would only be with people who shared it or were interested. You'd have no reason to criticise harmless people who lived in other ways, or who rejected that belief, because you'd have no authority to do so.

In a secular society, people of diverse faiths -- including non-faith -- can get along with disparate views just fine unless or until someone starts undermining secularism, and giving their theology authority: over science, over secular morality, over legislation, over civic custom and the frameworks of governance.

Then, anyone may object, but atheists are likely to be among the first.

So every time you argue cosmogeny, biology or metaphysics you're missing the point, Mhykiel. What you should be arguing is how immensely better off we'd be if everyone believed what you did. Because that's what you're driving through with belligerence on ID, with your ludicrous burden of proof rhetoric, and your tortured and disingenuous redefinitions of God.

And while you're considering that, you might also reflect on whether you're truly a libertarian or more a self-satisfied Christian individualist.

Do you really think you have the insight, the patience, the tolerance or the generosity to let others live harmlessly as themselves? Would others outside your faith agree?

yeah okay Ruv. I'll stop telling people what to do.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 1:43:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 1:30:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2015 1:24:34 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/17/2015 9:19:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 8:08:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We already have a better explanation for faith than that it's true: namely that it's a product of psychosocial influences.
Under the protocols of science, with that parsimonious, predictive and evidence-based explanation, we need no other unless and until some faith can provide evidence that this explanation does not serve.
I believe there is a God. I'm not making any claim there.
Actually, the thing that you believe in is not simply a metaphysical creative being; it's a transferrable authority. From your own behaviour, you believe that:

1) this being has the authority, ability and intent to judge and reward or condemn every human on earth;
2) its criteria for doing so are knowable, and that your faith alone knows it; and that
3) you have been vested with both the obligation and authority to strive for this view to be made the dominant paradigm for humanity, and hence to criticise, insult, alienate and slander anyone who resists it.

These authorities are integral to what you believe God is -- so for you God is not simply a being; it's a claim of social status and privilege for yourself.

What's significant about this is that your beliefs in 1-3) have nothing to do with your observations of physics, and everything to do with the unproven claims passed on to you from other people -- namely the unknown authors and various interpreters of various ancient texts adopted by your faith as canon -- and who themselves have gained privilege from their beliefs.

Whatever atheists may believe individually about cosmogeny -- be they agnostic or gnostic -- they're pretty much unanimous in saying that your authorities for 1-3) are invalid. That you cannot claim authority over others on weak or absent objective evidence, and some (like me) believe it's obnoxious and evil to try.

So atheists in general may prefer to treat your whole faith as false, since you will not separate your claim of divine existence from your claim of authority. (That's not their choice by the way -- it's a legitimate and pragmatic reaction to yours.)

Consider this: if you believed in a benevolent creator that didn't grant you the knowledge and authority to tell others what to think and how to live, your conversations about your faith would only be with people who shared it or were interested. You'd have no reason to criticise harmless people who lived in other ways, or who rejected that belief, because you'd have no authority to do so.

In a secular society, people of diverse faiths -- including non-faith -- can get along with disparate views just fine unless or until someone starts undermining secularism, and giving their theology authority: over science, over secular morality, over legislation, over civic custom and the frameworks of governance.

Then, anyone may object, but atheists are likely to be among the first.

So every time you argue cosmogeny, biology or metaphysics you're missing the point, Mhykiel. What you should be arguing is how immensely better off we'd be if everyone believed what you did. Because that's what you're driving through with belligerence on ID, with your ludicrous burden of proof rhetoric, and your tortured and disingenuous redefinitions of God.

And while you're considering that, you might also reflect on whether you're truly a libertarian or more a self-satisfied Christian individualist.

Do you really think you have the insight, the patience, the tolerance or the generosity to let others live harmlessly as themselves? Would others outside your faith agree?

yeah okay Ruv. I'll stop telling people what to do.

Actually, refraining from point #3 as stated above would be a welcome start...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 3:22:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
'I believe there is ...' is a statement of personal opinion.

It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.

Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

The agnostic that makes no claim, makes neither error. But claiming ignorance is to not advance any understanding.

You can not reason someone out of what they derived at by illogic.

Are you suggesting that opinions and beliefs are not worth confronting using science?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 3:52:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 1:30:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
yeah okay Ruv. I'll stop telling people what to do.

If so, Mhykiel, we might disagree over some cosmogeny sometimes, but I doubt we'll cross swords much on values like liberty or logic.

Best o' luck ol' chap. :)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 8:53:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:36:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 9:42:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
It makes no claim that informs us of reality. As such it is not applicable to inquiry by Logic or Science.

When a jury decides on a not-guilty verdict, do you consider their decison to be inapplicable to inquiry by Logic or Science and therefore not worth rational consideration?

The statement "I believe.." in the context of Atheism is not a legal one. Way to confuse systems of law with principles of logical epistemology.

Words have meaning. I never understood why as soon as we jump to courtroom situations, theists no longer seem to understand them. If you understand what the term "not-guilty" means in a courtroom, the question is not that complicated.

But I can see why the dance, you're only attacking the atheists who say "I believe there is no such thing as a God" as opposed to the ones who say "I do not believe your claim that there is one". The latter of which makes up the vast majority of atheists on this site and all over the world who have made any significant effort to understand this topic.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 9:04:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 9:19:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 8:08:06 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:39:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Any claim of reality be it positive or negative has the possibility of being wrong. Either a false positive error or a false negative error.
Some advocate that it is better to make false negative errors than false positive. But this is not logical.

That's not the only reason, Mhykiel. Here's another view.

Theology is a social phenomenon. In a pluralistic society, people of faith are 60-70% likely to inherit the faith of their parents. In a monistic society, the rate is much higher. So faith is inherited not because it's true but because people who love and educate you have faith.

And meanwhile, the number of faiths proliferate, each claiming absolute metaphysical truth -- this despite the fact that the claims of faith are all either secular, false or conjectural.

So we already have a better explanation for faith than that it's true: namely that it's a product of psychosocial influences.

Under the protocols of science, with that parsimonious, predictive and evidence-based explanation, we need no other unless and until some faith can provide evidence that this explanation does not serve.

In the National Academy of Sciences some 97% of scientists surveyed are nontheistic. But this rate is highest of all among psychologists and sociologists. Is that because they already have a working model for faith, that doesn't require theology?

I believe there is a God. I'm not making any claim there. Seeing how everything that exists is contingent on something, infinite regression leads to something that necessarily has to exist ie God.

I read on some websites that this is reasonable and what logic is. And those websites tell me there is no evidence for life from matter, or for god not existing.

No this is my personal view, so I in no way can use it to tell the rest of society how to live or what is or is not morally acceptable.

Except when you state emphatically that homosexuals are evil and deviant, that something is seriously wrong with them. Or, when you say...

Except of course I will. If the schools are teachin something 90% of the people in that town want to teach, like evolution, well their dumb and need federal regulation to fix their back water town ways.

But I'm not telling you how to live from my personal believe in something that we all know can't be proven true.

Yeah, you just did tell us how to live based on your personal beliefs.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 9:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.

Concerning ultimate existential questions, atheism is a positive statement that is only as correct as the worldview out of which it emerges. There is nothing "default" about it. The claim of "default" is a thinly veiled attempt to avoid defending the position.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 10:34:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2015 11:54:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 11:27:08 PM, Fly wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:44:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.

The null set is a counter hypothesis. It helps determine what an acceptable level of confirming the H1 hypothesis is correct.

Huh? Could you say that again in English? Null means empty, not counter.

Then you do not know what a Null hypothesis is.

A null set is an entirely different concept. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2015 10:58:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2015 9:31:45 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 4/17/2015 10:02:33 PM, Fly wrote:
Atheism is the rational null set, the default position in matters of theism.

Concerning ultimate existential questions, atheism is a positive statement that is only as correct as the worldview out of which it emerges. There is nothing "default" about it. The claim of "default" is a thinly veiled attempt to avoid defending the position.

Really, joe? As much as you complain to me and accuse me (falsely, it must be said) of not fighting fair and being personally unpleasant with you, you still insist on engaging me in an adversarial fashion?

I know, and perhaps even you know deep down where this will end if I indulge you-- in hypocritical tears being shed... by you. You are unable to stand the heat of disagreement, so stop messing with the cook.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz