Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
At the very least, I would have hoped you could straighten that one out. If a hypothesis is, in fact, unfalsifiable, then there is no possibility whatsoever of its being proved wrong.

And thus its truth value must be determined by positive evidence, the absence of which would prevent its honest consideration as truth.

BTW, unfalsfiability is not a defect.

Person who hasn't even bothered to crack open a book on the philosophy of science and is about to mention a concept of formal logic says what?

Tautologies are examples of unfalsifiable propositions that are both true and known to be true.

Yes, but a tautology isn't a scientific statement.

Unfalsfiability simply means that if Karl Popper were still alive, that he would say that the matter was outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

Really? Where does Popper say this? I mean, you can just give me the chapter and book, I probably could reproduce a citation for you from one of his books.

That is, the question has something in common with mathematics, logic, and Karl's own profession, philosophy, in his opinion.

Where does he say that claims about the material world which are unfalsifiable are in the realm of mathematics (in which everything is falsifiable), logic (in which everything is falsifiable), or philosophy (in which no claims about the material world's mechanics are made)?

Claims about the physical, material world are the realm of science. An unfalsifiable claim about the physical, material world is not a proper claim about it.

Faith is exactly that, an assumption of truth.

All discursive reasoning, whether syntactic, formal, ... begins with assumptions. If the reasoning draws as its conclusions truth claims, then some of those assumptions must be "of truth."

Faith is the antithesis of reasoning. It is "Bible says it, I believe it". This is pure assumption of truth, there's no hedging or changing of mind.

This is all very elementary.

Smug much?

It's also not so clear that Faith in all Christian conceptions is the adoption of truth assumptions.

Alright, demonstrate a dogmatic or doctrinal Christian concept that is not the adoption of truth assumptions.

It may have been for some individuals (Thomas Aquinas would be a prime suspect), but not necessarily for others (Saint Paul, I think, although based on a slender record).

Saint Paul contradicts himself in his own writings (look up what he said about getting a circumcision for the sake of safety and then look up what he claimed to do)

Of course, you're entitled to your belief about that, but you produce no evidence and the proposition is far from obvious.

Claim of the existence of a historical Christ: Assumption
Claim of the existence of a historical version of most of the characters in the whole Bible: Some are assumptions, though there are some who are proven to exist. There is no evidence of any character prior to King David.

I guess I'll just mark it down as yet another unsupported belief typical of atheist religious orthodoxy.

I'm sorry, but this is simply the most ridiculous statement that you can make about atheism. Granted, you've demonstrated your feelings of superiority towards atheists and your rote declaration of their inferiority to yourself repeatedly. One need only look at your post history to show that your favorite topic of discourse is why atheism is stupid (one also finds that you really enjoy posting in my threads and responding to me, kind of creepy actually).

Please, demonstrate how "I don't believe in any deity" is a religion.
Please, demonstrate the orthodoxy built up around such a religion.

All this statement demonstrates is your personal ignorance of a great wealth of philosophical writings of not just atheists, but pretty much any philosopher who dealt with the nature or belief and knowledge.

Granted, I guess they just didn't teach me to ignore things and make ludicrous, bigoted statements in my course (to borrow the phrasing of a typical personal attack you like to lob my way every so often).

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Belief in scientific principles rests on evidence, not faith.. I believe that abiogenesis might have happened, but that's only because there is evidence to show that it is possible. While this evidence isn't definitive, it's enough to say that it's more than possible.

Madness, you know I respect your thoughts, but isn't "believe/belief" a statement of faith? With that said, I can't place personal faith in Abiogenesis because it has never been observed or repeated by experimentation. Don't bring up Miller-Urey, it has been shown to be a false test for some 30 years now. Not only that, based on the various probability models it takes between 10^136 to 10^191 for even a single protein to assemble itself from molecules via random chances. The probability for a molecule to a living cell would be 10^40,000. All these statistics are outside the limit that has been observed by science (10^50), which in turn makes their ability to be true based upon faith, definitely not observed by any scientific methodology.

It's my belief that Abiogenesis cannot account for the origin of life because it cannot account for the origin of information. You cannot have a protein without DNA and you cannot get to a viable living cell without proteins. Modern 21st century Microbiology has shown that a simple cell is anything but simple, it's more complex than an average city in the world. Methinks if Darwin had any clue to the absurd complexity of a single cell he never would have proposed his theory.

The Big Bang? Well, the universe is expanding.

That's not an argument, the Bible also declares that the universe is expanding, that God "stretches out the heavens". It says this no less than 20 times in the 66 books. An expanding universe would also be expected in the Biblical model.

There's quite a lot of evidence in support of it. I'd say the general premise of a universe which emerged from a single expansion event of previously extant matter/energy makes more than a bit of sense with regards to the present evidence.

What evidence? The idea the universe created itself from nothing is a violation of Physics. Something cannot come about from nothing. The Big Bang requires a miracle. And you assume a miracle happened at the point of the Big Bang but your worldview makes no concession for a miracle maker. My worldview does, God. If you believe a miracle happened (Big Bang), and do not have a miracle maker your assumption is not only faith, but a blind faith.

"The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing... it represents a true miracle." ~ Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist and Evolutionist, "The Edge of Infinity", 1995

"Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness." ~ Sten Odenwald, (PhD Astrophysics and Chief Scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), "The Astronomy Cafe'", 1998, p. 120

Now, religious 'belief' and scientific 'belief' are two separate terms. Religious beliefs are not based in the same evidence and experimentation and rely on trust in the belief itself rather than in the evidence surrounding it. It is, in fact, considered the highest principle in religious traditions, particularly in yours, to be able to believe not only that which has no evidence to support it, but to believe in that which is in opposition to the evidence (like a global flood as explained in the story of Noah, a 6 day creation in which plants precede the sun, the sun 'standing still in the sky' even though the Earth's rotation is what causes the appearance of the movement of the sun, people coming out of there graves and walking about without a single documentation of it in contemporary history, etc).

Madness, what would you expect to find if the Noah flood were a true account? Myself, I'd expect to find millions of dead fossils in the ground all over the globe. I'd expect to find marine life fossilized close to land animals. I'd fully expect a global flood to deposit millions of dead things, and so rapidly that they would not have time to decompose on the surface of the Earth and would meet the preconditions for a fossil to develop.

And why is there a problem with plans preceding the Sun? Even if God were not light itself for that day, I have taken plants indoors at the advent of yearly winters and they have lived for over two weeks without perishing. Plants can live for several days without sunlight. How is that a problem?

Scientific 'belief' rests on the idea that you can trust the evidence as it has been presented.

How can you be anything but skeptical of any theory in science? Science has a history of being completely wrong on more theories than anyone here can number. And especially scientific theories which are neither observable nor repeatable by the scientific method such as Abiogensis and the Big Bang?

I don't have 'faith' in my computer. I trust it. Why? Well, it consistently works. It gives out the appropriate outputs based upon inputs. If I use the calculator and ask for the answer to 10! I get 3628800 every time. It's trust in results, not trust in a belief.

Your computer is observable as is your calculator, I have trust in those as well. I'm trying to show you my stance that you cannot trust models that are neither observable or repeatable. Those theories take faith to ascribe to, and furthermore, with the probabilities involved and lack of miracle maker in your worldview, they rely upon a blind faith where biblical models do not. We account for a miracle maker.

Madness

My first objection was to awake_and_aware's claim that a contingent unfalsifiable hypothesis might be proven wrong. I expect that you and I are in agreement that it cannot be.

And thus its truth value must be determined by positive evidence, the absence of which would prevent its honest consideration as truth.

No, its truth value is determined by whether or not it's true.

Really? Where does Popper say this?

In chapter 1, section 4 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper defines what he means by demarcation, and in section 6 he proposes falsifiability as his criterion for demarcation.

Where does he say that claims about the material world which are unfalsifiable are in the realm of mathematics (in which everything is falsifiable), logic (in which everything is falsifiable), or philosophy (in which no claims about the material world's mechanics are made)?

You may wish to refresh your recollection of what Popper meant by falsifiability. Probably the whole first chapter of '___' would be worthwhile.

An unfalsifiable claim about the physical, material world is not a proper claim about it.

I doubt that that really is your view, and it surely isn't mine. The material world exists apart from our perception of it is an unfalsifiable claim (in every sense, including Popper's), outside the subject matter of empirical science (in just about every conception, including Popper's), but is, to my satisfaction, an entirely "proper" view to entertain.

Faith is the antithesis of reasoning. It is "Bible says it, I believe it". This is pure assumption of truth, there's no hedging or changing of mind.

That's your view of faith. Other people have other views of it, including many Christians.

Alright, demonstrate a dogmatic or doctrinal Christian concept that is not the adoption of truth assumptions.

Neither a&a nor I discussed doctrines or dogma, Christian or otherwise. He proposed that faith was exactly an assumption of truth. I stated that I disagreed.

As to the historicity of Jesus, belief in that might depend on a number of things, with considerable interpersonal variation among those who believe. I suppose it could be an assumption for some people, but isn't for others. I believe Jesus probably lived, but I don't assume that, nor is it any way the product of faith, either.

I have repeatedly posted that in my view, atheism, agnosticism and theism are equally admirable opinions for someone to hold, by every impersonally valid criterion I can think of. I don't think agnosticism is "superior" to atheism.

You and I have recently discussed the applicabilility of religion to atheism in the English-speaking world. Please refer to my posts if you have any remaining questions about my view about that, or the bases for it. My understanding is that you and I disagree about some cases, and agree about others. Fortunately, it is a matter of personal opinion.

In any case, we have drifted far away from anything a&a argued or that I rebutted.

-

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Madness, you know I respect your thoughts, but isn't "believe/belief" a statement of faith?

No, it's a statement of confidence based on evidence in science and regular life. I have confidence that the chair I"m sitting on will remain solid because I have yet to encounter a situation where I have sat on a chair for a few minutes and then it suddenly dematerialized.

With that said, I can't place personal faith in Abiogenesis because it has never been observed or repeated by experimentation.

Except there is physical evidence to support it...

Don't bring up Miller-Urey, it has been shown to be a false test for some 30 years now.

According to creationists, though they've never been able to back up this claim. I could also cite the Oro experiments.

Bada, Miller's student even showed that Miller wasn't aware of exactly how successful the experiment was. The passage of time hasn't debunked the experiment, merely increased its impact. Here is a NYTimes article.
Here is a damn research paper.
Here's a press release.

Some wikimagic will make sure you don't say something silly like that again.

Not only that, based on the various probability models

I'm sorry, but which ones?

it takes between 10^136 to 10^191 for even a single protein to assemble itself from molecules via random chances.

Huh. Chemical reactions don't rely on random chance, so what buffoon came up with that calculation? And I'd like to see the calculation, as this is really one of the areas in mathematics where I'm quite well versed.

The probability of a deck of cards on my bookshelf being in the order they are in: 52! = 8 x 10^67
The probability of two of the decks of cards on my bookshelf being in the order they are in = (8 x 10^67)^2 = 6 x 10^135
The probability of three of them = 5 x 10^203
Four? = 4 x 10^271
All five? = 3 x 10^339

Did God order them in whatever orders they are in?

But wait, why are we analyzing probabilities in retrospect? Oh, because we're acted like people ignorant of probability!

The probability for a molecule to a living cell would be 10^40,000.

Again, citation needed. I'd also like to direct you here. I created such a thread to prevent this sort of really bad argument from propagating.

All these statistics are outside the limit that has been observed by science (10^50), which in turn makes their ability to be true based upon faith, definitely not observed by any scientific methodology.

Or you could just be using probabilities in an either ignorant or deceitful way, as the chance of a deck of cards being in the order it is in is lower than 10^67.

It's my belief that Abiogenesis cannot account for the origin of life because it cannot account for the origin of information.

Define "information".

You cannot have a protein without DNA and you cannot get to a viable living cell without proteins.

You can get protein with RNA...
And again, you're repeating the creationist tactic of implying that people actually think what you're claiming they think when they don't. And the idea is that cells formed around RNA/DNA, not that cells predated them or that they all coexisted together.

Modern 21st century Microbiology has shown that a simple cell is anything but simple, it's more complex than an average city in the world.

Eh? Define 'complex'? I mean, if you take it from a piece by piece level, an average modern city would get to count each individual citizen, each individual piece of each individual structure, etc...

And 20th century microbiology has shown us the complexity of modern single cells. Of course, that complexity is dependent on the organism. Bacteriophages are far less complex than amoebas.
Look at that thing. It's a lot less complex than a city. Hell, my computer is definitely more complex than that.

Methinks if Darwin had any clue to the absurd complexity of a single cell he never would have proposed his theory.

Methinks you're being presumptuous. Methinks you also didn't bother reading his work. Methinks he was aware that single cells were quite complex, though he didn't have the same grasp of cellular biology that we do today.

The Big Bang? Well, the universe is expanding.

That's not an argument, the Bible also declares that the universe is expanding, that God "stretches out the heavens".

Isaiah 40:22
Please put in a reference next time.

I'm sorry, but "God stretches out the heavens"? Why didn't anyone claim that the universe was expanding based on this prior to the scientific discovery? Why is the only linking of that phrase in the Bible to the expansion of the universe a post-hoc explanation based on thin reasoning?

Of course, you have to look at the full quote:

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like an explanation of an expanding universe. It also sounds like Isaiah is referring to a flat Earth...chuwg, translated to circle doesn't have a meaning in reference to spherical objects.

It says this no less than 20 times in the 66 books.

I only found 7 instances of "stretcheth" alone in the (KJV) Bible. Can you please cite all 20 times?

An expanding universe would also be expected in the Biblical model.

Then why didn't a single person following the Biblical model openly state this until after the empirical confirmation of the expansion of the universe?

What evidence?

The evidence. All of it. The observations of how the universe is in motion from a single point. How we can trace the motion of everything back to a single point.

The idea the universe created itself from nothing is a violation of Physics.

Which is why you won't find a single scientific paper saying it did.

Something cannot come about from nothing.

Which is why you won't find a single scientific paper saying it did.

The Big Bang requires a miracle.

No, your ignorant misunderstanding of the theory or deceitful misrepresentation of it requires a miracle.

And you assume a miracle happened at the point of the Big Bang but your worldview makes no concession for a miracle maker. My worldview does, God. If you believe a miracle happened (Big Bang), and do not have a miracle maker your assumption is not only faith, but a blind faith.

Le sigh. I already addressed all of this. You're either ignorant of big bang cosmology due to a lack of research or deceit or ignorance from the sources you've learned from or you're openly lying.

"The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing... it represents a true miracle." ~ Dr. Paul Davies, Physicist and Evolutionist, "The Edge of Infinity", 1995

"Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness." ~ Sten Odenwald, (PhD Astrophysics and Chief Scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), "The Astronomy Cafe'", 1998, p. 120

Originals needed. I'd like to see the exact point you got them from. I've already addressed all of this here.

Madness, what would you expect to find if the Noah flood were a true account?

Geologic evidence. Bunnies and chickens amongst Cambrian fossils. Monkeys alongside dinosaurs. Sheep near trilobytes. Genetic evidence in every species showing that their gene pools all bottles necked at the exact same time.

Myself, I'd expect to find millions of dead fossils in the ground all over the globe.

And they'd not sort into any particular order, except that they are sorted into an order that fits into an evolutionary model.

I'd expect to find marine life fossilized close to land animals.

I'd expect this regardless, just because I have an understanding of zoological habits (land animals tend to go near water for various reasons) and geology (plate tectonics more specifically).

I'd fully expect a global flood to deposit millions of dead things, and so rapidly that they would not have time to decompose on the surface of the Earth and would meet the preconditions for a fossil to develop.

And yet, the way the fossil record shows up doesn't fit into the model of a massive, catastrophic extinction event.

And there's no geologic 'flood boundary'.

And why is there a problem with plans preceding the Sun?

The fact that we know enough about stellar development and basic astronomy to know it's a preposterous idea? We know that the Sun existed eons before plants.

Even if God were not light itself for that day, I have taken plants indoors at the advent of yearly winters and they have lived for over two weeks without perishing.

I never said that plants can't survive without the Sun for any period of time, I'm saying that plant life is definitively younger than the sun.

Plants can live for several days without sunlight. How is that a problem?

Never said it was

*achoo*
Sorry, hayfever.

Scientific 'belief' rests on the idea that you can trust the evidence as it has been presented.

How can you be anything but skeptical of any theory in science?

*ahem*

We are discussing things using computers

That is how.

Science has a history of being completely wrong on more theories than anyone here can number.

Really? Please, name a scientific theory that was wrong.

And especially scientific theories which are neither observable nor repeatable by the scientific method such as Abiogensis and the Big Bang?

Your ignorance of science astounds me. Observable and repeatable don't refer to events in science, it refers to evidence and tests of evidence.

Your computer is observable as is your calculator, I have trust in those as well.

And the evidence for scientific theories is observable as well.

I'm trying to show you my stance that you cannot trust models that are neither observable or repeatable.

Then you must not have trust in the formation of black holes. You must not have faith in the existence of electrons.

Hell, you can't repeat god, can you? Do you have faith in it even though it can't be repeated?

Those theories take faith to ascribe to, and furthermore, with the probabilities involved and lack of miracle maker in your worldview, they rely upon a blind faith where biblical models do not. We account for a miracle maker.

So because you have something that just performs miracles and fits into the gaps of understanding, you have a better theory? I'm sorry, but that's a bad explanation, especially when you're creating a circular argument.

"We have a miracle maker that explains the miracles that is evidenced by the miracles."

reply to post by eight bits

At the very least, I would have hoped you could straighten that one out. If a hypothesis is, in fact, unfalsifiable, then there is no possibility whatsoever of its being proved wrong.

Incorrect, i could postulate that theres a teapot on the moon before the invention of telescopes. It's only unfalsifiable until we have the means to falsify it.

I would agree that we MAY never know what the cause of the universe is, or falsify the Deist position. Theism has already been falsified because men are lying to people saying "GOD is this, god supports this war, god hates gays" - The actual truth of the matter is that they are just as naive as the atheists.

reply to post by sinohptik


You wrote:

["If anything, i am a zen buddhist, but that is a contradictory statement in the highest degree so, i tend to just claim christianity in the respect that jesus' message of "Love one another as God loves you" is simply a different conceptualization for the chosen base to my very being, and the actions that stem from it. most have distinct trouble understanding the.. "open" nature of my conceptualized beliefs, so i find its easier to discuss on playing fields that others are at least partially familiar with. ill check it out now"]

Also zen-buddhism has its own subsets, where the initial forms have mixed with 'exoteric' influences and formalized into ritualistic practises unsuitable for the original 'model'/methodology.

This can either be presented in the words of 'Hagbard Celine' (from the 'Illuminatus trilogy'): "Communication is only possible between equals", which isn't an elitist statement, but an expression of common 'experiental' ground.

The same can be said in another way: Zen is not 'anti-', it's 'non-'; a point relevant to this thread, where a good deal of time is used on semantics on semantics, with the seemingly purpose of enforcing the atheist position unto the ground of theism, from where it (atheism) can be considered with theist 'methodology'.

As I see it, zen is about ignoring imaginary positions, not fighting them.

"Stop thinking about a red cow" as an example of the paradox of black/white categorization, where optional answers are pre-arranged into an unbreakable double-bind. In ultimate zen methodology terms (as far as they can be verbally expressed): 'Doing through non-doing'.

To a 'lesser' degree a similar dichotomy has been constructed here. A theist self-contained 'model'/methodology as the only viable opposition to science/logic claims. Science/logic (model/methodology) is 'accused' of being as exclusive as is 'absolute' doctrinal theism.

Thus my postulate: The frame is faked from theist direction.

PS Sorry about the delayed answer, but my ticker fails me sometimes.

On account of my recent indisposition, I will a bit late (but I believe, not to late), return to the recent effort of revival of the 'intelligent design' argument.

As has already suggested it's invalid, as 'causality' (as mankind knows 'causality' from the visible, mundane, observable cosmos), breaks down from how we are able to consider it, relate to it, define it or whatever on beyond-event-horizon.

With no space/time, no matter/energy, no 'cosmic laws' to refer to, how on earth can anyone even guess at the existence, need or definition of this new version of 'causality'.

It's just giving the theist concept 'god' another name and not only that, but doing this through a twisted and hijacked degeneration of a science/logic, which doesn't exist except in theist imagination.

That this 'god' is specified only takes the concept further into imagination-land.

And from a parallel angle:

"Something coming from nothing" is beyond any present 'box' we can put it in with any reasonable justification. Not mentioning, that theist claims on this completely ignore at least two OPTIONAL perspectives of it outside the theist double-bind box.

The 'rational' one only referring to 'known nothingness', which quite simply can be met with 0 = a + b + c. 'Nothing' split into polarized fragments (still being 'nothing' as a totality).

The 'asian' model of consciousness per se, representing an ulteriour degree of 'reality'. I do not make any claims of 'absolute truth' on this model, but it has a few points speaking for it, making it worthwhile.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
Madness

My first objection was to awake_and_aware's claim that a contingent unfalsifiable hypothesis might be proven wrong. I expect that you and I are in agreement that it cannot be.

Well, I guess so. I mean, complicated issue. But an unfalsifiable statement still has to stand on its own merit.

And thus its truth value must be determined by positive evidence, the absence of which would prevent its honest consideration as truth.

No, its truth value is determined by whether or not it's true.

..and whether or not its true can only be determined by the presence or absence of evidence in favor of it being true.

Really? Where does Popper say this?

In chapter 1, section 4 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper defines what he means by demarcation, and in section 6 he proposes falsifiability as his criterion for demarcation.

That was one of the ones I had to check out from the library, care to give us a quote and defense?

Where does he say that claims about the material world which are unfalsifiable are in the realm of mathematics (in which everything is falsifiable), logic (in which everything is falsifiable), or philosophy (in which no claims about the material world's mechanics are made)?

You may wish to refresh your recollection of what Popper meant by falsifiability. Probably the whole first chapter of '___' would be worthwhile.

Perhaps you could just not participate in childish recommendations and just give us a reference to something that contradicts my statement?

Logic: testable, therefore falsifiable.
Mathematics: testable, therefore falsifiable.
Philosophy: unfalsifiable claims go here, doesn't make much of a difference because its only claims with regard to reality are metaphysical.

An unfalsifiable claim about the physical, material world is not a proper claim about it.

I doubt that that really is your view, and it surely isn't mine.

It really is.

The material world exists apart from our perception of it is an unfalsifiable claim (in every sense, including Popper's), outside the subject matter of empirical science (in just about every conception, including Popper's), but is, to my satisfaction, an entirely "proper" view to entertain.

It's a metaphysical claim, relating to the nature of existence rather than the nuts and bolts of it. Whether or it exists or not is outside the realm of science, science merely examines it.

Faith is the antithesis of reasoning. It is "Bible says it, I believe it". This is pure assumption of truth, there's no hedging or changing of mind.

That's your view of faith. Other people have other views of it, including many Christians.

Then they'll have to justify their view of faith. Honestly, the most different Christian perspective I've found is in "Fear and Trembling", and Kierkegaard still relies on a leap to/of faith. At one point the doubt gives way to certainty, even though the elements themselves haven't changed.

Alright, demonstrate a dogmatic or doctrinal Christian concept that is not the adoption of truth assumptions.

Neither a&a nor I discussed doctrines or dogma, Christian or otherwise. He proposed that faith was exactly an assumption of truth. I stated that I disagreed.

And doctrine and dogma are the things that Christians have faith in.

As to the historicity of Jesus, belief in that might depend on a number of things, with considerable interpersonal variation among those who believe. I suppose it could be an assumption for some people, but isn't for others. I believe Jesus probably lived, but I don't assume that, nor is it any way the product of faith, either.

You must be assuming it, as there isn't physical evidence for it and the first accounts of his life were from a guy named Paul in a land quite a distance away writing a few decades after his death.

Now, you can make a logical justification for it, but it is still purely an assumption, as there have been no unearthed contemporaneous accounts nor are there any physical artifacts.

I have repeatedly posted that in my view, atheism, agnosticism and theism are equally admirable opinions for someone to hold, by every impersonally valid criterion I can think of. I don't think agnosticism is "superior" to atheism.

...except that it is a dogmatic religion. And it isn't.

You and I have recently discussed the applicabilility of religion to atheism in the English-speaking world.

And you've basically argued that general use grants you a license to call it such, whilst I have said such a view is inane and logically fallacious.

Religions have sets of beliefs and sets of practices. Even if atheism were to be considered a belief (which would only hold true of gnostic atheism), it wouldn't be a set.

Please refer to my posts if you have any remaining questions about my view about that, or the bases for it.

Oh, there are none. I'm quite sure of that. Probably around 5-10% of your posts have been in threads of mine, so I'm quite sure that I've heard enough of your pseudo-philosophical sophisms.

My understanding is that you and I disagree about some cases, and agree about others. Fortunately, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Except that it isn't. A religion is one thing. Atheism is another thing. One position, whether positive or negative doesn't make a religion.

Hell, the easiest way to undercut the idea that atheism is a religion is simply this: theism isn't a religion. Someone believing in a higher power in and of itself isn't a religion, though it is a component in most religions. There are even religions that are atheistic, though have spiritual practices.

madness

..and whether or not its true can only be determined by the presence or absence of evidence in favor of it being true.

No, I noticed you argued that way about Newton in another thread. Evidence is about belief formation, tenure and change. Whether or not a proposition is true is a distinct issue from anybody's opinion about its truth, from what they accept as evidence on the question, or from whether there even is any evidence, according to any large number of people.

That was one of the ones I had to check out from the library, care to give us a quote and defense?

No. You have falsely accused me of misrepresenting your writing by omitting some of your words when quoting you. You forfeit the courtesy of a partial quote of what I have cited. Also, I am not an advocate of Popper's views, so a defense from me would be inappropriate.

Speaking of philosophical matters, you and I seem to be in agreement that The material world exists apart from our perception of it is a metaphysical proposition, and is not amenable to empirical investigation. If it happens not to state your view, then so be it.

Then they'll have to justify their view of faith. Honestly, the most different Christian perspective I've found is in "Fear and Trembling", and Kierkegaard still relies on a leap to/of faith. At one point the doubt gives way to certainty, even though the elements themselves haven't changed.

There seems to be a variety of ideas about the nature of faith among Christians. Kierkegaard down, a billion-and-change Christians left to canvass.

You must be assuming it, as there isn't physical evidence for it and the first accounts of his life were from a guy named Paul in a land quite a distance away writing a few decades after his death.

Mmm, no. Paul didn't write accounts of Jesus' life, at least none that are available to us.

In a thread where it's on-topic, maybe I'll discuss the basis of my thinking sometime.

...except that it is a dogmatic religion. And it isn't.

Neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is inherently dogmatic. Any specific version of any of them could be dogmatic.

And yes, we are in agreement that theism comprises several specific theistic religions. There are several atheisms, too, along with quite a few agnosticisms. But then "Christianity" comes in several forms as well. Nevertheless, on some occasions it is useful to describe Christianity as "a religion," and other occasions, that would be less useful.

There is no point being dogmatic about what any word "means" at large in the linguistic community where it is current. Usage is all there is.



awake_and_aware

Incorrect, i could postulate that theres a teapot on the moon before the invention of telescopes. It's only unfalsifiable until we have the means to falsify it.

Yes, but that wasn't the hypothesis you were rebutting. Addressing adjensen, you wrote

So far, i don't think there's any reason to ASSUME a creator. Faith is exactly that, an assumption of truth. Again, you must consider you run the risk of being proved wrong. That is my point, i suspend judgement or belief, i certainly don't accept unfalsifiable hypothesis or have any particular faith in them.

We are presumably in agreement that adjensen is a Christian, of ordinary Nicene views. Thus, he believes, as a material part of what he claims to be true about the Creator, that the Creator transcends space and time. So, there is no effective procedure by which any being within space and time could determine that the Creator claimed by adjensen does not exist.

So, adjensen's claim is unfalsifiable in the unhedged and temporally invariant way, not in some ephemeral or technologically dependent way.

Of course, you were entitled to use the word in any weaker sense you liked. Nevertheless, regardless of how you chose to describe the claim, the claim is in fact unfalsifiable in the strongest sense. Therefore, contrary to your assertion, adjensen need have no concern whatsoever about being proven wrong, ever.

-

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
madness

..and whether or not its true can only be determined by the presence or absence of evidence in favor of it being true.

No, I noticed you argued that way about Newton in another thread. Evidence is about belief formation, tenure and change. Whether or not a proposition is true is a distinct issue from anybody's opinion about its truth, from what they accept as evidence on the question, or from whether there even is any evidence, according to any large number of people.

I used the word determined.

That was one of the ones I had to check out from the library, care to give us a quote and defense?

No.

Yay, childish accusation. The below is an example of someone holding a grudge for having been rightfully accused of quote mining. To save people trouble, these are some of my posts on it, I even bring up the point which I'll mention below that taking out 90% of a quote is definitively misrepresentative of the original material when it's a short statement.

You have falsely accused me of misrepresenting your writing by omitting some of your words when quoting you.

I'm sorry, but some? I proved that you omitted 90% of a quote to make it seem like a personal attack. It wasn't a false accusation, it was a definitive proof of a misquote. You don't take 90% of a relatively short statement out when you're making a quote. You take 90% out of a quote when you're taking something from a book, you do it when you're taking something out of a long poem or short story. You don't take 90% out of a single (albeit slightly complex) sentence.

Originally posted by eight bits
No. You have falsely ...quoting ...me...

I just made it look like you are accusing me of what I'm accusing you of doing to me. I used 12% of a block of text there. You used about 10% to make it look like I was engaging in an unprovoked, irrational personal attack.

You forfeit the courtesy of a partial quote of what I have cited.

You forfeit the right to be taken seriously when you tell someone such a silly statement. You took 90% out of two lines worth of text, isn't that deliberately misrepresentation?

Also, I am not an advocate of Popper's views, so a defense from me would be inappropriate.

I'm not asking you to defend his views, I'm asking you to defend your statements on his views.

Speaking of philosophical matters, you and I seem to be in agreement that The material world exists apart from our perception of it is a metaphysical proposition, and is not amenable to empirical investigation. If it happens not to state your view, then so be it.

So you're saying you won a point? You want a cookie for that? I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter to this conversation whether such claims are in the field of science.

There seems to be a variety of ideas about the nature of faith among Christians. Kierkegaard down, a billion-and-change Christians left to canvass.

Hey, it's the back-door argumentum ad populum! I'm sorry, but the number of views from various Christians doesn't matter, what matters is a basic view taken from the precepts of the religion and any other views made in inferences from that religion.

There do happen to be a few actual schools of thought, there's been some study on this. I believe it's called Christian theology.

You must be assuming it, as there isn't physical evidence for it and the first accounts of his life were from a guy named Paul in a land quite a distance away writing a few decades after his death.

Mmm, no. Paul didn't write accounts of Jesus' life, at least none that are available to us.

I meant a mention of Jesus in any writing. Paul is the first person who ever wrote anything about Jesus that we have any evidence of.

In a thread where it's on-topic, maybe I'll discuss the basis of my thinking sometime.

Well, your meaningless whining about my honest

...except that it is a dogmatic religion. And it isn't.

Neither theism, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is inherently dogmatic. Any specific version of any of them could be dogmatic.

So then why did you call atheism a dogmatic religion?

And yes, we are in agreement that theism comprises several specific theistic religions. There are several atheisms, too, along with quite a few agnosticisms.

There are zero agnosticisms. "Agnostics" are mostly just people who don't want to admit that they're atheists. You don't believe in any deity (or at least you have not declared as much on this forum), therefore you are an atheist. Face the facts.

Now, there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. But there are zero "agnostics".

But then "Christianity" comes in several forms as well. Nevertheless, on some occasions it is useful to describe Christianity as "a religion," and other occasions, that would be less useful.

Christianity is a religion, it's not a uniform religion. The fact that we can call it 'Christianity' means that there is something which defines it as separate from Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam (all of which have their own sectarian divisions).

There is no point being dogmatic about what any word "means" at large in the linguistic community where it is current. Usage is all there is.

Usage is an inconsistent standard. You can't define technical terms from a usage standpoint. We're working with technical terms, the terms of philosophical discourse.

Originally posted by eight bits
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, adjensen need have no concern whatsoever about being proven wrong, ever.

I think I'm gonna have that made into a bumper sticker!

I want a smug bumber sticker too.

Oh wait; no i don't.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I want a smug bumber sticker too.

Oh wait; no i don't.

You tell him!

Tell him how it's far easier and cheaper to just make a smug screenname for a chat forum instead.

Ouch.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Derp.

Hurr Durr?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Derp.

Hurr Durr?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Lol, sorry man. That was just too easy.

Just teasin ya.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Nah it's cool, you're a first class wit

My name is quite smug isn't it? In fact - it's really ignorant and arrogant;-

awake(p): not in a state of sleep; completely conscious; "lay awake thinking about his new job"; "still not fully awake"

and

aware(p): (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception; "was aware of his opponent's hostility"; "became aware of her surroundings"; "aware that he had exceeded the speed limit"

I thought my name was quite vague and generic - Obviously it's smug.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I don't need a vocabulary lesson. I took it to say you were implying you were awake and aware and others were not.

That would be very smug. But again, it was just an ironic joke, don't take it to heart.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Glad you don't need vocabulary lesson.

Everyone is awake and aware. It just depends in regards to what. It's no attempt to be smug, people can interpret how they choose, much like ancient dogma.

Originally posted by scojak
God I hate religion...People are always trying to prove their religion, or enforce it, or condemn others...but why? Unless you have unequivocal evidence of your religion being the right one, people won't care...And even if you did have evidence, there would still be a lot of people who still wouldn't care. So why argue? Why even discuss it? It's a complete waste of time, and the conversation never goes anywhere. And the funny is, most religions are based on the same principles. Religion is like a bunch of maps, all with different directions to the same location. You can take any route you want, it's the matter of getting there that's most important. Can I copyright that? So religion, in fact, doesn't matter, it's what you learn from it that does. Anyway, I'm not going to tell you not to argue about it, I'm just saying it's a complete waste of time.

Me too, and I also hate religion, especially the "book religions." They all swear that they have the only way to the Divine, and they see it only as a MALE that DOMINATES and LORD'S OVER them, and is their MASTER. In other words, a devout follower of a book religion is nothing more than a servant, and they even call themselves that, don't they? This is not a bad thing, in itself, but it seems like they come out of the woodwork and jump all over anything not of the Bible or their faith alone, and then spout hatred for those not like them, scared to death of an imaginary white bearded man who is going to come spank them if they fail to do the things commanded of them to do. The God of the Bible, it seems, killed off all of the other thousands of Gods and Beautiful Goddesses in history. So, do we just blindly accept that this book, changed so many times, is the actual words of God, and are to be followed in a literal manner? Are we to just accept that this God of the Bible is the Master of Earth and the Heavens, and became a man on Earth, and died so we could all go to Heaven, except we are still called sinners, and are still outcasts to the religions?