It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

page: 16
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

That isn't an accepted definition of atheism. That is one paper from one person who has an opinion that isn't backed up by evidence.


His and my view hold equal authority, except my view is backed up by actual authority. Reference any old dictionary.




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Can you prove that God cannot exist???

I have provided evidence that God can related to the current reality of what is understood of Nature.

I am not interested in your Woo Woo fantasy world were a negative can be proven and without supportive evidence that at the very LEAST compares to my effort.

Otherwise you guys in my opinion are essentially ........I mean man to man.

What is the problem with that?


edit on 30-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

The individuals who prepared that are the experts in the field.

Stanford University is acknowledge as the primary source for Philosophical Conclusions in the United States.

What higher authority do you have beyond them.

Your big toe?

Any thoughts?


edit on 30-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
Can you prove that God cannot exist???


NO. YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT???


I have provided evidence that God can related to the current reality of what is understood of Nature.


The idea that God can exist doesn't need any evidence or proving. Can God exist??? Yes, sure. That's not even an issue. The question isn't "Can he exist??" but "Does he exist and if so what evidence is there for it???"


I am not interested in your Woo Woo fantasy world were a negative can be proven.

What is the problem with that?



No problem at all since I've never said a negative can be proven. In fact I've been saying the opposite over and over again.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Then you are not an Atheist and should not be commenting upon a discussion related to why Atheist are wrong based upon what in reality is known.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Have you ever tried an actual dictionary?

Atheism is a single word it has an actual definition that is used by billions across the world.


Stanford University doesn't have the authority to change it.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Guys I am going to say goodnight and with all due respect if the primary University with respect to Philosophy presents Atheism as an attempt to prove a negative.

Perhaps you should contact those responsible at that University and debate them.

Peace



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Kashai

That isn't an accepted definition of atheism. That is one paper from one person who has an opinion that isn't backed up by evidence.



Did you read some of the dates on that paper? Farting dust!

Here is a current definition of atheism from American Atheists.



What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough. The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

atheists.org...

edit on 30-12-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I'm an Atheist based upon the definition of what that word means. But if you don't think I am that's fine with me anyway because I don't label myself one most of the time either. I don't like to label myself as anything in the first place.

But if you don't want me to be in the conversation that's fine with me. More than fine even. It wasn't going anywhere anyway. Bye.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes they do and in time what they present will be in dictionaries.

Or do you not understand that consistency in relation to history.

Perhaps you should learn about the fact that once the Earth was defined as Flat and now it is defined as Round.

I am going to get some rest Goodnight to all.




edit on 30-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Yes they do and in time what they present will be in dictionaries.


If that day comes then at that point you may have an argument, but at this point you have nothing.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm

Then you are not an Atheist and should not be commenting upon a discussion related to why Atheist are wrong based upon what in reality is known.



If you knew what you were actually typing here you would be laughing with me! Since YOU are not an atheist, you have no business telling atheists what to believe let alone posting about it in this thread. As for what in reality is known( I can't believe I just used such atrocious grammar), what is known is that you have not proven the existence of a god nor have you demonstrated why anyone should believe in one. It is not up to the Atheist, the Agnostic or anyone else to prove that a god or gods do not exist as this is impossible and is in complete contradiction to the scientific method. Why? Because is F'ing impossible to prove a negative. In science we provide evidence for the positive. We proved that humans and Neanderthals had multiple instances of admixture, in many areas from the ME to Siberia, to Iberia to the Balkans at many different time periods over a period of several thousand years...and on and on. This is just one example. You do not prove that it did NOT happen. It's given that the possibility exists but unless we can prove the evens occurred, they remain in the realm of hypothesis. It doesn't mean that anyone has to believe these events occurred until the evidence presents itself.

If Atheists are wrong, show proof of the existence of a god or gods and explain which god you prefer to believe in. We are still waiting on your credentials by the way. I'll go first, I have actual degrees and a background in paleoanthropology with specific emphasis on late Pleistocene cohabitation between AMH and HN in the Levant. Do you have the credentials you demand from others or are you just a back seat google scholar?

Any thoughts on getting over that?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Ok you got me for this last post tonight


Just in general to the discussion Stanford University upon a world scale in respect to Philosophy is acknowledged respectively. As the equivalent to Oxford University in relation to Physics.


In direct to you response I am a person who relates to Genesis as the result of society converting from Hunter/Gatherers to an Agrarian society the in essence lasted about until A.D 1895 respectively.

I am a Caribbean Indian that was raised up until the age of 7 in relation to Western Hemispheric culture prior to the European Invasion. I was then exposed to Judea-Christian culture to the extent that I qualified to run as principal a school where the students were accused of murder but had no convictions.

One particular patient has as much as 12 such accusations but was never convicted.

Beyond that I have other experiences but......

Atheism in potential is wrong because there is not evidence to support it.

Substantive evidence has been offered that Reality is not Random, and therefore the Universe was created.

Any thoughts on getting over that?

PS: seriously this time its goodnight for real



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Atheism in potential is wrong because there is not evidence to support it.


First of all, you don't seem to understand what atheism is.

Second, atheist exist they don't believe in deities.

Get over it already.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

And you should get over the fact that your belief is based solely on intuition just as in religion.


Case in point wolf147 who claimed to be better educated than theists which of course is absurd.

Atheist are not better than Theist and Theist are not better than Atheist.

Any thoughts?
edit on 30-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Grimpachi

And you should get over the fact that your belief is based solely on intuition just as in religion.


Case in point wolf147 who claimed to be better educated than theists which of course is absurd.

Atheist are not better than Theist and Theist are not better than Atheist.

Any thoughts?


Seriously, you think now introducing the word "intuition" makes points already addressed a new "argument"?

It doesn't.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Hey man what's up I actually was starting to feel a little despondent over the lack of response.


Actually if you read the post that introduced the clean joke about the religious lady and her Atheist neighbor that whatis was brought up then.

Beyond the idea that a human could spirit journey to the observe what exist at the edge of the Universe. There is no real way to actually understand what is really out their.

Intuition does have its benefits and predominately in relation to earthy issues.

In relation to my background I would bring up a substantive difference in the context specifically, of the time line as related to the Mayan Calendar.

Evolution as a concept relates in perspective.

We as a species are far upon the scale of billions of years or even way more years of understanding reality as an absolute.

In consideration to my experience my tendency is to suspend judgment pending a factual evaluation based upon physical evidence.
edit on 30-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

It's already been stated by actual atheists, not some philosophy paper, that no one knows if there is a god or not. Some believe, some lack belief.

Trying to bring a new terminology "tuition" into it is redundant.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: peter vlar

Ok you got me for this last post tonight


Just in general to the discussion Stanford University upon a world scale in respect to Philosophy is acknowledged respectively. As the equivalent to Oxford University in relation to Physics.


Interesting...what is your citation for that? The 2015 rankings for best philosophy programs place Stanford at number 10 on the list. NYU is number 1 and Oxford is number 4 with Harvard and Cambridge tied for number 5.

www.topuniversities.com...=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+sear ch=



In direct to you response I am a person who relates to Genesis as the result of society converting from Hunter/Gatherers to an Agrarian society the in essence lasted about until A.D 1895 respectively.


I'm not quite sure what that means. Is the Genesis reference supposed to mean you are a Christian or at least a follower of one of the Abrahamic faiths? Perhaps at the very least, it is your frame of reference?


I am a Caribbean Indian that was raised up until the age of 7 in relation to Western Hemispheric culture prior to the European Invasion. I was then exposed to Judea-Christian culture to the extent that I qualified to run as principal a school where the students were accused of murder but had no convictions.

One particular patient has as much as 12 such accusations but was never convicted.

Beyond that I have other experiences but......



I'm not trying to be disrespectful here but none of that is remotely in the realm of a credential, especially as it pertains to science. It's nothing more than an incredibly brief outline of a job experience. There's no mention however of education period let alone an advanced degree in any scientific discipline let alone philosophy. and I honestly can't follow where you're going with the murder accusations regarding juveniles. It ahs nothing to do with this thread, science or philosophy. Not trying to be a D#, just trying to understand your position better.


Atheism in potential is wrong because there is not evidence to support it.


you've got it backwards, atheism is the position that there isn't proof supporting a god or gods. Again, the onus lies with those making the claim for the existence of something. As myself and several others have repeated ad nauseum, you can not and do not prove a negative. It's not how the scientific method works. To continue to claim that we must provide proof something doesn't exist seems to me at least, willfully ignorant and incredibly naïve and shows that science was not a large part of any curriculum you were ever a party to.


Substantive evidence has been offered that Reality is not Random, and therefore the Universe was created.



wiki articles, blogs etc... don't really do it for me or any other scientifically minded person who engages in due diligence. . None of what you posted is substantive and fairly large portions of what you posted are misunderstood or misinterpreted by you to support your position. Personally, I prefer peer reviewed papers. That way I can see the methodology and pertinent citations demonstrating how they arrived at their conclusions. Not a single one that I have ever read and that is considered to be of consensus amongst practitioners of related fields, supports or proves the existence of a personal god. Additionally, the way you keep dancing around makes it difficult to ascertain, but it certainly seems as if you are promoting the 'Finely Tuned Universe' hypothesis. Am I close in this discernment?

Please feel free to link me to any paper that you feel shows that I am in error. Unlike those subscribing to tenets of the 4 Abrahamic faiths, I am willing to change my position and perspective if the data supports that new perspective. To date however, that data does not exist. and the little that there is suggesting similar positions as yours, is not even remotely in the realm of consensus.


Any thoughts on getting over that?


I've nothing to get over. I just think you're out in left field and haven't figured out yet that you're at a soccer match wearing a baseball glove and no shin guards.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Grimpachi

And you should get over the fact that your belief is based solely on intuition just as in religion.


there is a vast chasm separating a belief based in intuition and disbelief in something based on a lack of evidence in favor of that position. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this is the case. Lack of acknowledgment is not synonymous with being correct.


Intuition
Noun
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.


Nobody disagreeing with you has ceded conscious reasoning in their replies or their personal positions regarding Atheism.
Just another case of improperly using a word in an attempt to belittle an opposing viewpoint.



Case in point wolf147 who claimed to be better educated than theists which of course is absurd.

Atheist are not better than Theist and Theist are not better than Atheist.


A claim of being better educated is not a claim of being better than another individual or group. It is, in many cases, a statement of fact. In other instances it is an opinion based on personal experience. In neither scenario is it a claim of being better than them. In my case, am I better educated than a high school drop out who claims there is no evidence of evolution because they are ignorant regarding the scientific proof of such? Yes indeed I am. Does this make me a better person than them? Not necessarily. Either way, it wasn't the claim made by wolf147. From an anecdotal perspective(based on personal experience), I have found that the vast majority of Atheists and Agnostics are much more well versed in Judeo-Christian mythology for example( as that is the familial background of those I personally know and have spoken with over the years ) and are more likely to have read the entire scripture and studied it. This is in stark contrast to the majority of Christians I have encountered who have not even read the entire bible. Others have stated that not only have they not read the entire bible, that they would not and should not do so as the interpretation of such scripture is best left to others. What this means is that they are relying entirely on the opinion of one individual or a small group, to tell them what that scripture means and foregoing due diligence entirely. This does in fact, make them both wilfully ignorant and uneducated in the matter.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I did not state the word Tuition I used the word Intuition.





Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.)

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.

Naturalistic fallacy[47] (anti-naturalistic fallacy[48]) – inferring impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy mentioned above. For instance, is P lor neg P does imply ought P lor neg P for any proposition P, although the naturalistic fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.


Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.

Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.


Source

The idea that "actual atheist" in this thread made claims about Atheism is about as relevant as a Fallacy of Logic.

Get over it.





edit on 30-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit




top topics



 
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join