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.

 

The Socratic Method takes on Atheism ...

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 



1. Why are you an Atheist?


I was born an Atheist and never fully integrated into any indoctrination processes of the church. I learned of Deities, but I've never been indoctrinated into believing in Deities.


2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?


This question is illogical and pointless. One could simply choose to not believe many thing's do not exist and regardless of however strong such belief is held, it will still exist as it self evidently exists. In retrospect, one could believe something to exist when there is no such self evidence of it's existence.


3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?


No, I personally do not agree. If there is no evidence of the existence of something, then perhaps there is no evidence simply because that something does not simply exist. How about a talking bottle cap? There is no evidence, but by the logic of the question, it must still exist. Yet, if we stick to the known physics of our universe, such a thing can not physically exist.


4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?


Yes... And what of the hundreds and thousands of other Deities worshiped throughout human history? Ever follower of ever religion of every Deity have all proclaimed personal experience and validity of their particular faiths and all denying the truth and validity of all others. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.


5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?


Does a follower of God having claimed to have personal experience of God detract from the validity of Deities from other religions?


6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?


I find it unfathomable to even consider such a notion. We are a young species, merely infants learning to see for the first time. Do you honestly believe that the vast wonders of the universe can simply be summed up as 'God did it'? What lack of imagination and wonder, what arrogance and unintelligible babble. Sometimes I wonder how our species has managed for this long.


7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?


Limited in what aspect?


8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?


The goal of science is to explain the reality of the natural world and how everything within it's natural existence works. Why would science arbitrarily decide to prove the existence of one man made creation mythology over hundreds and thousands of others?


9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.


Airplanes and the internet were not considered superstitious, they were considered impossible, improbable at best and certainly considered as being centuries before we would develop such technologies. Superstitious is, breaking a mirror and getting seven years bad luck. Or lightening comes from a really ticked off deity sitting in a cloud, or that chanting around fire will bring rain or that the universe needs a beginning.


10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?


Common sense, fin.




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Oh there is... there is...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


For some reason I am not surprised.

I'm glad that I consulted Google when I was first "finding myself" rather than ATS... The dictionary makes much quicker work of the semantic issue.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I believe lots of things. I am open to possibilities. That doesn't mean that I believe that a possibility is true. IT's just a possibility - a dream or imagined thing. I won't believe it to be truth unless there is evidence or proof. But I am open to possibilities of all kinds. Belief is not required for something to exist. (I thought we already covered that.)

So then by definition you are saying you are agnostic and not an atheist by being open to possibilities is this true? Also what would you consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God?



What constitutes proof of something, for yourself personally? What I can comprehend with my 5 senses, logic and reason and what is currently scientifically known. (thanks for the wording)

Do you agree all those factors are limited and because of that we don't know everything it is possible to know?



So you are willing to say that many things can exist that we just don't have the evidence for is this correct? Yes. That is correct. Possibilities. And I don't believe anything until we have that evidence, though.

Do you believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning? Do you believe that you won't die in your sleep?


What is the difference between believing you have experienced and knowing you have experienced something? I only know I have experienced something if it's is something I can comprehend with my 5 senses, logic and reason and what is currently scientifically known. Otherwise, it's speculation, suspicion, fantasy or just thought.

How do you know you have experienced sleep if none of the 5 senses were active while you were supposedly sleeping? Can a person who was born with none of the 5 senses still experience anything? Also what you are implying is that only once an experience of something has taken place, it is afterwords that you make sense of it through 5 senses, logic/reason, and science?



Do you believe that all people who say the experience God are just experiencing their own emotions? Is it possible that perhaps the religion you were part of manipulated and contorted people to believe that a heightened sense of emotion was God? First question: Yes. Second question: All religions manipulate and contort people to believe that a heightened sense of emotion is "God" or some outside force or entity (Satan, the Devil, Jesus).

So with the first question answered, have you asked all people that have claimed to have experienced God if it is just their own emotions? Are you making this claim based on both asking others about it and your own experience, or just based of your own experience?

With this second statement , can you be absolutely sure that it is just the manipulation of the heightened sense of emotions? Is it possible that maybe there is a way to experience God beyond emotion or is this impossible?


Why would you have to learn? Because if there is SOMETHING where I thought there was NOTHING, I would have to learn what it is before I would know what it is... That's like me asking you, "If Grumbleedorm" exists, what would it be like"? Do you have ANY clue? No. You would have to learn.

Would you agree that the thought of something is not that actual something, say for example the thought of a rock is not an actual rock? Do you have to learn about something to know what it is or can you know something just be merely experiencing it for a first time?


Is logic & reason relative to the amount of knowledge we have at any given time? Sorry. It still doesn't make sense to me.

Is logic and reason the same for a 5 year old, for yourself, and for a rocket scientist?


So you would be completely ok with the possibility that some day science might be able to prove God? Absolutely. I believe in possibilities. I'm not close-minded.

Again this is then agnosticism is it so?


Do you consider anything superstitious? Yes. Lots of things. People's imaginations, in an effort to understand and control our lives and "purpose" here, have manufactured MANY superstitions.

Would you agree that logic and reason is also used by the imagination to come to conclusion especially when it comes to theories? Would you agree that logic and reason are man made?


Are you aware there is matter and scopes of measurement completely beyond your 5 senses, logic/reason, and that currently science doesn't know everything? Yes. And I'm very interested in finding out more about them. Science is already tackling them, but they are not an indication of "God", by any means.

Would you agree that you are an intelligent being? Would you agree that many things that science uncovers requires an intelligent mind to comprehend? So you are saying that new findings in science are not an indication of God by any means and is this an absolutely true statement? Did you know that some people say that some scienitifc


I feel like you just asked me the same questions, only with different wording and slightly different angles. Is there a time when you're going to refute my answers or something?

Well some questions have to be asked from different angles such as the one about logic and reason and whether it is limited. It didn't make sense to you earlier so I had to ask it again. If there will be a refute it will either by inconsistencies by the answers from Atheists as a group, or you yourself will have to make things clear like I don't know if you are an atheist or agnostic at this point.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are committing a fallacy and I already know it better than you.

No, I can't show you the scientific literature that proves that universe wasn't created by marshmallow-obsessed leprechauns.

Because it doesn't exist.


You just answered your own question.


I never had a question. What are you talking about?



Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, but no, it's not. It's on BOTH of you ---because--- BOTH of you are making claims.


Where did I make a claim? You are shifting the burden of proof. I do not need to disprove their assertion to reject it. Stop acting pseudo-intellectual if you do not understand the basics behind formal logic.


So you are agnostic too then, and not atheist?

If you are atheist, by the definitions above, you believe affirmatively that there is no God. Agnosticism is defined differently, as you see.

Again I am going by dictionary definitions and not what you guys feel like the words should mean.



Originally posted by bsbray11
I am neither a Christian nor an atheist.


That does not matter, you do not need to take a position in order the shift the burden of proof.



The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof.


en.wikipedia.org...

There are two sides to our debate.

I am agnostic. I am claiming to have no knowledge of whether God exists or not.

You are apparently taking the atheist position. You claim that there is positive evidence that God does not exist, apparently.

Show me where I'm mistaken so far.

If you want to clarify that you too are agnostic, and not atheist, then that would solve this problem immediately.




Originally posted by bsbray11
You are not excused from being obligated to prove your POSITIVE CLAIM that no God exists.


No, it is an ontological negative. It is a 'negative claim'. The burden of proof rests with the ontological positive.


Basically you are saying, person A makes claim X. They have no proof. You claim they are wrong, and since there is no evidence, you must automatically be right.

And you are telling me this is logical?

Again, I am neither Christian nor atheist. You are BOTH making stuff up from where I am sitting, and both equally stubborn to admit it. You are really no different than one another. You just have different, opposing flavors of blind faith.


I do not need to disprove the existence of a deity to dismiss it.


That is very correct, you can dismiss whatever you like. But your dismissal is not based on actual science. It's based on a lack of evidence for someone else's beliefs. Not believing them is fine. But then you take it a step further and positively claim that, not only is there no evidence of God, but there is NO God. That is what atheism is. It is not scientific. Agnosticism conforms with science, because it does not claim to know.




Originally posted by bsbray11
I have to prove God? Why? I don't believe in it!! Come on, don't be stupid.

I don't believe there is no God, either. Want to prove me wrong now???


Oh the irony.


Tell me about it. You didn't even try to respond. Of course. Because you are no different than an immensely stubborn Christian and you have an equal disdain for true logic and reasoning.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Then you admit you have no scientific proof that God doesn't exist.


Where did I say that? You clearly do not understand the fallacies in your logic.


So you do have scientific proof that God doesn't exist?

Can I see it?

Make up your damned mind!


No it isn't, does it require faith to reject the existence of fairies or Santa?


YES! IT DOES!

There is no scientific data at all on fairies or Santa! You can believe what you want, but to say you have science behind you is a LIE, and is proven by the fact that you have no technical data to support you.

Actually I think the idea that Santa could fly all around the Earth in the allotted amount of time has been debunked, so that puts it in a different category entirely from atheism. However atheism is still in the same category as fairies, the pumpkin king and Chuck Norris' beard-fist when it comes to scientific data.


Faith is belief without justification. The justification for the rejection of the belief in deities is because they are unsubstantiated. Do you not understand this?


I understand it better than you do. This position is called "agnosticism."

When you go on to say that "Not only do I reject the idea because it has no evidence, I'm going to automatically assume the opposite must be true," then you have committed a logical fallacy and science and evidence are no longer on your side.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Crimelab
 



Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus



This is often quoted by atheists...so I have a question for you about it.

What do you think the above proves?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 




"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. " - Joseph Campbell

So your saying this is your definition of God for the sake of this thread?
____
In Reply to the Djin,



I was born like it, the label was added at a later date by other people . So you were born an Atheist? Can you explain this as I am having a difficult time understanding the gist of this comment What's there to explain ? I was born with no beliefs in any of these gods and was not indoctrinated into believing in them then i was called an atheist. Don't have to be Greek to work that one out.

But would you agree you have been indoctrinated by the modern day society's current model of education, logic, reason, science, and so on? Do you believe you will wake up tomorrow morning and not die in your sleep?



personally never hold myself to such a thing as evidence of absence itself because we don't know yet everything there is to know . Unless we do.

So you are saying that as a collective planet as I write this question that we know everything there is to know?


No they are saying it i merely repeat what they say but don't believe it. What if it is what if it's not ? Makes no difference to me does it ?

Lets say this same group of people says you need to meditate for 10 years to experience God and you haven't done so, would that mean you lack evidence to make a decision on whether what these folks are saying is true? Have you yourself personally looked to see if there is a God and tried various branches of knowledge to see if they will bring about a result?



What then would define satisfactory beyond a doubt proof for the existence of a God? Depends which god your talking about. If a god (of the type that has been alleged to me) did exist then surely I would not need assume its' nature, there again that would entirely depend upon its' nature.

Can you define the "nature" of anything/something?



But what if this alleged being left freedom to assume its nature or not? Which being ? If Aphrodite did really exist and decided to make herself known to me I would hope she was smoldering hot with real breasts. There again she might be a right dog so i wouldn't be interested.

Ok. For the sake of this hypothetical God, let us take the mainstream most popular version of this God which is some Monotheistic omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient one since it is still being debated whereas Aphrodite seems to have fallen out of favor compared to this version I just presented based on (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Bahai, and a large number of other groups)


I don't know whether the idea of Aphrodite has died out just because I haven't met anyone lately who'd had contact with it/her/him. Which monotheistic omnipresent god are you speaking of here ?

well if we did a mass poll around the world as far as who is God and which God do you believe in worship, do you agree that Aphrodite would have miniscule odds in favor for the Monotheistic version I just presented in the above question?
As far as the second question; "Why should I have a version of a god when I've yet to see proof that there is one? "
This was a hypothetical sense and seems to be misconstrued. You say that there is no proof for any deities but we have Billions of individuals across the world, cultures, genders, ages, through out history who say that they are praying to, for the most part, an agreed upon monotheistic, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God, do you agree that this is so?




If you admit that you dont know whether or not logic and reason are limited does that mean this question cannot be answered or it is impossible to know the answer? If you admit your mind has limitations, why is that. I may not know now but I may know later , so my mind is only limited till later.

Is your definition of "later" an efficient enough time to know everything that thus far there is available to know?



So if science proved the existence of a monotheistic omnipresent all encompassing (let's say) God then you would still be against it? Do you have a particular one in mind ?

Lets say the one of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mystics, Sheiks, Bahai, etc etc etc etc.


I wasn't around a thousand years ago but i find it highly unlikely anyone sat around considering the idea of electricity in every household considering it had yet to be harnessed. there again anomalous like the Anythicara clock would suggest otherwise although I would doubt its' creator would have considered it superstition but the religious may have considered it wizardry and burned him alive.

Did electricity exist before anyone knew about it?


For the sake of questioning, some Mystics have said that God is all of existence. In this case would existence itself be a piss poor communicator? In relation to mystics I refer you to me previous question. If god (which ever one your talking about) is existence why would it need to communicate when it is communication how could it not know itself ? using logic and reason I opt for the latter and base my lack of belief (atheism) upon that. In conclusion I think it's all bollocks for lack of proof .

Do you think there will always be this lack of proof?



What if the current level of logic and reason is insufficient to realize God? What if God can be known or experienced through intuition and not logic and reason? Which god ?

Which God? Lets say for sake of discussion the God of most major religions as postulated earlier.



What does intuition mean to you ? Why would whatever god you speak of choose to run the possibility of not being known if it wants to be known. if this being happens to be omnipotent how could it not be known if that is it's choice ?

Intuition to me, seems like a feeling that points one to make a certain decision on the fly even before making use of logic and reason on a matter.

To answer the second part, well if God was all of existence hypothetically, then in that case it had made itself known since the very beginning. If its not all of existence, then Im wrong, although I say existence on the basis of omnipotence hypothetically.

If God is God and we are humans then it would seem we are the ones that have created science, logic, reason, thought, theories, concepts, etc. Can we find what is not of and from man using man made systems of inspection, in the event that like religions say God came before us? I don't know the answer to that but can we agree science is not looking for God?



What if intuition was originally a superior faculty than logic and reason and we programmed ourselves away from that? You have evidence of the existence of reason and logic what evidence do you have of intuition ? Are you separating intuition from the mind ?

Evidence of intuition? Ok, well in order to prove intuition to you what would you require? Would it have to come from science, psychology, the majority of people saying the have used it, polls, what will it take to be proof positive? Also are you implying that you have never used or experienced any sort of intuition?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Crimelab
 



Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus



This is often quoted by atheists...so I have a question for you about it.

What do you think the above proves?


Proves? Nothing. I just find it an interesting way to say god is a man-made construct, and if he followed the rules of his construct he would behave certain ways which are not evident. And if there is a "god", he is kind of a dick, so why would you worship him anyway? Fear?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
About the electricity argument I've seen you use a few times.

Lightning is electricity. Every man woman and child that has ever walked the earth has experienced lightning (electricity). Before science explained it people made up gods of lightning and thunder to explain what they did not comprehend. Just as people do now.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sn00daard
 




About the electricity argument I've seen you use a few times. Lightning is electricity. Every man woman and child that has ever walked the earth has experienced lightning (electricity). Before science explained it people made up gods of lightning and thunder to explain what they did not comprehend. Just as people do now.

I personally am not making any argument or stance. Im simply asking a yes or no question. Before science discovered anything, such as atoms, how to harness electricity, the quantum fields, mathematics, physiology, etc etc did these things exist prior to them being discovered, or did the discoveries themselves quanitfy their existence?

Yes or No, does something exist prior to science discovering it?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus

1. Why are you an Atheist?
2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?
3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?
5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?
6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?
7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?
8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?
9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.
10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?


1) Because I cannot honestly believe in any of the thousands of deities I am aware of.
2) No - but then again, belief in Xenu does not prove the existence of Xenu.
3) No. There is no evidence for the existence of pink tap-dancing unicorns, and most people would take that as sufficient to prove their non-existence. There are quite a lot of things that exist only in the imagination, but are not considered to exist in reality based solely on the lack of evidence for their existence.
4) The imagination is a wonderful thing.
5) Question makes no sense. How do you rate your experience of not seeing a movie to the experience of people who saw the movie?
6) No idea.
7) No.
8) If "science" proved the existence of pink tap-dancing unicorns, I suppose I would want to have a look. With Gods, I suppose it would depend on the God. Aphrodite - probably try to get her number. Kali I would probably do my best to avoid.
9) airplanes and the internet were never considered "superstitious", but I think I understand what you mean. You will find, if you look at History honestly, that for every superstition that has ever existed, there were quite a few people who didn't believe it.
10) If I removed my senses, logic, reason, and scientific knowledge, I wouldn't be able to get out of the house, let alone deal with heavy philosophical issues.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Yes or No, does something exist prior to science discovering it?


Of course it exists, the existence of something does not depend on perception/understanding.
I was simply stating that electricity existed and people knew about it but didn't understand it so they attributed it to god(s).

For the record, I am a firm agnostic so I'm not arguing the existence of a deity (which in and of itself would be folly as there are no rational arguments for either standpoint; hence my sig).


edit on 12-9-2010 by sn00daard because: to clarify



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sn00daard
 




Of course it exists, the existence of something does not depend on perception/understanding. I was simply stating that electricity existed and people knew about it but didn't understand it so they attributed it to god(s).

For the record, I am a firm agnostic so I'm not arguing the existence of a deity (which in and of itself would be folly as there are no rational arguments for either standpoint; hence my sig).

Thats all I asked and your answer is yes, "things N Stuff" do exist before science discovers it. Do all Atheists agree to this would be the next question.

So if we are basing our conclusions on whether or not God exists based on science which has still not discovered everything of which has been existing prior to the discovery of it, is it then sufficient to be an Atheist based on an argument that because Science hasn't found God, then God doesn't exist?

But you are saying there is a rational argument to be an agnostic? If yes can you provide that?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
FYI, Santa Claus really did exist, at least in the sense that he was based on a real person in history--St. Nicholas.

For all I know, fairies, goblins and the little people really existed as well, or at least they might have been based on sightings of some unusual (dare I say 'alien"?) creatures? It's a very big Multiverse, and we know so little about it.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How familiar are you guys with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

From a scientific perspective we can very much apply that principle in the belief of god!


Uh... No, we can't. The uncertainty principle refers specifically to our inability to precisely observe both the position and momentum of any given particle. I can't even imagine how you could apply the uncertainty principle to God, unless you just heard the name and assume that it meant that we can never know anything with certainty or something similar, which would be wrong.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof.


en.wikipedia.org...


The link even says that I do not hold the burden of proof.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me where I'm mistaken so far.


Right here.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You are apparently taking the atheist position. You claim that there is positive evidence that God does not exist, apparently.


No, this is an outright lie. You are claiming I am making assertions when I have not in order to justify your shifting of proof. I have not claimed God does not exist anywhere, and yet you are shifting the burden of proof onto me to prove him.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If you want to clarify that you too are agnostic, and not atheist, then that would solve this problem immediately.


I am a scientific sceptic. Since I reject the notion of a God. It can be likened to atheist agnostic. But the problem here is that you are shifting the burden of proof when there is none.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically you are saying, person A makes claim X. They have no proof. You claim they are wrong, and since there is no evidence, you must automatically be right.

And you are telling me this is logical?


No, it is not logical because it is a misrepresentation of what I said, a straw man argument.

Person A makes claim X. Since X is not substantiated I can easily dismiss it on those grounds. Especially if it is a ridiculous concept. You argument is one from ignorance.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Again, I am neither Christian nor atheist. You are BOTH making stuff up from where I am sitting, and both equally stubborn to admit it.


Where did I make things up? I'm not stubborn to admit it, I genuinely want you to point out where I claimed a deity does not exist?


Originally posted by bsbray11
That is very correct, you can dismiss whatever you like. But your dismissal is not based on actual science. It's based on a lack of evidence for someone else's beliefs. Not believing them is fine. But then you take it a step further and positively claim that, not only is there no evidence of God, but there is NO God. That is what atheism is. It is not scientific. Agnosticism conforms with science, because it does not claim to know.


"Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence." (en.wikipedia.org...)

The scientific method does not comment on the supernatural, yes, but when applying the legal method to their claims still do not stand scrutiny.



Originally posted by bsbray11
Tell me about it. You didn't even try to respond. Of course. Because you are no different than an immensely stubborn Christian and you have an equal disdain for true logic and reasoning.


You get your 'nickers' in a twist about not having the burden of proof, it is ironic because that is exactly what you are doing to me.


Originally posted by bsbray11
So you do have scientific proof that God doesn't exist?

Can I see it?

Make up your damned mind!


Are you illiterate? I even said I never claimed that, and yet you reply by saying that I did? You argument is fallacious because you are asking someone to disprove something falsifiable. As you said before, science cannot comment on the supernatural, so you are committing intellectual dishonesty by pressing the question. Your argument is also fallacious in that it is built on lies, you continue to shift the burden of proof when I clearly have stated that I have none.


Originally posted by bsbray11
YES! IT DOES!


Then you clearly do not understand the definition of faith.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There is no scientific data at all on fairies or Santa! You can believe what you want, but to say you have science behind you is a LIE, and is proven by the fact that you have no technical data to support you.


So it is irrational for me to reject the existance of God? Now who is the irrational one?

Again, you are making up lies again, please point to where I said "a deity does not exist", or don't post again.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually I think the idea that Santa could fly all around the Earth in the allotted amount of time has been debunked, so that puts it in a different category entirely from atheism. However atheism is still in the same category as fairies, the pumpkin king and Chuck Norris' beard-fist when it comes to scientific data.


But if santa existed he would have super powers like god. You are committing the fallacy of special pleading. You are applying restrictions to Santa to justify you rejection in the belief of him, but not God. If a deity existed, then they would violate thermodynamics, so they could not exist. However, if they did exist, the should at least be omnipotent. So no, it is not in a difference category than atheism, you are just creating a fallacious argument to justify your beliefs.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I understand it better than you do. This position is called "agnosticism."


Not, agnosticism is the belief that we will never know. There are many other non-theistic positions that are not atheism or agnosticism, you are just applying a label to what you feel should be agnosticism, you are now guilty of what you claim atheists are doing, making up definitions for their beliefs.


Originally posted by bsbray11
When you go on to say that "Not only do I reject the idea because it has no evidence, I'm going to automatically assume the opposite must be true," then you have committed a logical fallacy and science and evidence are no longer on your side.


I said that? Would you please point out where? This is an obvious lie. I did not say that anywhere, please stop making up false quotes to support your argument.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by sn00daard
 




About the electricity argument I've seen you use a few times. Lightning is electricity. Every man woman and child that has ever walked the earth has experienced lightning (electricity). Before science explained it people made up gods of lightning and thunder to explain what they did not comprehend. Just as people do now.

I personally am not making any argument or stance. Im simply asking a yes or no question. Before science discovered anything, such as atoms, how to harness electricity, the quantum fields, mathematics, physiology, etc etc did these things exist prior to them being discovered, or did the discoveries themselves quanitfy their existence?

Yes or No, does something exist prior to science discovering it?


This is an argument from ignorance.

Since science has not discovered it, is there a bogey monster in my closet? Since science has not discovered it, do I have 500 bottles of pepsi max in my room?

You argument is fallacious since it relies upon the possibility of unknowns.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I have not claimed God does not exist anywhere, and yet you are shifting the burden of proof onto me to prove him.


Because you engaged my posts first, I assumed you were an atheist.

If you're NOT claiming that God definitely does not exist, then that's not atheism, that's agnosticism, and we have nothing to argue about. Though I would still have to wonder why you decided to pick an argument with me in the first place when all I said was neither Christians nor atheists have science on their side!!!

If you're backing away from positively claiming God does NOT exist then why don't you start reading posts before you thrash around in a fit? Go re-read my original posts on this thread and see who is illiterate.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by sn00daard
 




Of course it exists, the existence of something does not depend on perception/understanding. I was simply stating that electricity existed and people knew about it but didn't understand it so they attributed it to god(s).

For the record, I am a firm agnostic so I'm not arguing the existence of a deity (which in and of itself would be folly as there are no rational arguments for either standpoint; hence my sig).

Thats all I asked and your answer is yes, "things N Stuff" do exist before science discovers it. Do all Atheists agree to this would be the next question.

So if we are basing our conclusions on whether or not God exists based on science which has still not discovered everything of which has been existing prior to the discovery of it, is it then sufficient to be an Atheist based on an argument that because Science hasn't found God, then God doesn't exist?

But you are saying there is a rational argument to be an agnostic? If yes can you provide that?


This is an argument from ignorance, read my previous post.

There is also equal possibility of Zeus, Thor, Odin, Brahma and Jupiter existing as well. Why should I accept their beliefs if they cannot even substantiate them? It does not matter if it turns out to be true or not, accepting something without reasonable justification is credulity.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I have not claimed God does not exist anywhere, and yet you are shifting the burden of proof onto me to prove him.


Because you engaged my posts first, I assumed you were an atheist.

If you're NOT claiming that God definitely does not exist, then that's not atheism, that's agnosticism, and we have nothing to argue about. Though I would still have to wonder why you decided to pick an argument with me in the first place when all I said was neither Christians nor atheists have science on their side!!!

If you're backing away from positively claiming God does NOT exist then why don't you start reading posts before you thrash around in a fit? Go re-read my original posts on this thread and see who is illiterate.


No, that is a false dichotomy, there are more positions than atheism and agnosticism. Again, you are making up definitions to suit your beliefs. It is exactly what you accuse atheists of doing.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're backing away from positively claiming God does NOT exist then why don't you start reading posts before you thrash around in a fit? Go re-read my original posts on this thread and see who is illiterate.


Backing away? Please give one example where I actually said he doesn't? Can't? Ok, bye. Thanks for entertaining me with your fallacious arguments.

No, I did read your posts and I pointed out the fallacies in your argument, you then accuse me of saying deities don't exist (sort of like the religious fundamentalists who claim anyone who doesn't agree with their world view is a heathen or heretic) incorrectly.

It is also, like I said before, an ontological negative, thanks for proving my point about you being illiterate if you could not even understand this one point. Like you put it, "go re-read my original posts on this thread and see who is illiterate."


edit on 12-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)




edit on 12-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join