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.

 

Atheism - The Final Frontier

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are you certain that such an allowance is valid? All cases of special pleading will have a reason. I even listed it in my response.

Again, I'm not certain that simply having a reason for the special pleading excuses it from being a fallacy.


I stand corrected. A reason is usually not offered. A reason may be offered and it is still a special pleading if the reason is irrelevant. A relevant reason excuses it from being a fallacy since exceptions do exist for rules.

If you support the position that all exceptions are special pleadings, you may find yourself in a situation where the fallacious argument is truth, and the deductive argument is false, whenever the exception is actually warranted.


Aristotle has, indeed, offered a reason for his pleading. His reason was incorrect, but he nonetheless offered one, and since no one could have proven his reason wrong with that day's science, his argument was not a special pleading.

[quoteThat is also a fallacy (argument from ignorance). In other words, since he thought nobody could invalidate his reasoning it must be correct. His argument still relies on special pleading whether it is recognized or not or challenged or not.


It was not a matter that "he thought that nobody could invalidate him". Nobody would invalidate him because his reasoning was inline with that day's scientific knowledge. His argument was not an argument from ignorance. He had proof supporting his assertions, that is, his day's scientific knowledge.


The cosmological argument is very similar but it has a fancier suit. This argument is also fallacious, relying heavily on the argument from ignorance. The basic premise being: 'something caused the universe to exist, and this first cause must be God'. Or, 'we don't know what caused the universe to exist, therefore my hypothesis of it being a god is correct'.


It is not a "fancier suit". Philosophical arguments evolve over time the same way that science does. The argument from ignorance follows either of the following formats: "something is true because you cannot prove it is false" or "something is false because you cannot prove it is true."

Also, your reply is a strawman. There isn't a single version of the cosmological argument today that has the format you just said. The cosmological argument follows from scientific principles generally accepted as true, and follows the deductive rules. It is accepted as logically valid by theist and atheist philosophers alike.

Charges of fallacy only come from people that are not philosophers and lack the proper knowledge to correctly evaluate the argument.


The opposing proof, that is, for why we should assume it to not to exist is because the idea of an actual infinite is not logically sound. We can only speak of infinites as a matter of possibilities, but not as realities.


In the grand scheme of things the qualities of infinity have little to do with determining the existence of deities. And I'm not certain that any argument or analysis can conclusively determine the existence of a deity. They may give us areas in which to search, though ultimately establishing the existence of anything requires tangible, objective evidence.


I do not understand how this addresses what I just said. Care to clarify? You do not seem to be either agreeing or disagreeing, but merely digressing about your opinions on infinity.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Leahn because: stupid noscript broke my post




posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Yes, unfortunately too many people think that science is an engine for debunking. It sets out to discover and explain, not to disprove (though that happens sometimes).

Science isn't needed to debunk deities though. That can be done through simple analysis of the texts.


No, it can't. The same way that you cannot prove that a river doesn't exist by pointing out flaws on the map of the territory. The map is not the territory. An analysis of the text can only prove that the text is bunk. It says nothing about the subject of the text itself. This is a fallacy known as "denying the antecedent."



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
so because i don,t believe in your god, does that make me an atheist ?

In a way.



Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by randyvs
 



You are an atheist by the very definition... you REJECT various deities others believe in (except yours of course).

The simple position would be "I don't know!" That's an honest answer.


Again, no, it doesn't. This is a common atheist mistake. Atheism is said to be "lack of belief in god". It is not a "lack of belief in a specific version of a god" or "lack of belief in a brand of theism". How can one be an atheist by the very definition, that is 'lacking belief in god" if he does not lack belief in god?

Also, you're confusing 'belief" with "knowledge". This is also a common atheist mistake. Lack of knowledge is not atheism. Lack of knowledge is agnosticism. "I don't know" is not an atheist position. "I don't know" is an agnostic position. The atheist position is "I don't believe."

It's worth pointing out that neither theism nor atheism precludes agnosticism.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Leahn because: wrong formatting.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   


Again, no, it doesn't. This is a common atheist mistake. Atheism is said to be "lack of belief in god". It is not a "lack of belief in a specific version of a god" or "lack of belief in a brand of theism". How can one be an atheist by the very definition, that is 'lacking belief in god" if he does not lack belief in god?


AGAIN. (I can go by the definition)

Define what is meant by god.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


To take a definition of agnosticism, it is unknowable if a "certain deity" exists or not.

Let's take Santa Claus as an example. Do you KNOW he doesn't exist or do you take a position where you are not certain?

Which one are you?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
It appears this descent into minutia (word definitions, fallacy identification) is digressing from the fundamental issue.

Some people claim a god exists. Some other people fail to believe the claim. The claimants must provide convincing evidence in support of their claim.

Commonly, logical arguments are cited as this evidence, however, at best they can only imply a deity's existence. At some point tangible, objective, testable, falsifiable evidence must be presented.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


The statement that " This planet isn't all there is " if you broaden your scope a bit. You will see that it is only meant to " Lead the witness '" so to speak. I have never tried to provide any proiof of any thing ever as these certain forums go. I merely try to show there is always a logical refutation to any potential absurdities
anyone pesents against the belief in God. This is why I frustrate you all so very well. I can't be trapped by your logic. Because logic isn't everything. Your requests for proof are naive. Because if there were that kind of objective evidence you, we, I would all be believers. That isn't what Gods word says. What it says is there will be
people like you. That's my discript of where I come against you. Wheather or not you see any light because of what I say. Isn't up to me. I create the message and send it. That is all.


edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Drummer



Commonly, logical arguments are cited as this evidence, however, at best they can only imply a deity's existence. At some point tangible, objective, testable, falsifiable evidence must be presented.


Science will never prove that God does not exist. That leaves two possible outcomes. Who can say what they are ?

We don't know one millionth of one percent of anything. Thomas Edison.
edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Science will never prove that God does not exist.

I wasn't aware that science was trying to.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I'm sure you play at words with me. Would you be so bold as to say evolution dosn't point to a Godless creation ? I would say that evolution is science. Wouldn't you ? Evolution suggests that all life and existence is just a pointless growth. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to avoid such a hopeless, exasperating, meaningless existence of futility. Maybe Dawkins isn't even a scientist. Maybe he's just a Satanist with a smart mouth. The Devils greatest deception is letting the world believe he dosn't exist.
Please, don't be coy ? Belief in God is no more absurd than disbelieving in God. This is the only thing I will ever try to prove.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

This is why I frustrate you all so very well.


I'm not frustrated.


Because logic isn't everything.


What else is there? Faith?


Your requests for proof are naive.


Are the requests for proof that 'God' does not exist just as naive then?


That isn't what Gods word says. What it says is there will be
people like you.


How conveinent. If I was going to brainwash a small mass of peoples, I would probably tell them that not everyone outside of our circle will believe what I am telling them. Then, I would probably tell them they are more enlightened than the non-believers, that they are special. Then, I might even go so far as to tell them the non-believers are evil, influenced by Soton, the epicenter of all bad things.You know, the Qu'ran also says there will be people like YOU...and the Torah, and many other religious texts that are seperate from your Bible.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Yes, Natural, how does it affect the natural world, look to how we affect the natural world.

Are We are all gods that haven't learned how to move mountains yet?
edit on 093131p://bFriday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)


Ah.
Do you believe that humans are a kind of evolving god?


I just wonder


I cannot define god, I cannot imagine being one,

I believe denying the possibility of a creator, limits me, I have seen miraculous things happen, to best describe how I feel has always been this poem,

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by acapablemind

What else is there? Faith?


of course there is faith isn't that is what being argued here? but what else is there if it's not logic or faith what is it?


Originally posted by acapablemindAre the requests for proof that 'God' does not exist just as naive then?


Yes, but this is how I think it happens the believers see the non-believers shoving that agruement in their face and they having nothing to show as proof or unwilling to make it up that they think, "hey thats a smart and a tough arguement I'm going to use it against the non-believers" as proof god does exit . Well then the non-believers do not have any proof so they say, "the burdon of proof is not on me".

Understanding how that conversation goes you can see neither of them can prove god's existence so they are both argueing on beliefs. My question to the atheist is why do you spend so much of your arguement on the idea that you are not argueing a belief but a lack of belief. The lack of a belief would be not to care, which you are showing that you do care by argueing.
That it self is odd where in your religion does it say you must go out and convert people to atheism.
Can you show me how the lack of a belief an exist without the proof of god not existing?


Originally posted by acapablemind
How conveinent. If I was going to brainwash a small mass of peoples, I would probably tell them that not everyone outside of our circle will believe what I am telling them. Then, I would probably tell them they are more enlightened than the non-believers, that they are special. Then, I might even go so far as to tell them the non-believers are evil, influenced by Soton, the epicenter of all bad things.You know, the Qu'ran also says there will be people like YOU...and the Torah, and many other religious texts that are seperate from your Bible.


Well, it sure seems to have work. The problem isn't with the religion or the idea, well there might be some, because most religion and ideas do not go out to harm other people. Its the the fighting between the current living people that is makeing the problem at any time they can all decide to stop fighting.

So, what is the problem I don't know but its deeper than religion. They answer has to be in the human mind I think.


Edit: sorry I hit reply before I was done
edit on 2-7-2011 by Doublemint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 



How conveinent. If I was going to brainwash a small mass of peoples, I would probably tell them that not everyone outside of our circle will believe what I am telling them. Then, I would probably tell them they are more enlightened than the non-believers, that they are special.


I don't think that was the original intention, but yea it happened.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Your posts are so deluded Randy, and a wealth of misinformation.


Evolution suggests that all life and existence is just a pointless growth.


That is your perception of evolution. You consider people that dont believe in a god to not have a point. I'm here to beg to differ. I dont need a god for purpose.



Maybe Dawkins isn't even a scientist.


Maybe you should google.

en.wikipedia.org...


Belief in God is no more absurd than disbelieving in God. This is the only thing I will ever try to prove.


of course, because you can't prove there is a god. Using the bible and Jesus as some sort of facts to prove there is a sky daddy is ridiculous.

I will leave you with this little wisdom. think about it.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Stephen Roberts.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifecitizen

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Stephen Roberts.


Love your post.

To me - it boils down to personal responsibility. There is no excuse or passing the buck.

Believers - live for death. For the reward at the end.

Non-believers - - live each day as if it is a gift. Everything you do today - - affects the next generation. Your personal contribution today - - is the gift for tomorrow.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Candy ass crap. I don't need this cause I'm better than you and that.
Believers do this and nonbelievers are like that. Bunch of squirrels gathering nuts. I'm sure you can all do something besides whine. Mocking condescending lies. Is that the best you can pulsate ?


Maybe you should just google this ? How pathetic ?



edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I'm sure you play at words with me.

No. While you've admitted to saying things just to get a rise out of people, I actually treat people on ATS with honesty. Even the ones, maybe even especially the ones, that I don't agree with.


Would you be so bold as to say evolution dosn't point to a Godless creation?

I don't think it's bold to say that when there are an abundance of theists who are proponents of modern evolutionary synthesis.


I would say that evolution is science. Wouldn't you?

Absolutely. Glad we agree.


Evolution suggests that all life and existence is just a pointless growth.

Not at all. Life is what we make of it. If you require belief in God to give your life meaning, so be it. I do not.


Who in their right mind wouldn't want to avoid such a hopeless, exasperating, meaningless existence of futility.

Here's something I'm coming to recognize, at least anecdotally - that most theists will never be able to empathize with atheists, while the reverse is not true. Religious education from an early age is ubiquitous and you almost never hear of atheists who were raised by atheists. So if most atheists started out as theists, they have the ability to understand and empathize with theists. However, I note a distinct lack of empathy or even making an effort at trying to understand where atheists are coming from on the part of theists. And this is from the "godly" people who talk about God being love.

If you really believe that atheists lead a "hopeless, exasperating, meaningless existence of futility", it says more about you and your lack of understanding of atheism than it does about atheists.


Maybe Dawkins isn't even a scientist. Maybe he's just a Satanist with a smart mouth. The Devils greatest deception is letting the world believe he dosn't exist.

Lovely little ad hominem there, randy. You're living up to my lowest expectations of just about anyone on this board, and I'm disappointed in you.


Please, don't be coy?

Please, don't be a hypocrite by asking someone else not be coy or engage in playing at words.


Belief in God is no more absurd than disbelieving in God.

Lack of belief in something for which there is no objective evidence? Hardly absurd. Belief in something for which there is no objective evidence? Also not absurd, I understand the purpose it fills in your life. The only thing I find absurd is when theists attack things for which there exists objective evidence on the grounds that it conflicts with their faith.


This is the only thing I will ever try to prove.

If you're being honest when you say this, then expect that I will remind you of it when I see you trying to prove other facets of your faith in threads.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


What reason do you have to question my integrity ?
edit on 2-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

There's only one person pitching a tantrum here, randy. Everyone else is having a relatively civil discussion.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

Because you're accusing me of doing things that you've admitted to doing and then asking me not to do them. I don't act coy, I don't play at words. I post honestly. You, on the other hand, have admitted to posting things just to get a rise out of people.




top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join