Atheist vs. Religious

[kpcrew]

It may be based on something more concrete than the crap that gets shoveled out on Sundays, but there's a ton of subjectivity in the "social sciences".

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Dude, the post I think you're referring to was totes in self-deprecation. I was rolling my eyes at the notion of my effusive prose affecting your psychological state like psilocybin. I thought it passingly witty since we were talking about eye rolling.

Nobody actually talks like this.....

 

[sinuous sausage]

Nobody actually talks like this.....

 

[SpecterGT260]

 

[KinasePro]

can they do certain amount of experiments to determine a specific kind of psychological and sociological factors and theories? yes. Do they prove to be correct when applied to variety of different cases? yes!

I'm not debating that you can use sociology and psychology to predict human behaviors in a given culture or social construct, as you describe (and that's not what your OP proposed either, but we've digressed...). I'm arguing that when those ideas are used to extrapolate the origins of morals, the results are very light on empirical evidence and very heavy on gedanken. They become dogmatic, controversial, and very subjective.

can they do certain amount of experiments on nature and "god" to give certain kind of value that says that our goodness, evilness and moral comes from the gods? no. Can they ever be applied? hell no!

you are making a bogus false equivalency here. not all science are based on numbers and something you can directly observe. and correction, they are not "soft" sciences, they are called social sciences.

To your first paragraph, you don't need experiments, just study the history of western philosophy (mentioned earlier in this thread). The vast majority of our ideas of what's right and wrong are based in religious principles, regardless of our adherence to those religions that we are unwittingly influenced by. Like it or not, our beliefs regarding the value of human life are derived from the society we are raised in, and we currently live in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morals (read more: here).

To your second point, the social sciences are indeed soft sciences. The evidence used in the social sciences almost always leaves room for alternate explanations and ideas are rarely irrefutable. I'm not bashing them and saying they are not useful, and I understand they are describing very complex topics that are very difficult to prove. But the fact is that they exist on a lower "tier" of authority than the basic sciences, due to the nature of the evidence they provide.

Even still, if we could imagine a world where they provided us with irrefutable evidence for the origins of morals, we still run into the problem of solipsism and the value of "evidence" as it relates to truth.

 

[Stacker]

To your second point, the social sciences are indeed soft sciences. The evidence used in the social sciences almost always leaves room for alternate explanations and ideas are rarely irrefutable. I'm not bashing them and saying they are not useful, and I understand they are describing very complex topics that are very difficult to prove. But the fact is that they exist on a lower "tier" of authority than the basic sciences, due to the nature of the evidence they provide.

 

[KinasePro]

xkcd.png

gotta love xkcd

 

[zoner]

the results are very light on empirical evidence and very heavy on gedanken. They become dogmatic, controversial, and very subjective.

To your first paragraph, you don't need experiments, just study the history of western philosophy (mentioned earlier in this thread). The vast majority of our ideas of what's right and wrong are based in religious principles, regardless of our adherence to those religions that we are unwittingly influenced by. Like it or not, our beliefs regarding the value of human life are derived from the society we are raised in, and we currently live in a society that is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morals (read

Where do you actually think judeo christian morals come from? You speak as if there was nothing before that

Do you think that this christian moral you speak of was derived from god? No they were derived by mere men (paul and the token emperor specifically) influenced by thoughts from the past and other cultures. And there are highly empirical proof for the evolution theory of human moral. Religious people will ignore all this and say they are from god. Well can I say they are from lepricans and be respected for that?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[KinasePro]

Where do you actually think judeo christian morals come from? You speak as if there was nothing before that.

Ah, now we're at the heart of the matter. Jewish morals definitely have substantial influences from other ancient philosophies, but their major innovation and contribution to western thought is their prohibition of infanticide on the grounds of Imago Dei. Psychologically and sociologically speaking, this is a absurd and oppressive law in a world where infanticide is a completely acceptable way to deal babies that will cost you a lot and bring no survival benefit.

Now we could get into a long discussion about what really made the Jews decide to stop killing unwanted children, but the simple answer is that Jewish law prohibits it based on religious principles (imago dei). You could then say its just an arbitrary moral because it came from their fairy tale holy book. But most of us in the thread would agree that leaving unwanted infants to die in the sun is wrong.. so then is this still just an arbitrary belief?

 

[VenusinFurs]

Ah, now we're at the heart of the matter. Jewish morals definitely have substantial influences from other ancient philosophies, but their major innovation and contribution to western thought is their prohibition of infanticide on the grounds of Imago Dei. Psychologically and sociologically speaking, this is a absurd and oppressive law in a world where infanticide is a completely acceptable way to deal babies that will cost you a lot and bring no survival benefit.

Now we could get into a long discussion about what really made the Jews decide to stop killing unwanted children, but the simple answer is that Jewish law prohibits it based on religious principles (imago dei). You could then say its just an arbitrary moral because it came from their fairy tale holy book. But most of us in the thread would agree that leaving unwanted infants to die in the sun is wrong.. so then is this still just an arbitrary belief?

Leaving infants to die in the sun is not a social norm. We are raised in a society where people who abandon their infants to the elements are monsters. Not only that but the norm is to care for infants and treat them as though they are precious. Acting abnormally is viewed as wrong.

Whether or not that's because of Judeochristianity is moot; modern secular society in the West and even elsewhere has it's ethical root in Judeochristianity and it's impossible to completely divorce the two. Clearly the chilling conclusion to draw from this is one particular society's morals can't codify the absolute right and wrong, since one society's norm is another society's abhorrent act. Or perhaps only one society is right. Or perhaps every society has a piece of the truth.

What you know in your heart's blood to be right or wrong could be entirely different in another era or another continent.

But to feel that viscerally about something and then have it presented to you that you could have entirely the wrong feeling about it, that you could be a monster given a different context?

I totally get where the fundamentalists are coming from. It sounds better to me to be a howling crazy ******* who is absolutely sure your way is the only way than to not have any clue about anything and have no idea what the right thing to do is in any situation.

 

[KinasePro]

Leaving infants to die in the sun is not a social norm. We are raised in a society where people who abandon their infants to the elements are monsters. Not only that but the norm is to care for infants and treat them as though they are precious. Acting abnormally is viewed as wrong.

Whether or not that's because of Judeochristianity is moot; modern secular society in the West and even elsewhere has it's ethical root in Judeochristianity and it's impossible to completely divorce the two. Clearly the chilling conclusion to draw from this is one particular society's morals can't codify the absolute right and wrong, since one society's norm is another society's abhorrent act. Or perhaps only one society is right. Or perhaps every society has a piece of the truth.

What you know in your heart's blood to be right or wrong could be entirely different in another era or another continent.

But to feel that viscerally about something and then have it presented to you that you could have entirely the wrong feeling about it, that you could be a monster given a different context?

I totally get where the fundamentalists are coming from. It sounds better to me to be a howling crazy ******* who is absolutely sure your way is the only way than to not have any clue about anything and have no idea what the right thing to do is in any situation.

I'd probably side with the bolded statement, but qualify the statement by saying that some societies could likely have more of the "truth" than others. And I agree entirely that our baseline morals are sculpted by our surroundings, but it's interesting to consider what the world was like when those very morals originally developed.

It ultimately boils down to whether there even is an objective truth. That's a huge heaping question that we'll never be able to answer, but my bias would be that there is one for many of the same reasons that sausage has mentioned throughout this thread. I personally can't find the logical consistency in a universe with no absolute truth but much more on this and I'll really start to sound like a broken record.

 

[CaptainSSO]

I wondered how far I would take this--had I logically vetted my logic? Or empirically determined the value of empiricism? I got on that solipsistic train and it broke me the funk down. Seriously made me weep.



ng.

That's a fallacy. It's called an infinite regression, if I remember correctly. Had you logically vetted the logical vetting of your logic, etc.

 

[sibitrum]

Which is silly, bc the absolute belief that there is no higher power is as ridiculous as any religion IMO. Claiming that you KNOW there is no God is the height of hubris.

Agnosticism I get, atheism I do not. It's like a big pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.

For the eighteenth time, atheism is lack of belief in a god, it is not claiming that one knows that a god does not exist.

That said, how is claiming that you know there is no god or goddess or pink unicorn or whatever not just as hubristic as claiming that you know that thor/judeochristianislamic god/zeus/etc. exist?

Side note: What's the deal with everyone capitalizing "god"?

 

[zoner]

For the eighteenth time, atheism is lack of belief in a god, it is not claiming that one knows that a god does not exist.

That said, how is claiming that you know there is no god or goddess or pink unicorn or whatever not just as hubristic as claiming that you know that thor/judeochristianislamic god/zeus/etc. exist?

Side note: What's the deal with everyone capitalizing "god"?

Well said. I am telling you,,,, there are some religious zealots lurking in this forum and in med field. I learned my lesson when I posted a thread about religion a while back.

ok, so on another note, this thread sounds like a bunch of you guys are talking out of horse's ass. you guys are trying sooooo hard to sound smart and justify your belief coming up with some bs philosophy, but it really all sounds pretty ridiculous - as ridiculous as their belief that jesus is god, wearing a Kippah, or my belief that a lepricans are godl.

 

[sinuous sausage]

For the eighteenth time, atheism is lack of belief in a god, it is not claiming that one knows that a god does not exist.

That said, how is claiming that you know there is no god or goddess or pink unicorn or whatever not just as hubristic as claiming that you know that thor/judeochristianislamic god/zeus/etc. exist?

Side note: What's the deal with everyone capitalizing "god"?

Numerous souls have redressed your contention over the course of this thread. You can continue to repeat the same hollow "atheism is!" trope to whatever new guy stumbles in here, but the pink unicorn gambit has run its course. Zoner's about the only one continuing to pick it up.

 

[zoner]

Because it's a strong logic

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[sibitrum]

Numerous souls have redressed your contention over the course of this thread. You can continue to repeat the same hollow "atheism is!" trope to whatever new guy stumbles in here, but the pink unicorn gambit has run its course. Zoner's about the only one continuing to pick it up.

Why is your bible-god anymore likely than zeus? How do you know? Have you considered that it just appears that way because of your social milieu?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why is your bible-god anymore likely than zeus? How do you know? Have you considered that it just appears that way because of your social milieu?

Why do you think this is a logically valid argument for abandonment all together?

 

[zoner]

Why do you think this is a logically valid argument for abandonment all together?

Abandon what? Religion?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[sinuous sausage]

Well said. I am telling you,,,, there are some religious zealots lurking in this forum and in med field. I learned my lesson when I posted a thread about religion a while back.

ok, so on another note, this thread sounds like a bunch of you guys are talking out of horse's ass. you guys are trying sooooo hard to sound smart and justify your belief coming up with some bs philosophy, but it really all sounds pretty ridiculous - as ridiculous as their belief that jesus is god, wearing a Kippah, or my belief that a lepricans are godl.

I agree, it's not easy to discuss this shtuff without sounding like a horse's ass--and I know I'm among the worst trespassers. Many have done it with more clarity and wit, but the upside is this is a thread with a readership n~7. I've also been informed that practice makes perfect, or at least makes one less douchey.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Abandon what? Religion?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

Yes.

 

[sibitrum]

Why do you think this is a logically valid argument for abandonment all together?

It's not the main reason I'm not religious (my main reason is the whole zero evidence thing). It's just an argument that clearly demonstrates that people's religious beliefs don't come from any first principles, but rather just from where they happened to grow up. This in turn reinforces the idea that there's no good evidence for religion at all and no good reason for picking one religion over another.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It's not the main reason I'm not religious (my main reason is the whole zero evidence thing). It's just an argument that clearly demonstrates that people's religious beliefs don't come from any first principles, but rather just from where they happened to grow up. This in turn reinforces the idea that there's no good evidence for religion at all and no good reason for picking one religion over another.

The specific beliefs, yes. But the "why is one god better than another" argument is only good for spinning wheels. If the default is theism it doesnt really follow to believe in A God but then not believe in any god. Deity is deity. It isn't like the Christian god is Frank and the Muslim god is Jim.... they are both attempts to understand the higher power. If you look at the mythology there are many similarities. The notion that all groups are defining different entities is an artificial aspect of the discussion due to the jealous nature of many of the groups. It is perfectly reasonable that all groups with such similarities are describing the same events with different points of view and extrapolations of meaning. It only furthers the point that one's interpretation may be wrong but does nothing to establish the foundation is wrong (nothing as in does not support or contradict). Did I ever tell you the story of Bill Brasky?

 

[sibitrum]

The specific beliefs, yes. But the "why is one god better than another" argument is only good for spinning wheels. If the default is theism it doesnt really follow to believe in A God but then not believe in any god. Deity is deity. It isn't like the Christian god is Frank and the Muslim god is Jim.... they are both attempts to understand the higher power. If you look at the mythology there are many similarities. The notion that all groups are defining different entities is an artificial aspect of the discussion due to the jealous nature of many of the groups. It is perfectly reasonable that all groups with such similarities are describing the same events with different points of view and extrapolations of meaning. It only furthers the point that one's interpretation may be wrong but does nothing to establish the foundation is wrong (nothing as in does not support or contradict). Did I ever tell you the story of Bill Brasky?

But the interpretation is religion and religion is what determines people's behavior, thoughts, etc. Furthermore, whether you believe in some nebulous notion of a "spirit" observing us without action, a pantheon of gods/goddesses on Mount Olympus fighting it out, or some bearded god who decides whether you go to heaven or hell are all very different things "foundationally". The reason you think it's "artificial" is just because you think your religious idea is correct and everyone else is just seeing some aspect of what you think exists, but for which you have no actual evidence.

 

[Leonid Rogozov]

The specific beliefs, yes. But the "why is one god better than another" argument is only good for spinning wheels. If the default is theism it doesnt really follow to believe in A God but then not believe in any god. Deity is deity. It isn't like the Christian god is Frank and the Muslim god is Jim.... they are both attempts to understand the higher power. If you look at the mythology there are many similarities. The notion that all groups are defining different entities is an artificial aspect of the discussion due to the jealous nature of many of the groups. It is perfectly reasonable that all groups with such similarities are describing the same events with different points of view and extrapolations of meaning. It only furthers the point that one's interpretation may be wrong but does nothing to establish the foundation is wrong (nothing as in does not support or contradict). Did I ever tell you the story of Bill Brasky?

*sniff* *sniff* I smell pantheism.

I always liked the idea of pantheism (essentially leaving 'god' as a mystery which everyone interprets differently) only so far as it manages to get the two people fighting over whether some omnipotent golem is named Jehovah or Allah to stfu and tolerate their differences due to a lack of proof for either case. One thing I do find annoying about the position is that it seems to discount the idea that certain gods can't logically exist period and makes no attempt for empirical analysis of their existence (which is where you and I would likely have the strongest disagreement). In other words, the foundation can be plenty wrong and I'm one of those who believe that you're doing humanity a disservice by ultimately not showing these logical inconsistencies and falsehoods where you know they exist (and likewise for saying you have solid proof where none exists). I wouldn't choose to lose any friends over it but I'm not afraid to voice my thoughts if asked.

E.g. God is omnipotent and benevolent yet bad things happen to good people constantly. If he is omnipotent then he should prevent bad things from happening to good people but he does not which suggests that he is not benevolent or not omnipotent.

Math is my religion. If you're going to base a belief structure on something which you claim to be an absolute truth you may as well base it on something that shows repeatedly, time and time again, to be correct and cut out the middle man of cultural, social and historical differences. It's even a system that can tell you how wrong it is (stats). What's not to like?

 

[SpecterGT260]

But the interpretation is religion and religion is what determines people's behavior, thoughts, etc. Furthermore, whether you believe in some nebulous notion of a "spirit" observing us without action, a pantheon of gods/goddesses on Mount Olympus fighting it out, or some bearded god who decides whether you go to heaven or hell are all very different things "foundationally". The reason you think it's "artificial" is just because you think your religious idea is correct and everyone else is just seeing some aspect of what you think exists, but for which you have no actual evidence.

You missed the point... my point is what it has always been: attempting to undermine the behaviors/views/whatever by attacking the foundation of theism, or attacking theism in general using examples of specific faiths is inappropriate. I did not say that my view is the correct one or imply that people need to adhere to it. The reasoning behind my response is true regardless of what you believe. If you want to compare religions and then get lost in the respective levels of literalism, exclusivism, and adherence by each be my guest. To claim that any of these things impact the likelihood (literal probability) of the existence of a "god" by any interpretation is a logical error.

 

[zoner]

The specific beliefs, yes. But the "why is one god better than another" argument is only good for spinning wheels. If the default is theism it doesnt really follow to believe in A God but then not believe in any god. Deity is deity. It isn't like the Christian god is Frank and the Muslim god is Jim.... they are both attempts to understand the higher power. If you look at the mythology there are many similarities. The notion that all groups are defining different entities is an artificial aspect of the discussion due to the jealous nature of many of the groups. It is perfectly reasonable that all groups with such similarities are describing the same events with different points of view and extrapolations of meaning. It only furthers the point that one's interpretation may be wrong but does nothing to establish the foundation is wrong (nothing as in does not support or contradict). Did I ever tell you the story of Bill Brasky?

see to me that part sounds extremely snotty, narrow minded and very typical for those who wants to argue for some kind of higher power. the fact that religious comparison can't establish which is the real god goes to show you that religion is cultural, socially derived and evolutionary like everything else in this world is and far far form being factual. what is this foundation you are speaking of? bible? your god perhaps? your foundation is based on your belief that there is a god and that there is something. as Dawkins said,,, "the universe doesn't owe you anything" in terms giving you the sense of security that there is something.

 

[zoner]

E.g. God is omnipotent and benevolent yet bad things happen to good people constantly. If he is omnipotent then he should prevent bad things from happening to good people but he does not which suggests that he is not benevolent or not omnipotent.

Math is my religion. If you're going to base a belief structure on something which you claim to be an absolute truth you may as well base it on something that shows repeatedly, time and time again, to be correct and cut out the middle man of cultural, social and historical differences. It's even a system that can tell you how wrong it is (stats). What's not to like?

you obviously haven't been to a church... they have a really good answer for this... that their god's way is unknowing and beyond human understanding and bad things happen to teach us ****.... how do you argue with such a solid argument?

 

[SpecterGT260]

see to me that part sounds extremely snotty, narrow minded and very typical for those who wants to argue for some kind of higher power. the fact that religious comparison can't establish which is the real god goes to show you that religion is cultural, socially derived and evolutionary like everything else in this world is and far far form being factual. what is this foundation you are speaking of? bible? your god perhaps? your foundation is based on your belief that there is a god and that there is something. as Dawkins said,,, "the universe doesn't owe you anything" in terms giving you the sense of security that there is something.

No. Theism in general is the foundation... at least for this discussion.
that after all this you say the bold is somewhat alarming. I.e. you'd make a good point if that was in any way what I was getting at.



Did you forget what was being discussed? That all these counterpoints do not impact the probability of a deity even though it is popular among atheists to pretend that they do. Basically rather than sharing my own views, which would be fruitless, I point out a logical inconsistency in the counterpoint. Address an argument on the proposers terms.

you obviously haven't been to a church... they have a really good answer for this... that their god's way is unknowing and beyond human understanding and bad things happen to teach us ****.... how do you argue with such a solid argument?

Are you drunk? Sure. They have lots of answers for lots of things. We have been over that. Their level of rightness or wrongness does not in any way impact the rightness or wrongness of another view (like atheism) so pointing out flawed logic in theists is basically a straw man. You cannot extend such inconsistencies to establish that a god does or does not exist. That is logically absurd.

 

[SpecterGT260]

you obviously haven't been to a church... they have a really good answer for this... that their god's way is unknowing and beyond human understanding and bad things happen to teach us ****.... how do you argue with such a solid argument?

Wait.... I didn't say this. Either my phone is acting up or you quoted wrong

 

[SpecterGT260]

*sniff* *sniff* I smell pantheism.

I always liked the idea of pantheism (essentially leaving 'god' as a mystery which everyone interprets differently) only so far as it manages to get the two people fighting over whether some omnipotent golem is named Jehovah or Allah to stfu and tolerate their differences due to a lack of proof for either case. One thing I do find annoying about the position is that it seems to discount the idea that certain gods can't logically exist period and makes no attempt for empirical analysis of their existence (which is where you and I would likely have the strongest disagreement). In other words, the foundation can be plenty wrong and I'm one of those who believe that you're doing humanity a disservice by ultimately not showing these logical inconsistencies and falsehoods where you know they exist (and likewise for saying you have solid proof where none exists). I wouldn't choose to lose any friends over it but I'm not afraid to voice my thoughts if asked.

E.g. God is omnipotent and benevolent yet bad things happen to good people constantly. If he is omnipotent then he should prevent bad things from happening to good people but he does not which suggests that he is not benevolent or not omnipotent.

Math is my religion. If you're going to base a belief structure on something which you claim to be an absolute truth you may as well base it on something that shows repeatedly, time and time again, to be correct and cut out the middle man of cultural, social and historical differences. It's even a system that can tell you how wrong it is (stats). What's not to like?

It isn't really pantheism. Just an explanation of why such atheistic arguments only have limited utility. We have already established that the statement of the existence of a god is non falsifiable yet these guys continue to attempt to falsify it by attempting to point out logical fallacies. The logical fallacies do not exist at the level they are trying to highlight them at. I just think it's weird that these guys act as if they are the first ones to tackle this problem. If a logical argument could actually be made to disprove the existence of a god we would have had it by now. Instead we get logical arguments against practice of the faithful and the straw man fallacy which suggests that because they are wrong about A they must be wrong about B. Irony

 

[sinuous sausage]

Why is your bible-god anymore likely than zeus? How do you know? Have you considered that it just appears that way because of your social milieu?

Okay, you've asked this question before and I'm inclined to think you're asking it again because a good idea has been poorly communicated or a poor idea has been poorly communicated. What I'm trying to get across still sounds good in my head, so I'll give it another shot without all the rhetorical puff.

God can be a pink unicorn--I suppose we should capitalize it to Pink Unicorn. Or Zeus. Or a Leprechaun. It doesn't matter how he's packaged provided he has certain characteristics. What I think Specter & KinasePro (correct me if I'm wrong, gays) are advancing is the notion that these certain characteristics precede the methods you use to claim "zero evidence" for God's existence. You start by using logic and empiricism to denounce faith, but the concepts of logic and empiricism are believed on faith. Some of a certain persuasion don't take them for granted: Philosophers and sages through the ages, for example. I haven't read all your posts in-depth, but it sounds like you're arguing from a logical positivist perspective, a view to which there are plenty of objections.

There is also debate about what these God characteristics are or how to determine them.

So when you say "atheism is an absence of belief" it sounds (to me) like you're really saying "atheism is an absence of belief in the cause that gives me any reason to not have belief."

 

[Abider]

I'll take you up on your assertion that the religious premise is unfalsifiable. Fine. Agreed. What is far more useful about the atheist perspective is it's attempt to limit the destructive power of certain ideas that populate the religious cultures in widely varying degrees.

I don't think the atheist impulse is related to hashing first principles or whatever philosophical jargon you guys are throwing around. Most people are atheist because they intuitively know how full of **** some of the tenets of religious thinking can be and must be.

Of course you can believe anything. How could you argue a belief. Neither side has evidence. What atheists are much more successful than the religious at is determining which beliefs are destructive to human society. Because we don't see this world as a spiritual trial where judgement is placed upon us based upon what a select group of human beings have determined in a seemingly arbitrary way with our position in the next world and all the marbles of eternity at stake to be won or lost. What is some temporal destruction if all eternity in bliss is to be won.

Our strength is that we are oriented towards achieving a just and stable society in the present time so that our shared experience here can be elevated and maximized.

 

[zoner]

No. Theism in general is the foundation... at least for this discussion. that after all this you say the bold is somewhat alarming. I.e. you'd make a good point if that was in any way what I was getting at.
Did you forget what was being discussed? That all these counterpoints do not impact the probability of a deity even though it is popular among atheists to pretend that they do. Basically rather than sharing my own views, which would be fruitless, I point out a logical inconsistency in the counterpoint. Address an argument on the proposers terms.

what are these logical inconsistency in the counterpoint? sorry, i haven't read the whole thread. bullet point please

Wait.... I didn't say this. Either my phone is acting up or you quoted wrong

by bad, someone on my side did

It isn't really pantheism. Just an explanation of why such atheistic arguments only have limited utility. We have already established that the statement of the existence of a god is non falsifiable yet these guys continue to attempt to falsify it by attempting to point out logical fallacies. The logical fallacies do not exist at the level they are trying to highlight them at. I just think it's weird that these guys act as if they are the first ones to tackle this problem. If a logical argument could actually be made to disprove the existence of a god we would have had it by now. Instead we get logical arguments against practice of the faithful and the straw man fallacy which suggests that because they are wrong about A they must be wrong about B. Irony

Again, since I haven't read the whole thread, how have you guys established that the existence of a god is non falsifiable?

so what you are getting is to have a logical debate to see if god exist or that or whether theism is right and atheism is wrong?

 

[zoner]

I don't think the atheist impulse is related to hashing first principles or whatever philosophical jargon you guys are throwing around. Most people are atheist because they intuitively know how full of **** some of the tenets of religious thinking can be and must be.

yeah, i don't think logical argument can be used to convince people that god exists

 

[SpecterGT260]

what are these logical inconsistency in the counterpoint? sorry, i haven't read the whole thread. bullet point please



by bad, someone on my side did



Again, since I haven't read the whole thread, how have you guys established that the existence of a god is non falsifiable?

so what you are getting is to have a logical debate to see if god exist or that or whether theism is right and atheism is wrong?

it isnt that we have established it... by definition it is a non falsifiable statement. Not trying to be condescending, but do you know what that means?

Falsifiable: "there are no black geese", one needs to only find a single black goose to falsify the statement, or prove it wrong.

Non-falsifiable: "God exists", this is an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence sort of deal. You cannot prove this wrong because "god" is a metaphysical concept. It isnt that we established it here... it is just kind of a well known fact in such debates. There are issues with such ideas in terms of debate, but they are what the are


The bulk of my points have been to address the atheistic arguments have have been made and get regularly made in such debates. Basically we get "scientific minds" who attempt to bully the poor illiterate religious. The problem is that the arguments are very often not as powerful as they seem. They are full of fallacy
They basically tend to take the form of

"the bible states that the earth was created in seven days. We know this is false therefore God does not exist".

You can easily claim that this interpretation of the bible is wrong (there are others) or that the practitioners are wrong, or even defend a claim that the bible itself is wrong. However, this in no way impacts the probability of the existence of a god. However it is often implied or even explicitly stated that such logic follows... it doesnt.

From my perspective, I have not so much shared my own views as pointed out some logical flaws in such arguments. And an anti-atheistic approach which uses logic seems to be such a novel concept that a few people's brains have short circuited and we get people like the pre-allo resient OD who brings up burnings as if that is at all a valid counterpoint.

 

[zoner]

it isnt that we have established it... by definition it is a non falsifiable statement. Not trying to be condescending, but do you know what that means?

Falsifiable: "there are no black geese", one needs to only find a single black goose to falsify the statement, or prove it wrong.

Non-falsifiable: "God exists", this is an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence sort of deal. You cannot prove this wrong because "god" is a metaphysical concept. It isnt that we established it here... it is just kind of a well known fact in such debates. There are issues with such ideas in terms of debate, but they are what the are


The bulk of my points have been to address the atheistic arguments have have been made and get regularly made in such debates. Basically we get "scientific minds" who attempt to bully the poor illiterate religious. The problem is that the arguments are very often not as powerful as they seem. They are full of fallacy
They basically tend to take the form of

"the bible states that the earth was created in seven days. We know this is false therefore God does not exist".

You can easily claim that this interpretation of the bible is wrong (there are others) or that the practitioners are wrong, or even defend a claim that the bible itself is wrong. However, this in no way impacts the probability of the existence of a god. However it is often implied or even explicitly stated that such logic follows... it doesnt.

From my perspective, I have not so much shared my own views as pointed out some logical flaws in such arguments. And an anti-atheistic approach which uses logic seems to be such a novel concept that a few people's brains have short circuited and we get people like the pre-allo resient OD who brings up burnings as if that is at all a valid counterpoint.

c, that's not really fair and there lies your contradition... we are trying to debate with someone (you) not sharing their view, but being critical of the arguments being thrown around here. if you are so logically driven, why haven't you depicted even more illogical argument on the side of the religious folks? to ME, the statement of the existence of a god is falsifiable makes more logical sense than non falsifiable and has bigger consequences and usage in our society as can be seen in human history

so what do you actually want out of this debate here? to prove atheists are wrong? that god exists? that your god exists? what lies below you snotty deconstruction of the comments people post here?

 

[SpecterGT260]

c, that's not really fair and there lies your contradition... we are trying to debate with someone (you) not sharing their view, but being critical of the arguments being thrown around here. if you are so logically driven, why haven't you depicted even more illogical argument on the side of the religious folks? to ME, the statement of the existence of a god is falsifiable makes more logical sense than non falsifiable and has bigger consequences and usage in our society as can be seen in human history

so what do you actually want out of this debate here? to prove atheists are wrong? that god exists? that your god exists? what lies below you snotty deconstruction of the comments people post here?

i guess it is just to rustle your jimmies because apparently that is what was happening. Snotty? Just because I don't agree with you or others on here and am sticking to my guns does not make me snotty. The last time you called me that you completely missed the point of the post. I am not being snotty... you are just being butthurt. But I can't really figure out why. This has been among the more peaceful debates I have been in (at least for the last few pages) so whatever has got your panties in a twist is beyond me

My goal is really only to curb the smugness of those making such arguments. They act like it is so clear, defined, and easy, while the irony is that they completely miss how irrational their own arguments are. Nobody needs to point out the irrationalities on the side of the religious. That is apparent. But when the pot is calling the kettle black, it is worth a little discussion. If that bothers your, or is so against your own worldview that you you need to lash out against it or those speaking about it (again, irony ) you are welcome to visit other threads. I don't need a goal to come in here and just speak on the subject. None of us do. If you think that is somehow a pre-req for any such discussions well.... at the very least we have identified where you missed the point earlier
(see, THAT was snotty. Just threw that in there so you would know the difference in the future In case you were confused, that was also just snotty right there, ect....)

 

[gasknight]

Dear God,

Please let this thread die.

Sincerely,
A guy who believes in the authority given to the men who wear pointy hats

 

[kpcrew]

If you're going to make a claim like "an omnipotent diety that I call god exists" then you should have some evidence for your claim. There is no evidence, so the probability of existence is rather low.

 

[sinuous sausage]

If you're going to make a claim like "an omnipotent diety that I call god exists" then you should have some evidence for your claim. There is no evidence, so the probability of existence is rather low.

my god

 

[SpecterGT260]

If you're going to make a claim like "an omnipotent diety that I call god exists" then you should have some evidence for your claim. There is no evidence, so the probability of existence is rather low.

see, you can demand that I provide evidence in order to impact your position. That is all fine and dandy. Maybe even right and proper

but to even imply that my ability to produce evidence has any (ANY) impact on the probability of existence is simply wrong. As I said earlier, logically absurd. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. This logic is not (ever) to be used to imply that lack of negative evidence supports the claim. Both statements are equally ridiculous and guilty of the same logical fallacy. That is the point I have been making all along.

 

[kpcrew]

see, you can demand that I provide evidence in order to impact your position. That is all fine and dandy. Maybe even right and proper

but to even imply that my ability to produce evidence has any (ANY) impact on the probability of existence is simply wrong. As I said earlier, logically absurd. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. This logic is not (ever) to be used to imply that lack of negative evidence supports the claim. Both statements are equally ridiculous and guilty of the same logical fallacy. That is the point I have been making all along.

What are you talking about? How is it my position? I try not to waste time thinking about whether something may or may not exist when it's irrelevant to reality. You're the one advocating for something, not me. Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but it sure is a strong suggestion. And statements that don't agree are not automatically equally ridiculous, especially considering that I'm not making any statement. I'm simply asking for you to justify yours.

 

[Abider]

see, you can demand that I provide evidence in order to impact your position. That is all fine and dandy. Maybe even right and proper

but to even imply that my ability to produce evidence has any (ANY) impact on the probability of existence is simply wrong. As I said earlier, logically absurd. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. This logic is not (ever) to be used to imply that lack of negative evidence supports the claim. Both statements are equally ridiculous and guilty of the same logical fallacy. That is the point I have been making all along.

Do you mean to say only that no one knows for sure what contact with our source of being is or is not? If you had been less wordy I would have understood and agreed with you from go. I would venture to say that that experience, if it exists, and I hope it does, doesn't need lawyers or philosophers to make it real.

To this effect: I am not certain of my atheism, it feels weak to me. I just know that our current religious framework en masse must be underdeveloped. And dangerously superficial. These forms are far from outliers as a former poster stated--they are orthodoxies. I am only atheist as a defensive measure. If the religious focused more on what could be construed as the true intent of their respective enterprises and would reign in their own literalists instead of manipulating them for worldly gain, I would be more than happy to return to a bewildered agnosticism.

 

[sibitrum]

You missed the point... my point is what it has always been: attempting to undermine the behaviors/views/whatever by attacking the foundation of theism, or attacking theism in general using examples of specific faiths is inappropriate. I did not say that my view is the correct one or imply that people need to adhere to it. The reasoning behind my response is true regardless of what you believe. If you want to compare religions and then get lost in the respective levels of literalism, exclusivism, and adherence by each be my guest. To claim that any of these things impact the likelihood (literal probability) of the existence of a "god" by any interpretation is a logical error.

Your putting words in my mouth at this point, and dragging the conversation on a tangent that is not really important. People who are religious love to do this because then they can ignore the glaring invisible elephant in the room: that they have no basis for their beliefs.

I would love for you to make the argument for why you think some sort of god exists, rather than just nitpick others' positions.

 

[DrSnips]

Dear God,

Please let this thread die.

Sincerely,
A guy who believes in the authority given to the men who wear pointy hats

The Klan?

 

[zoner]

No snotty snotty snotty because you come on in here trying to show off how everyone is wrong except yourself without even taking any stance (unless you did somewhere) on this issue. You are just calling people out basically for what you think is dumb (illogical) argument. You don't think that s snotty?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

Your putting words in my mouth at this point, and dragging the conversation on a tangent that is not really important. People who are religious love to do this because then they can ignore the glaring invisible elephant in the room: that they have no basis for their beliefs.

I would love for you to make the argument for why you think some sort of god exists, rather than just nitpick others' positions.

How am i putting words in your mouth? I believe I stated this as true explicitly a few times in here. So who is putting words where now? no, there is no direct evidence for the existence of a god. I didn't claim there was. P.s. religious people do not like to do this. They like to stick like crazy glue to their mantras and criticize you for not having faith. I'm not doing that. Rather, you are just arbitrarily attacking a statement you don't like. Butthurt people like to do this all the time because it ignores the glaring invisible unicorn in the room: they have no rebuttal


So..... On what greater authority do you ask me to make an argument for the existence of god? Just because you know it can't be done and you wanna see the tides turn here? No thanks. I'm under no obligation to do such things, nor does an inability to provide what you ask for at all undermine my previous statements.

If you think this is a target I will go back and quote the 40 some odd replies which relate to this topic. Unless, by tangent you mean you just wanna get back to a good ol fashioned god bashin hootenanny. But from where I sit the conversation has been about the possible existence of a god many statements have been made which are not logically sound. You only need to defend a statement if you make it, unless someone wants to be as guilty as the religious nuts they scorn

 

[SpecterGT260]

No snotty snotty snotty because you come on in here trying to show off how everyone is wrong except yourself without even taking any stance (unless you did somewhere) on this issue. You are just calling people out basically for what you think is dumb (illogical) argument. You don't think that s snotty?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using SDN Mobile

No. Are you 13?

 

[SpecterGT260]

What are you talking about? How is it my position? I try not to waste time thinking about whether something may or may not exist when it's irrelevant to reality. You're the one advocating for something, not me. Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence but it sure is a strong suggestion. And statements that don't agree are not automatically equally ridiculous, especially considering that I'm not making any statement. I'm simply asking for you to justify yours.

"Your position" was more rhetorical. It doesn't need to be your personal beliefs. The point is that you can demand evidence which supports an opinion from someone attempting to sway another's opinion. My only opinion thus far has been that these logical extensions against specific faiths are backwards. I am not saying "god does exist and here is why" because I think that is a fruitless argument at this point. What I am addressing is the overconfident mindset that gets carried away with its criticisms of religion. Almost like mob mentality it starts fine but then people start hurling arguments in all sorts of inappropriate directions.


Sorry for the multi response like this. iPad doesn't know how to multi quote.