I've actually heard some pretty good logical arguments bashing Agnostics. I'm not really offended, we hold a really wishy-washy position anyways
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Ask an atheist
- Thread starter SwastikaPyle
- Start date
I hope for your sake you don't advocate science then, because science actually came for philosophy.
So really, the idea that scientific methogology can deduce truth came from a field of just opinions.
If you really don't like philosophy, then never do anything that is a result of your western cultural influence, because that is just a footnote to western philosophy.
Actually, if you really hate philosophy, because philosophy is the application of logic, don't ever do anything logical again.
As for religion, actually go and individually refute the hundreds of miracles it claims, the alleged scientifc evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist, the alleged historical accounts that accomodate the Bible, and the prophecies that have allegedly been fulfilled by the Church, before you go go and say it's just about opinion.
Reaver197
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
Key word: "alleged". Not confirmed, not repeated, and thus not having moved beyond the realm of probably being hoaxes or delusions into definite events. If the Church wants the idea of miracles to be taken seriously, there needs to be an example of one that is repeatable, and shown to be strongly unlikely that there is any other explanation than some supernatural action by a god.
If you are wanting for an example that would live up to this idea, then there is the one of having amputees be able to grow their limbs back. Certainly, if it could be repeatably done, and shown only to work through religious invocations such as prayer, that would be a strong and decisive confirmation for the Church's belief framework. Bleeding crackers and crying statues would pale in comparison.
There is also the tricky issue of the fact that it would be impossible, and probably a hugely inefficient venture, for a person to have to go out and track down every claim of a miracle. It's just not a feasible or workable way to do things. The only way that makes sense and can work is that the people who claim there was a miracle have to step forth with their claims and evidence, not the other way around.
Philosophy, while it seeks to be logical and consistent, does not necessarily mean it is just because it falls under the term "philosophy". It's such a broad term now, though, that navigating such a general proclamation of it is tricky. Clearly, there is good philosophy and bad philosophy, but we have to remember, the ability of creatures to be able to reason out and think logically is a relatively new thing in the tree of life. Thus, us as humans aren't all that great on consistently being rational and logical, and our abilities to properly deduce large theories or strings of conclusions based purely on logic is limited at best, to nearly impossible to achieve at worst.
Our brains operate in such an amalgamation of unconscious responses, conflicts, and hardwired short cuts, that, often, intense amounts of formulations of the ideas we have are shaped before we even can become consciously aware of it and, thus, apply logic to it. Certainly, we can train to recognize and override a lot of the built in gap-jumping that our brains inherently do, but how can we ever be sure that we're catching them all, all the time, and correctly adjusting for it?
Philosophy reminds me a lot of math in this respect, only, a lot harder to double-check. You can technically follow it along to very interesting conclusions, but, ultimately, the only way to be sure that what you're arriving at is correct or accurate or even applicable to the world we live in, we always need to be making sure we're checking our progress to that of the evidence and observations we can accrue from the world. To rely solely on the conclusions we've reached just because it obeys some philosophy or feels logical is a dangerous supposition to make.
If you are wanting for an example that would live up to this idea, then there is the one of having amputees be able to grow their limbs back. Certainly, if it could be repeatably done, and shown only to work through religious invocations such as prayer, that would be a strong and decisive confirmation for the Church's belief framework. Bleeding crackers and crying statues would pale in comparison.
There is also the tricky issue of the fact that it would be impossible, and probably a hugely inefficient venture, for a person to have to go out and track down every claim of a miracle. It's just not a feasible or workable way to do things. The only way that makes sense and can work is that the people who claim there was a miracle have to step forth with their claims and evidence, not the other way around.
Philosophy, while it seeks to be logical and consistent, does not necessarily mean it is just because it falls under the term "philosophy". It's such a broad term now, though, that navigating such a general proclamation of it is tricky. Clearly, there is good philosophy and bad philosophy, but we have to remember, the ability of creatures to be able to reason out and think logically is a relatively new thing in the tree of life. Thus, us as humans aren't all that great on consistently being rational and logical, and our abilities to properly deduce large theories or strings of conclusions based purely on logic is limited at best, to nearly impossible to achieve at worst.
Our brains operate in such an amalgamation of unconscious responses, conflicts, and hardwired short cuts, that, often, intense amounts of formulations of the ideas we have are shaped before we even can become consciously aware of it and, thus, apply logic to it. Certainly, we can train to recognize and override a lot of the built in gap-jumping that our brains inherently do, but how can we ever be sure that we're catching them all, all the time, and correctly adjusting for it?
Philosophy reminds me a lot of math in this respect, only, a lot harder to double-check. You can technically follow it along to very interesting conclusions, but, ultimately, the only way to be sure that what you're arriving at is correct or accurate or even applicable to the world we live in, we always need to be making sure we're checking our progress to that of the evidence and observations we can accrue from the world. To rely solely on the conclusions we've reached just because it obeys some philosophy or feels logical is a dangerous supposition to make.
SwastikaPyle
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 811
Not particularly. In fact I somewhat dread announcing it to people because of how swiftly your relationship can be affected. I would be proud, but the only thing atheism has ever really accomplished is to make me feel about a hundred times more ignorant than I did before.
Listening to the Mere Christianity audiobook currently.
I'll ask again for some links to these.
GofG
Smash Champion
Burden of proof is on you to prove that those things actually happened; it's not on us to refute them.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Why is this so hard to understand?
Looking at its results, we can conclude that it is the best method that we know for producing correct results. Not to mention that it is self-correcting unlike other methodologies.
For the sake of argument, I'll temporary accept those premises as true. For the sake of argument, I will presume that there was a bleeding wafer, some historical accounts verify some aspects of the Bible (I particularly take that to mean Jesus was real and performed unexplained events), and prophecies correctly predicted events. So what? Tell me how we go from that to that there is a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient being and we should change our practices to accommodate said being. It’s a big argument from ignorance.
A bleeding glacier: http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/03/extreme-weirdness-antarcticas-blood-falls/ No, it does not mean mother nature is saying, "Please stop polluting and stop global warming." Just because you don't know the cause of something (and as we have seen time and time again, just because someone attributes their ability to something does not mean that was the cause, Skinner's pigeons experiment explains why this is so), does not mean its cause is supernatural in nature (and to say so would be an argument from ignorance). For the second premise, I'll let you explain why Jesus was more than a illusionist. Prophecies predicting something is meaningless unless you have every prophecy made from that source. Look here at someone flipping a coin ten times in a row (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uJD1O3L08), a remarkably improbable event, but it is certain to occur (and to attribute this to the supernatural is an argument from ignorance) and when it does, people think they have a basis for faith (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjdukSPIf6M&NR=1).
Please disregard these questions if it's already been asked (I know I'm lazy), but do you feel that it's a common misconception that Atheism is associated with (meaning, being an atheist implies you are) certain political ideologies, such as Objectivism or Communism? Do you believe that being an atheist can lead you to a certain political persuasion? Is the act of declaring oneself an Atheist, in a sense, a political gesture in-and-of itself?
gm jack
Smash Lord
Will depend on your country and if certain parties tend to represent certain religious groups, or at least be supported by them. From what I see from the UK, the republicans seem to have the support of the majority of the bat **** insane bible bashers.
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
I actually dig eastern philosophies. They're still just opinions on how things work, how to live, etc though.
Also, relativity kind of destroys logic
Besides using language for logic.... no thanks. I'll take mathematical logic over philosophical logic any day. Philosophy is just outdated compared to science and math, even if they did come from "logic" (a very broad term...).
As for religion, why would I go and waste my time refuting it lol? It's your opinion to believe what you want. Also religion =/= only Christianity lul. Christianity means nothing to me. It's my opinion.
Later dawg
Professor :3
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 226
Don't you all get miserable being Atheists? Life without God must be awful.
gm jack
Smash Lord
What makes you say that?
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
Uncalled for...
I'm in a religious household but that is no way to treat others who are different.
Professor :3
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 226
The lack of faith. If you have nothing to put faith into then isn't life meaningless?
gm jack
Smash Lord
Isn't a bit depressing if you rely on a faith to give your life meaning?
Personally, I'm unsure if there is a specific purpose to my life, so I simply try to do things I enjoy, and to also bring happiness to others. I am at uni training for a job where those combine very nicely, and other than that, I don't know really what I "should" do.
Which is the best bit about it. Instead, I have decided what will make my life most fulfilling, and should I have a revelation on what my aims are, I can change them to suit. Until that happens, I simply try and do the best I can in everything I do and make the most out of life. You only get one shot, and there probably isn't anything afterwards. Don't waste it.
As we have seen in this thread, there is a big misconception on the definition of atheism. There is a difference in being associated with something and being the foundation of something. Since atheism is highly correlated with higher education, the views associated with higher education would probably be associated with atheism, but any particular atheist is able to hold any view that does not include the premise that god exists. In the US, I think that atheists are usually Democrat, especially on the social issues. This is only because most of the reasons behind the Republican's social issues (abortion, gay marriage, lack of evolution, lack of global warming, etc.) are based on religion.
I don't think people usually declare themselves as atheists. It usually is deduced from the position that they argue. Usually the reason to declare yourself as an atheist would be if someone has a misconception about atheists that you want to correct, or it is revealed from your position that you don't accept the premise that god exists.
"'The unexamined life is not worth living.' Socrates said that at his trial for heresy. He was on trial for encouraging his students to challenge the accepted beliefs of the time and think for themselves."
Melomaniacal
Smash Champion
What meaning does religion give your life?
I like how people are so quick to discard evidence of religion when they haven't even looked at it. Shows that you're more determined to justify your previous assumtpions rather than be open to new possibilities.
If philosophy is outdated and silly, then you have to be an agnostic, because to be a thiest/deist or an atheist requires the application of philosophy.
I actually believe atheists use the argument of ignorance more than theists and deists. Atheist philosophy is pretty much "you haven't proved God exists, therefore He doesn't". Even if an atheist feels that they have successfully refuted religion or a theory such as the cosmological argument, refuting a theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
There still isn't any proof that a natural entity can be self-necessary, eternal, and infinite in potential. In fact, all natural entities don't have any of those traits.
So in reality, atheist apply the argument from ignorance too, because they feel that refuting a few theories of God somehow justifies their belief that He doesn't exist, when in reality nothing in science suggests that what they're claiming is possible.
Note: Don't claim that big bang shows that the world can exist without God, you'll just make yourself look stupid. Big bang explains how the world functioned from its beginning, it doesn't explain what caused its beginning. Atheists themselves know this, so they try to use issues such as the problem of evil to suggest it's more likely that God doesn't exist.
If philosophy is outdated and silly, then you have to be an agnostic, because to be a thiest/deist or an atheist requires the application of philosophy.
I actually believe atheists use the argument of ignorance more than theists and deists. Atheist philosophy is pretty much "you haven't proved God exists, therefore He doesn't". Even if an atheist feels that they have successfully refuted religion or a theory such as the cosmological argument, refuting a theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
There still isn't any proof that a natural entity can be self-necessary, eternal, and infinite in potential. In fact, all natural entities don't have any of those traits.
So in reality, atheist apply the argument from ignorance too, because they feel that refuting a few theories of God somehow justifies their belief that He doesn't exist, when in reality nothing in science suggests that what they're claiming is possible.
Note: Don't claim that big bang shows that the world can exist without God, you'll just make yourself look stupid. Big bang explains how the world functioned from its beginning, it doesn't explain what caused its beginning. Atheists themselves know this, so they try to use issues such as the problem of evil to suggest it's more likely that God doesn't exist.
When you learn the definition of what an atheist is, then you will realize why everything you just said doesn't apply. I'm not sure why you think people are so quick to dismiss the evidence, I said that I was willing to presume the evidence was genuine for the sake of argument. By the way, I think you should Google "bleeding Eucharist news."
Mewter
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,609
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
Even though I didn't say philosophy was silly (lol I was gonna say it was self indulgent tripe for the most part, but I deleted that ;P), you got me Dre. I am actually an agnostic... technically (I kind of hate labels >_>) I just like to absorb knowledge from many different sources and not cling to one belief too strongly lest it blind me from other perspectives.
"I actually believe atheists use the argument of ignorance more than theists and deists. Atheist philosophy is pretty much "you haven't proved God exists, therefore He doesn't"."
Lol at this though... theists have the burden of proof *shrug*
"Even if an atheist feels that they have successfully refuted religion or a theory such as the cosmological argument, refuting a theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist."
However this is obviously true. Atheists are just fairly sure (say 99%?) he doesn't. There's always room for doubt unless you're a strong atheist. Extremes ftl tho. Most atheists here seem like weak atheists.
Personally, I don't know what the point of speculating about it is if we can't know the answer.
Whatever, sall good
PEACE AND LOVE
"I actually believe atheists use the argument of ignorance more than theists and deists. Atheist philosophy is pretty much "you haven't proved God exists, therefore He doesn't"."
Lol at this though... theists have the burden of proof *shrug*
"Even if an atheist feels that they have successfully refuted religion or a theory such as the cosmological argument, refuting a theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist."
However this is obviously true. Atheists are just fairly sure (say 99%?) he doesn't. There's always room for doubt unless you're a strong atheist. Extremes ftl tho. Most atheists here seem like weak atheists.
Personally, I don't know what the point of speculating about it is if we can't know the answer.
Whatever, sall good
PEACE AND LOVE
@rvkevin: thank you for answering my questions. I think I phrased the last question badly, as I have a penchant for doing. I understand that atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), but, as is the case with many religions, people can declare their affiliation with Atheism for reasons other than belief.
@Dre: Make sure to take into account the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheists. Weak atheists are probably those who you are referring to when you say
To put it another way, let's examine a scenario where we can compare Atheism to frustration with snakes being present on a plane:
Weak Snakes-on-a-planeist: You know, theses snakes are awfully bothersome. They're probably the reason we're all dying from snake poison. In fact, I'm 99% sure they're the problem, but it could be something in this atrocious airline food...
Sam...err, Strong Snakes-on-a-planeist: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER F*CKING SNAKES ON THIS MOTHER F*CKING PLANE!
...In other words, weak atheism negatively states a negative, while strong atheism positively states a negative. Either way, you are dealing with a non-belief. You can't turn not believing into believing any more than you can turn non-participation into participation.
What you can do (and what I do) is argue that there is an ugly underbelly that has developed within some strong atheist circles. This group of people have argued against religiosity as if it was a parasite that has nothing but negative attributes on a society. They may claim that religious people cannot be debated with because they are so mired in illogical and un-scientific reasoning that they are borderline insane. It is a type of non-belief that, if I was more ignorant, would have said had been designed by Fundamentalists to create a straw-man of the non-religious. I personally find that these people usually make the discussion between secularists and the religious much more hostile than it needs to be. If you want more info about them, just click here, I personally found this to be clarifying.
TL;DR:non-belief isn't belief, so let's not misunderstand each other
@Dre: Make sure to take into account the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheists. Weak atheists are probably those who you are referring to when you say
Weak Atheism is the non-belief in the existence of god(s) without complete refutation of the possibility of there being god(s). This why Agnostics can also be weak atheists (like me), since the two views are non-contradictory. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, is a positive affirmation you don't believe in god(s) and that no god(s) exist.
To put it another way, let's examine a scenario where we can compare Atheism to frustration with snakes being present on a plane:
Weak Snakes-on-a-planeist: You know, theses snakes are awfully bothersome. They're probably the reason we're all dying from snake poison. In fact, I'm 99% sure they're the problem, but it could be something in this atrocious airline food...
Sam...err, Strong Snakes-on-a-planeist: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER F*CKING SNAKES ON THIS MOTHER F*CKING PLANE!
...In other words, weak atheism negatively states a negative, while strong atheism positively states a negative. Either way, you are dealing with a non-belief. You can't turn not believing into believing any more than you can turn non-participation into participation.
What you can do (and what I do) is argue that there is an ugly underbelly that has developed within some strong atheist circles. This group of people have argued against religiosity as if it was a parasite that has nothing but negative attributes on a society. They may claim that religious people cannot be debated with because they are so mired in illogical and un-scientific reasoning that they are borderline insane. It is a type of non-belief that, if I was more ignorant, would have said had been designed by Fundamentalists to create a straw-man of the non-religious. I personally find that these people usually make the discussion between secularists and the religious much more hostile than it needs to be. If you want more info about them, just click here, I personally found this to be clarifying.
TL;DR:non-belief isn't belief, so let's not misunderstand each other
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
^lolwut
that's one way of putting it...
that's one way of putting it...
I'm not saying it's not possible, but considering there currently isn't any evidence of it, I don't think atheists have a right to just sit back and shift the burden of proof onto deists.
Atheism is belief that a deity does not exist. To claim that a deity does not exist means that you must believe that a natural entity was the original cause, as nothing but natural entities but would exist.
Considering that this idea is actually inconsistent with what science and natural theology has discovered about natural entities, it is not enough for atheists to simply refute a few God theories, then believe this must mean God must not exist.
For an atheist to have a well-founded belief, not only must they refute God theories, but they must also show how it is logical that a natural entity could be the original cause.
Big bang is not that explanation. Big bang, if it is accepted to be fact, is what happened after the original entity caused finite existence. Science will probably never be able to prove what the original cause was, because they'll never be able to conduct an experiment which removes time, space, energy, motion etc. to then watch what caused all of it.
So I'm not saying that atheism is stupid or defintiely wrong, but refuting theories of god is not sufficient justification for belief in atheism, because all you have done is shown that those particular God theories were incorrect.
In other words, even if there is no evidence of God existing, there is no evidence of the world being able to be created without Him either, meaning both parties have to accept the burden of proof.
Atheism is belief that a deity does not exist. To claim that a deity does not exist means that you must believe that a natural entity was the original cause, as nothing but natural entities but would exist.
Considering that this idea is actually inconsistent with what science and natural theology has discovered about natural entities, it is not enough for atheists to simply refute a few God theories, then believe this must mean God must not exist.
For an atheist to have a well-founded belief, not only must they refute God theories, but they must also show how it is logical that a natural entity could be the original cause.
Big bang is not that explanation. Big bang, if it is accepted to be fact, is what happened after the original entity caused finite existence. Science will probably never be able to prove what the original cause was, because they'll never be able to conduct an experiment which removes time, space, energy, motion etc. to then watch what caused all of it.
So I'm not saying that atheism is stupid or defintiely wrong, but refuting theories of god is not sufficient justification for belief in atheism, because all you have done is shown that those particular God theories were incorrect.
In other words, even if there is no evidence of God existing, there is no evidence of the world being able to be created without Him either, meaning both parties have to accept the burden of proof.
You're just playing with words.@rvkevin: thank you for answering my questions. I think I phrased the last question badly, as I have a penchant for doing. I understand that atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), but, as is the case with many religions, people can declare their affiliation with Atheism for reasons other than belief.
@Dre: Make sure to take into account the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheists. Weak atheists are probably those who you are referring to when you say
Weak Atheism is the non-belief in the existence of god(s) without complete refutation of the possibility of there being god(s). This why Agnostics can also be weak atheists (like me), since the two views are non-contradictory. Strong Atheism, on the other hand, is a positive affirmation you don't believe in god(s) and that no god(s) exist.
To put it another way, let's examine a scenario where we can compare Atheism to frustration with snakes being present on a plane:
Weak Snakes-on-a-planeist: You know, theses snakes are awfully bothersome. They're probably the reason we're all dying from snake poison. In fact, I'm 99% sure they're the problem, but it could be something in this atrocious airline food...
Sam...err, Strong Snakes-on-a-planeist: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER F*CKING SNAKES ON THIS MOTHER F*CKING PLANE!
...In other words, weak atheism negatively states a negative, while strong atheism positively states a negative. Either way, you are dealing with a non-belief. You can't turn not believing into believing any more than you can turn non-participation into participation.
What you can do (and what I do) is argue that there is an ugly underbelly that has developed within some strong atheist circles. This group of people have argued against religiosity as if it was a parasite that has nothing but negative attributes on a society. They may claim that religious people cannot be debated with because they are so mired in illogical and un-scientific reasoning that they are borderline insane. It is a type of non-belief that, if I was more ignorant, would have said had been designed by Fundamentalists to create a straw-man of the non-religious. I personally find that these people usually make the discussion between secularists and the religious much more hostile than it needs to be. If you want more info about them, just click here, I personally found this to be clarifying.
TL;DR:non-belief isn't belief, so let's not misunderstand each other
The question of God has a yes or no answer.
Non-belief in the answer yes results in a belief in the answer no. This is what atheism is.
The problem for atheists though, is that refuting a few yes answers does not justify a belief in no.
Instead of just showing why some of yes answers are wrong, you have to show why no is right.
Mewter
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,609
You walk into a contest booth at a carnival, but choose not to participate. You are participating in not participating. But, you claim, you are not participating in anything since you left the game!
So, in fact, you are participating... in the act of doing nothing and refusing to join the game. Either way, it's participation in something.
Is this a pretty accurate description of the argument?
This is a test response to see what others think.
So, in fact, you are participating... in the act of doing nothing and refusing to join the game. Either way, it's participation in something.
Is this a pretty accurate description of the argument?
This is a test response to see what others think.
I guess it is.
The reality is, rejecting religion and various God-theories does not make you an atheist.
I reject religion and various God-theories but I'm not an atheist, because I still believe in a deity. I have to justify this belief as well.
Therefore, to be an atheist. not only do you have to reject certain theories, you must also believe God does not exist. Subsequently, as well as refuting various theories, this belief that God does not exist has to be justified as well.
As we see here, refuting various God-theories is not enough justification, because if it was, it would justify belief in both athiesm and theism/deism.
The reality is, rejecting religion and various God-theories does not make you an atheist.
I reject religion and various God-theories but I'm not an atheist, because I still believe in a deity. I have to justify this belief as well.
Therefore, to be an atheist. not only do you have to reject certain theories, you must also believe God does not exist. Subsequently, as well as refuting various theories, this belief that God does not exist has to be justified as well.
As we see here, refuting various God-theories is not enough justification, because if it was, it would justify belief in both athiesm and theism/deism.
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
Dre., atheism isn't a belief, it's simply the lack of a certain kind of belief.
If atheism is a belief/religion/doctrine, then "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
There isn't a burden of proof for not accepting/believing something. Have you done debating before? I was head of debating in high school. The Government side was the one proposing something and they had the burden of proof, whereas the Opposition only has to refute the government's case. They do not have to prove anything per se, however they have the OPTION of proposing their own case (in debating). It isn't a burden of proof though.
If atheism is a belief/religion/doctrine, then "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
There isn't a burden of proof for not accepting/believing something. Have you done debating before? I was head of debating in high school. The Government side was the one proposing something and they had the burden of proof, whereas the Opposition only has to refute the government's case. They do not have to prove anything per se, however they have the OPTION of proposing their own case (in debating). It isn't a burden of proof though.
Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises
Smash Hero
Dre, you're Deist, it seems.
Religion is indeed an interesting topic to argue...
Sadly enough, the arguments degrade to opinions and such.
The entirety of the subject involving God's existence or not is argumentum ad infinitum. I wish humans wouldn't quarrel continuously over their creation; we are not the "be-all-to-end-all."
Why is it argumentum as infinitum? Simply because there are always excuses or points to be made about whether He exists or not... I'm not going to give examples because the majority of you know what I'm talking about.
Religion topics.
Religion is indeed an interesting topic to argue...
Sadly enough, the arguments degrade to opinions and such.
The entirety of the subject involving God's existence or not is argumentum ad infinitum. I wish humans wouldn't quarrel continuously over their creation; we are not the "be-all-to-end-all."
Why is it argumentum as infinitum? Simply because there are always excuses or points to be made about whether He exists or not... I'm not going to give examples because the majority of you know what I'm talking about.
Religion topics.
Yeah because high-school debating is really at same level of metaphysics and philosophy of religion lol.
But when you have a yes-no question, lack of belief in the answer yes means belief in the answer no.
The thing is, a deist can refute just as many God theories as an atheist, yet still believe in God. So what's the distinction between and athiest and a deist? An deist believes in a God, an atheist believes there isn't one.
So for the diest to justify his belief, he needs to show how the yes answer is correct, similar to how an atheist needs to show the no answer is correct.
When there are multiple yes answers and no answers, refuting a few yes answers does not mean no is the correct answer, you have to show why no is the correct answer.
Omnicron, I'm actually not sure what I am now. I believe in God, but I'm confused as to whether Catholcism is true or not, because I've looking att he evidence recently.
The reason why the God issue is important is because it influences how you should live your life. If you discover that Catholicism is true, then you'll know to live according to the Church's teachings etc.
Another example is that if you believe that a personal God exists, you will be able to take comfort in confiding in Him, knowing it's not a sense a false sense of comfort.
The answer to the question alters the way you live your life. That's why it's important.
But when you have a yes-no question, lack of belief in the answer yes means belief in the answer no.
The thing is, a deist can refute just as many God theories as an atheist, yet still believe in God. So what's the distinction between and athiest and a deist? An deist believes in a God, an atheist believes there isn't one.
So for the diest to justify his belief, he needs to show how the yes answer is correct, similar to how an atheist needs to show the no answer is correct.
When there are multiple yes answers and no answers, refuting a few yes answers does not mean no is the correct answer, you have to show why no is the correct answer.
Omnicron, I'm actually not sure what I am now. I believe in God, but I'm confused as to whether Catholcism is true or not, because I've looking att he evidence recently.
The reason why the God issue is important is because it influences how you should live your life. If you discover that Catholicism is true, then you'll know to live according to the Church's teachings etc.
Another example is that if you believe that a personal God exists, you will be able to take comfort in confiding in Him, knowing it's not a sense a false sense of comfort.
The answer to the question alters the way you live your life. That's why it's important.
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
Yeah Omnicron...
Half the time you're teaching the people arguing what they're talking about in religion debates haha.... And the argument/discussion never ends because people are just arguing their opinions. In reality everyone is actually agnostic because we can never really factually (100%) know whether or not a God does exist.
Also:
(A)theism is a (non-)position about the existence of deities.
(A)gnosticism is a (non-)position about knowledge of deities.
Half the time you're teaching the people arguing what they're talking about in religion debates haha.... And the argument/discussion never ends because people are just arguing their opinions. In reality everyone is actually agnostic because we can never really factually (100%) know whether or not a God does exist.
Also:
(A)theism is a (non-)position about the existence of deities.
(A)gnosticism is a (non-)position about knowledge of deities.
DoctorBendz
Smash Cadet
The problem with saying "you have to prove no is right" is that the door swings both ways. You have to prove yes is right also, and that is much farther from being done. You assume the initial belief to be that a deity exists, and that since it is the initial claim, it must be proven wrong. However, I would claim that there never was a deity, that you made the idea up, and therefore you must prove ME wrong.
I go to college with many students from other countries (30%+). Almost ALL of the students who are not from the U.S. have said that they find it frightening that so many people believe in Christianity in the United States (whenever the topic has come up).
Is there someone who doesn't understand why this would be frightening?
EDIT: Just saw your last post... So nevermind, but I'll leave it up there.
I'm not exactly sure why one needs a book to tell them how to live, or a deity to make themselves feel better. Well, I guess I do understand why people need those things, I just completely disagree with their reaons.
I believe in being strong enough and faithful enough in yourself to live life the way you think is right, without needing a crutch to stand on.
I go to college with many students from other countries (30%+). Almost ALL of the students who are not from the U.S. have said that they find it frightening that so many people believe in Christianity in the United States (whenever the topic has come up).
Is there someone who doesn't understand why this would be frightening?
EDIT: Just saw your last post... So nevermind, but I'll leave it up there.
I'm not exactly sure why one needs a book to tell them how to live, or a deity to make themselves feel better. Well, I guess I do understand why people need those things, I just completely disagree with their reaons.
I believe in being strong enough and faithful enough in yourself to live life the way you think is right, without needing a crutch to stand on.
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
"Yeah because high-school debating is really at same level of metaphysics and philosophy of religion lol."
Ugh.
The style is called parliamentary debating and it is used in Canadian, Australian (I see you're Australian), etc Government debates. We also did cross-examination style which is how they debate in courtrooms.
Either way the burden of proof concept is still pretty much the same. The opposition doesn't have to provide evidence against something for which there is no evidence in the first place.
Also I don't even know why I'm talking about metaphysics and philosophy lol.
I gotta get outta here.
Ugh.
The style is called parliamentary debating and it is used in Canadian, Australian (I see you're Australian), etc Government debates. We also did cross-examination style which is how they debate in courtrooms.
Either way the burden of proof concept is still pretty much the same. The opposition doesn't have to provide evidence against something for which there is no evidence in the first place.
Also I don't even know why I'm talking about metaphysics and philosophy lol.
I gotta get outta here.
But isn't the argument that everyone is agnostic just an opinion as well.
It sounds all intelligent to say 'it's all just opinions'. But to think this is a reason not to debate about it, or to abolish philosophy is to claim that all opinions are equal, when they are clearly not.
The validity of an opinion (when it is a claim of truth) is based on the logic applied to generate it. This is how opinions are measured.
Everyone would agree that opinion that religion is true because it gives a sense of comfort and atheism is wrong because it doesn't, is far less logical than the opinion that the infinite regress of finitie entities is illogical because infinite regress does not allow for change, and you cannot have a succession of dependant entities without a self-necessary original cause.
So to discard philosophy is to not appreciate logic. Even science came from philosophical logic.
It sounds all intelligent to say 'it's all just opinions'. But to think this is a reason not to debate about it, or to abolish philosophy is to claim that all opinions are equal, when they are clearly not.
The validity of an opinion (when it is a claim of truth) is based on the logic applied to generate it. This is how opinions are measured.
Everyone would agree that opinion that religion is true because it gives a sense of comfort and atheism is wrong because it doesn't, is far less logical than the opinion that the infinite regress of finitie entities is illogical because infinite regress does not allow for change, and you cannot have a succession of dependant entities without a self-necessary original cause.
So to discard philosophy is to not appreciate logic. Even science came from philosophical logic.
Claims have the burden of proof. If you want to show a claim to be unjustified, all you need to do is show that the evidence is not sufficient.
And everyone, stop equating gnostic atheism and atheism, they are not the same position.
I wouldn't agree. That's why I try to make it a point to not comment on the other sides beliefs and feelings, as you tend to have gotten them wrong a lot.
Firstly, I never said theists/deists don't have a burden of proof.
But if you did have to give the burden of proof to someone, it would actually be the atheists, because ironically, what they argue is actually inconsistent with what science has discovered, whereas theism/diesm isn't.
To argue there is no God is to argue that a natural entity was the first cause. The first cause needs to be self-necessary, eternal (required for self-necessity) and infinite in potential.
The thing is, this is completely contradictory to everything science and natural theology have disovered about natural entities. We have studied countless natural entities, yet none of them have ever had just even one of those traits mentioned above.
Theists definitely have a burdeon of proof to prove religion, but atheists also have a burden to prove that a natural entity is actually capable of being the first cause.
If atheists can't show that, then the logical assumption is that a natural entity was not the first cause.
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
"But isn't the argument that everyone is agnostic just an opinion as well."
EXACTLY
You're catching on.
"Everyone would agree that opinion that religion is true because it gives a sense of comfort and atheism is wrong because it doesn't, is far less logical than the opinion that the infinite regress of finitie entities is illogical because infinite regress does not allow for change, and you cannot have a succession of dependant entities without a self-necessary original cause."
This is also an opinion.
The one big problem I have with the "appreciation of logic" is it claims there is only a single frame of reference in regards to each work of "philosophical logic".
There are many, MANY different frames of reference. Hence, opinions are born.
I don't "discard" anything. I just extract what I like from it.
Also I strongly dislike "debating". Discussion ftw
EXACTLY
You're catching on.
"Everyone would agree that opinion that religion is true because it gives a sense of comfort and atheism is wrong because it doesn't, is far less logical than the opinion that the infinite regress of finitie entities is illogical because infinite regress does not allow for change, and you cannot have a succession of dependant entities without a self-necessary original cause."
This is also an opinion.
The one big problem I have with the "appreciation of logic" is it claims there is only a single frame of reference in regards to each work of "philosophical logic".
There are many, MANY different frames of reference. Hence, opinions are born.
I don't "discard" anything. I just extract what I like from it.
Also I strongly dislike "debating". Discussion ftw
To be honest Dre., I'm not smart enough to engage in word-play. 
So...every moment I'm not thinking dirty thoughts, I'm actively choosing to not think dirty thoughts? When I try to not think about dirty thoughts, guess what I think about...only the choicest of dirty thoughts
Not everything is an active negative. Some things are just lacking positive qualities. Is there any reason to think that, right now, I am actively choosing not to climb MT. Everest? Keep in mind that I've never even been rock-climbing, have terrible upper-body strength, and generally don't do well at higher elevations. I think I'm not climbing Everest right now because there's no logical reason to believe I should be climbing it right now.
To put it another way, I'm not actively choosing to not do everything that I'm not doing right now. It's that the range of possibilities for what I can be doing or what's reasonable for me to do is finite. Unlike many other people, I'm not saying that there's no good reason to believe in deities, I'm saying that non-belief isn't always an active rejection.
So...every moment I'm not thinking dirty thoughts, I'm actively choosing to not think dirty thoughts? When I try to not think about dirty thoughts, guess what I think about...only the choicest of dirty thoughts
Not everything is an active negative. Some things are just lacking positive qualities. Is there any reason to think that, right now, I am actively choosing not to climb MT. Everest? Keep in mind that I've never even been rock-climbing, have terrible upper-body strength, and generally don't do well at higher elevations. I think I'm not climbing Everest right now because there's no logical reason to believe I should be climbing it right now.
To put it another way, I'm not actively choosing to not do everything that I'm not doing right now. It's that the range of possibilities for what I can be doing or what's reasonable for me to do is finite. Unlike many other people, I'm not saying that there's no good reason to believe in deities, I'm saying that non-belief isn't always an active rejection.
masterdrenin
Smash Apprentice
Sure Dre., that's a nice opinion you have.