HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Atheists starting their own global church

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2013, 07:03 PM
  #301
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
All I'm going to say is this: We don't know who discovered the 5 primary planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), so does that make that knowledge somehow less inspiring or "human", and does it make you think it's just revealed knowledge and not "man made knowledge", or is the knowledge that unknown men of very little knowledge could discover things of such magnitude only increase the inspiration?



You catch on quick.
A kid would much rather know (and would remember much easier) who discovered them and how than they would a teacher saying "these are the planets because the text book says they are the planets."

You want to teach the planets? Get two textbooks, one from 2000 one from 2012 and ask them to look for anything they find interesting in the chapters on the planets. Then have them research who decided Pluto is no longer a planet and how/why they came to that decision and how they had the power to define Pluto for the rest of the world. THAT's how you get a kid excited and engaged in learning about how science works. Science is a method and a discipline carried out by people, not a holy scripture to be swallowed blindly.

And it's sad to see you so happy to throw away the study of history into political ********.


Last edited by JMiller: 10-10-2013 at 07:16 PM.
JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 09:19 PM
  #302
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I suggested, in what I thought was a relatively polite way, that from what you had posted that it suddenly looked a bit to me as though you weren't really a true agnostic (the agnostic side of your perspective) if you were of the opinion that evidence could potentially be presented to you which could change your perspective and make you be a theist.

Since again, by the definition I use and by the definitions I posted in the previous post, as well as the Freethinker website definition, an agnostic would not hold that position, they would simply say that we as humans cannot know, thus to imply that regardless of some apparent evidence, we still cannot know.
It is possible to say that I will change my opinion on the god question if presented with evidence while holding the opinion that such evidence is never going to come. This was pretty much the point of quoting Robert Flint, so I will go ahead and post it again.

Quote:
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."
The latter half of that is quite poignant.

I don't really think I'm trying to be evasive or avoiding specific points. Not intending to offend here, I just literally don't have the time to respond to every single thing (some of which is tangential and borderline rambling). I would rather respond to an overall theme or one or two specific points (provided I haven't already made said argument).

So, a specific point you made before...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
What I did challenge, earlier on in our discussion, was that if an atheist is defined as someone who just has no opinion of the god question or who hasn't formed an opinion yet, then an atheistic-agnostic, coming from such an idea of what an atheist is, makes zero sense or in simply nonsensical.
Earlier, I grouped in apatheists with the atheists. I conceded that it is better to keep them apart. Even if they were to be included with (other?) atheists that would not then mean that "an atheist is defined as someone who just has no opinion of the god question or who hasn't formed an opinion yet". It would mean that some atheists (the apatheists) have no opinion on god while some atheists have one.

1) An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods.

2) One could also word it to say that an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.

The major issue here in our disagreement or misunderstanding is language. The language of #2 conveys more conviction while #1 is more ambiguous. However, they mean essentially the same thing; neither a person who words their belief/thinking in the form of #1, or a person who words it like #2 would say "yes" to the question of "do you believe in god?"

If an apatheist is asked in a setting which only allows yes/no answers, i.e. lie detector, "Do you believe in god?" they can't rightly say "yes" can they? That would be a lie. In this case, their "no" answer is expressing a lack of belief. This is all a situation where the wording is significant.

"If an atheist is defined as someone who just has no opinion of the god question or who hasn't formed an opinion yet, then an atheistic-agnostic, coming from such an idea of what an atheist is, makes zero sense or in simply nonsensical."

So, "an atheist" is not defined as someone who has no opinion or hasn't formed one yet. My argument was that such people could arguably be considered atheists. Their inclusion wouldn't change the definition of atheist nor would it mean all atheists were apathetic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
And after all the loops and hurdles you put me through, in numerous posts and over two threads, regarding the definition of an atheist, only in the end to ultimately end up defining it as I had been defining it all along, and without even giving any gesture, that yes, ok, that's what I had been saying all along,... after all of that, and then you lose your patience with me because you think I was being condescending on a particular comment... Well, I don't know what to say.
I've used the word "conceded" or the phrase "conceded the point".

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Adding this in... Again, I've liked our exchange, sincerely, but I'm asking myself right now, Why I shouldn't respond in a bit more of a hostile tone when, rather than getting response to various direct points that I made, all I get is childish complaints that I was being condescending, and evasiveness with respect to specific points that I made. But hey, if you've tired of the discussion or feel that I've forced you too much into a corner with the arguments that I've made, then fine. C'est la vie.
Frankly, I feel like some of the back and forth is beating a dead horse. You want to have a discussion about both general definitions of something as well as my personally feeling on the subject. The above comments are my best (and likely last) attempt at the former. As I mentioned in the previous post, at this point I'm really only willing to continue to talk about my personal views on the topic of the existence of god(s).

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 09:31 PM
  #303
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,751
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
A kid would much rather know (and would remember much easier) who discovered them and how than they would a teacher saying "these are the planets because the text book says they are the planets."

You want to teach the planets? Get two textbooks, one from 2000 one from 2012 and ask them to look for anything they find interesting in the chapters on the planets. Then have them research who decided Pluto is no longer a planet and how/why they came to that decision and how they had the power to define Pluto for the rest of the world. THAT's how you get a kid excited and engaged in learning about how science works. Science is a method and a discipline carried out by people, not a holy scripture to be swallowed blindly.

And it's sad to see you so happy to throw away the study of history into political ********.
I think you are projecting here. Some kids become enthralled with something when they know the back story. Some kids get that gleam in their eye when they go into the lab and see chemicals react, or go out into nature on a biology field trip, neither of which have anything to do with relating science to past scientists. Some people are excited about the science first and then do their own research to relate themselves and their experiments with the discoveries of past scientists.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 08:48 AM
  #304
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
A kid would much rather know (and would remember much easier) who discovered them and how than they would a teacher saying "these are the planets because the text book says they are the planets."
I'll agree at least that teaching them "these are the planets because textbook" is bad. That said,

Most classes teach the planets by showing the process in which we have studied them (telescopes from earth and orbit, probes, etc) and with images from such sources.

But the original point was having a person to put a face to a discovery or fact in science is pointless and doesn't (or shouldn't) do anything more to inspire children than the process and thrill of discovering things alone already does. The discoveries on their own, as currently taught, is all that should be taught in class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
You want to teach the planets? Get two textbooks, one from 2000 one from 2012 and ask them to look for anything they find interesting in the chapters on the planets. Then have them research who decided Pluto is no longer a planet and how/why they came to that decision and how they had the power to define Pluto for the rest of the world. THAT's how you get a kid excited and engaged in learning about how science works. Science is a method and a discipline carried out by people, not a holy scripture to be swallowed blindly.

And it's sad to see you so happy to throw away the study of history into political ********.
Except this isn't the "history" you were touting. I agree, teaching about how discoveries were made and why groupings are what they are is an important part of science class. There's no need to explain to a grade 6 science class that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was the face of the Pluto "dwarf planet" movement, however, nor does doing so provide anything that is not gained by the facts alone, IMO.

And don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place for political bullshit. I'm just saying that the science classroom isn't it. I think the bullshit Creationist movement alone proves that. Science should be about the facts within the fields, not about the political crap behind it.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 08:58 AM
  #305
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
A kid would much rather know (and would remember much easier) who discovered them and how than they would a teacher saying "these are the planets because the text book says they are the planets."
I'm absolutely certain that kids would much rather learn how Neptune was discovered: as the perturbator of Uranus.

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 09:00 AM
  #306
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I'm absolutely certain that kids would much rather learn how Neptune was discovered: as the perturbator of Uranus.
While we're on Uranus jokes...

"NASA sends probe to Uranus. People everywhere giggle."

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 09:35 AM
  #307
Sevanston
Registered User
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,790
vCash: 500
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

Fry: Oh. What's it called now?

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Urrectum. Here, let me locate it for you.

Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 10:27 AM
  #308
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,539
vCash: 500
You have to think if there were a God he would have made sure these medals were spell-checked...

Vatican recalls thousands of papal medals that spelled ‘Jesus’ wrong

Quote:
The Vatican has withdrawn thousands of official papal medals from sale after discovering they had misspelled Jesus’ name.

A Latin inscription around the edge of the medals to mark the first year of Pope Francis’ pontificate referred to “Lesus.”

The medals, produced in gold, silver and bronze by the Italian State Mint, went on sale in official Vatican stores on Oct. 8 but were withdrawn two days later after the error was noticed, the Vatican Publishing House said.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 10:31 AM
  #309
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
You have to think if there were a God he would have made sure these medals were spell-checked...

Vatican recalls thousands of papal medals that spelled ‘Jesus’ wrong
Damn, they missed a chance at a memetic pop culture reference:


Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 02:25 PM
  #310
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Random commentary:

The argument about the existence of god, in part, comes down to an argument regarding necessity. Is it necessary that such an entity exists? The problem then is can we prove that it is necessary? Beyond that, of course a god could exist without there being necessity for its existence, but then you've made the work of proof even harder, if it wasn't already hard enough just to prove that there would be a necessity of there existing a god.

Ultimately again, the idea that there could be a god is reasonable enough; the belief that there is a god is unreasonable.

Theists will or could respond to that and say that it's a matter of "faith". But as non-theists, we should respond to them by asking: Why should we simply "have faith"? Where does this idea or expectation come from that we are to "have faith"? And depending on what answer a theist would give, I can only imagine answers which would dig them deeper into an undefendable hole. Thus again, the faith argument is once again unreasonable.

The principle question would be: Where is the request to "have faith" coming from?

People develop a dependence on the idea that there is a god. They can't prove the existence, so all they have is the "inner faith" that they develop and try to foster in order to support this dependence belief. The request or demand for faith comes from within, to support the human construct of there being a god.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 10-11-2013 at 02:52 PM.
MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 02:33 PM
  #311
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ultimately again, the idea that there could be a god is reasonable enough; the belief that there is a god is unreasonable.
This is, in essence, my view of the whole thing.

The fact is the best arguments for God are that it's possible he/she/it exists (philosophical arguments). The problem with that is that nearly anything is possible, strictly speaking, if we can define it.

I prefer, myself, to deal in probabilities, which makes for a lot fewer options. And in the fact is the probability that a God exists (scientific arguments) is pretty much nil, even if not impossible.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 03:01 PM
  #312
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
This is, in essence, my view of the whole thing.

The fact is the best arguments for God are that it's possible he/she/it exists (philosophical arguments). The problem with that is that nearly anything is possible, strictly speaking, if we can define it.

I prefer, myself, to deal in probabilities, which makes for a lot fewer options. And in the fact is the probability that a God exists (scientific arguments) is pretty much nil, even if not impossible.
Modal cosmological arguments typically work this way:

It is possible that God exists. (The truth conditions for God's existence are consistent.)
The concept of God is such that He is a necessary being.
If it is possible that God exists, i.e. there is some possible world such that God exists.
If there is some possible world such that God exists then, given that God is a necessary being, God exists in all worlds. That is, it is necessarily true that God exists.

The argument is a modal scope fallacy. The idea that God is a necessary being is necessity de re, while the claim that it is possible that god Exists is possibility de dicto. Insofar any claim of de re necessity is true of thing, the existence of that thing is presupposed in some world or other. Let me explain.

I necessarily am born of my parents. This means that in any possible world in which I exist, I am born of my parents. This is necessity de re (of the object). However, it doesn't imply that in every possible world I am born of my parents. That is necessity de dicto (of the proposition).

Insofar as there are objective probabilities, or chances, they exist within possible worlds, not between them. So thinking about God's existence this way is pointless. Certainly IF God exists, God does not exist as a matter of chance.

Dan-o16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2013, 03:19 PM
  #313
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Random commentary:

The argument about the existence of god, in part, comes down to an argument regarding necessity. Is it necessary that such an entity exists? The problem then is can we prove that it is necessary? Beyond that, of course a god could exist without there being necessity for its existence, but then you've made the work of proof even harder, if it wasn't already hard enough just to prove that there would be a necessity of there existing a god.

Ultimately again, the idea that there could be a god is reasonable enough; the belief that there is a god is unreasonable.

Theists will or could respond to that and say that it's a matter of "faith". But as non-theists, we should respond to them by asking: Why should we simply "have faith"? Where does this idea or expectation come from that we are to "have faith"? And depending on what answer a theist would give, I can only imagine answers which would dig them deeper into an undefendable hole. Thus again, the faith argument is once again unreasonable.

The principle question would be: Where is the request to "have faith" coming from?

People develop a dependence on the idea that there is a god. They can't prove the existence, so all they have is the "inner faith" that they develop and try to foster in order to support this dependence belief. The request or demand for faith comes from within, to support the human construct of there being a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
This is, in essence, my view of the whole thing.

The fact is the best arguments for God are that it's possible he/she/it exists (philosophical arguments). The problem with that is that nearly anything is possible, strictly speaking, if we can define it.

I prefer, myself, to deal in probabilities, which makes for a lot fewer options. And in the fact is the probability that a God exists (scientific arguments) is pretty much nil, even if not impossible.
The difference in approach that many religious would have is that, while you try to fit God within human reason, they see God as the giver of reason and also beyond containment within human reason.

One side tries and fails to squeeze knowledge of God within their world view and so become agnostic or atheist. The other side tries and fails to stretch human reason around a greater conception of God and so maintains belief and accepts the current limits of human reason.

It's also partially about how we try to define God. I don't think many catholics would tell you God is a big bearded old dude wearing a toga in the clouds.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2013, 08:54 AM
  #314
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
http://www.onbeing.org/program/transcript/4831

Just heard (reheard?) this great interview with Alain de Botton- author of Religion for Atheists and founder of the School of Life.

Love his approach to the divide and the depths that each side have to offer.


Here's a taste of a starting point
Quote:
Ms. Tippett: So the very first line of Religion for Atheists, I think is a really important framing statement and an unusual statement in the West, even though it's very simple that "the most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true."

Mr. de Botton:That's right, you see, because it seems to me that most debates on religion currently center around the existence or nonexistence of God, and I've sat in on many of these debates. They are, frankly, boring not because they're not touching on a very important issue. It is important. They're boring because no one ever makes any headway because, you know, the atheists look at the religious and think that they're stupid and the religious look at the atheist and think they're damned and both sides are fiercely entrenched. The argument about whether God does or doesn't exist is, I think, ultimately one where most individuals are not rationally aware of their reasons for believing in what they believe.

Ms. Tippett: On both sides of the issue?

Mr. de Botton:On both sides, on both sides. I think we grow into a position on religion. It's a little bit like our views of attraction. We discover that we're attracted to certain people, certain gender, certain times. . . And yet, both sides insist that it is something they can convince through argument another person about, and I think this is simply not true.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2013, 12:04 PM
  #315
Loose Sens
Drafting my Overalls
 
Loose Sens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,496
vCash: 500
Well ultimately he's wrong because he's a moron and making wild assumptions (beliefs) based on nothing substantial while lambasting both sides for doing the exact same thing.

What. A. Moron.

Loose Sens is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2013, 07:46 AM
  #316
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reg Season SC View Post
Well ultimately he's wrong because he's a moron and making wild assumptions (beliefs) based on nothing substantial while lambasting both sides for doing the exact same thing.

What. A. Moron.
Cant tell if you are challenging or illustrating what he's saying.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 12:31 PM
  #317
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
The difference in approach that many religious would have is that, while you try to fit God within human reason, they see God as the giver of reason and also beyond containment within human reason.

One side tries and fails to squeeze knowledge of God within their world view and so become agnostic or atheist. The other side tries and fails to stretch human reason around a greater conception of God and so maintains belief and accepts the current limits of human reason.

It's also partially about how we try to define God. I don't think many catholics would tell you God is a big bearded old dude wearing a toga in the clouds.
So, basically, you're defending belief by saying that you can't reason the existence of God because God is above reason?

That's a cop-out, plain and simple. It's poor intellect to believe something without reason, so I don't even know what to say about believing something because you don't think you can reason it.

Believing that God creates reason and put him/her/itself beyond our capability to reason, yet still exists is nothing short of insanity.

In the end, history has shown that belief shouldn't begin until legitimate reasoning can be presented to support such a belief. Legitimate reasoning to defend the belief in God has never been met. Believing it because of some mental gymnastics to make you feel it's rational doesn't met the requirements.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 12:37 PM
  #318
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
So, basically, you're defending belief by saying that you can't reason the existence of God because God is above reason?

That's a cop-out, plain and simple. It's poor intellect to believe something without reason, so I don't even know what to say about believing something because you don't think you can reason it.

Believing that God creates reason and put him/her/itself beyond our capability to reason, yet still exists is nothing short of insanity.

In the end, history has shown that belief shouldn't begin until legitimate reasoning can be presented to support such a belief. Legitimate reasoning to defend the belief in God has never been met. Believing it because of some mental gymnastics to make you feel it's rational doesn't met the requirements.
That's an excellent post, Leafsdude. I'd like to see how JMiller gets around that one without giving another "cop-out" type of answer. Defenders of "faith" always ultimately resort to cop-out answers; JMiller is just an oddity because supposedly he defends from outside of the faith.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 01:36 PM
  #319
Loose Sens
Drafting my Overalls
 
Loose Sens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Cant tell if you are challenging or illustrating what he's saying.
I'm saying he's exactly what he's criticizing but because he fits your preconceived notions and reinforces your view, you're not about to challenge anything he says.

Loose Sens is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 01:48 PM
  #320
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reg Season SC View Post
I'm saying he's exactly what he's criticizing but because he fits your preconceived notions and reinforces your view, you're not about to challenge anything he says.
The best part is that, what seems to end up being his main point (that religious people are going to be religious regardless of what you say/do to them) has been stated by those who would consider them on "the other side" of the argument.

Here's Neil Tyson again:



That, though, still doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with arguing about/against religious belief, nor that religious belief is somehow right or reasonable.

Those that state the argument is pointless or idiotic squabbling don't get the point of it in the first place.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 02:04 PM
  #321
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
So, basically, you're defending belief by saying that you can't reason the existence of God because God is above reason?

That's a cop-out, plain and simple. It's poor intellect to believe something without reason, so I don't even know what to say about believing something because you don't think you can reason it.

Believing that God creates reason and put him/her/itself beyond our capability to reason, yet still exists is nothing short of insanity.

In the end, history has shown that belief shouldn't begin until legitimate reasoning can be presented to support such a belief. Legitimate reasoning to defend the belief in God has never been met. Believing it because of some mental gymnastics to make you feel it's rational doesn't met the requirements.
I'm saying religious understandings often see the creative forces (gods and whatever) as being larger than the reasoning of the things they create- not necessarily above or beyond or outside of reason. If you wanted to treat physics in this manner, the idea would be that the world and people (and our ability to reason) are created by movements of energy and mass. We are able to reason out some of it but there is more to it than we can figure out right now.


Where did you idea that "history has shown that belief shouldn't begin until legitimate reasoning can be presented to support such a belief"?

I'm also curious about what you think "reason" is beyond your personal reasons for believing the things that you do.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 02:06 PM
  #322
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reg Season SC View Post
I'm saying he's exactly what he's criticizing but because he fits your preconceived notions and reinforces your view, you're not about to challenge anything he says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
The best part is that, what seems to end up being his main point (that religious people are going to be religious regardless of what you say/do to them) has been stated by those who would consider them on "the other side" of the argument.

Here's Neil Tyson again:



That, though, still doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with arguing about/against religious belief, nor that religious belief is somehow right or reasonable.

Those that state the argument is pointless or idiotic squabbling don't get the point of it in the first place.
You're both off the track because you read the quote and didn't read the link. The guy's an atheist.


This is a blurb on his book and the reason I brought it up in this thread.
Quote:
Religion for Atheists

What if religions are neither all true or all nonsense? The boring debate between fundamentalist believers and non-believers is finally moved on by Alain’s book Religion for Atheists, which argues that the supernatural claims of religion are of course entirely false – and yet that religions still have some very important things to teach the secular world.

Religion for Atheists suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should instead steal from them – because they’re packed with good ideas on how we might live and arrange our societies. Blending deep respect with total impiety, Alain (a non-believer himself) proposes that we should look to religions for insights into, among other concerns, how to:

- build a sense of community
- make our relationships last
- overcome feelings of envy and inadequacy
- escape the twenty-four hour media
- go travelling
- get more out of art, architecture and music
- and create new businesses designed to address our emotional needs.

For too long non-believers have faced a stark choice between either swallowing lots of peculiar doctrines or doing away with a range of consoling and beautiful rituals and ideas. At last, in Religion for Atheists, Alain has fashioned a far more interesting and truly helpful alternative.


Last edited by JMiller: 10-18-2013 at 02:11 PM.
JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 02:13 PM
  #323
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafsdude7 View Post
The best part is that, what seems to end up being his main point (that religious people are going to be religious regardless of what you say/do to them) has been stated by those who would consider them on "the other side" of the argument.

Here's Neil Tyson again:



That, though, still doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with arguing about/against religious belief, nor that religious belief is somehow right or reasonable.

Those that state the argument is pointless or idiotic squabbling don't get the point of it in the first place.
On the one point that not all scientists are not believers in a god, with his comment that until that number is 0% then we shouldn't be overly critical of religious people... I'd want two further items of information regarding that % of scientists who are religious or believe in a god. I'd want to know where their personal beliefs that there is a god came from. And I'd want to know how much of their personal consideration about things in life that they spent considering the god question.

On the first point, if that remaining % of scientists who still believe in a god were actually born into a god-believing family or had a significant god-believing influence in their life at a relatively young age, then can we determine for sure that their continued belief in a god isn't founded on what was instilled in them at a young age. On the second point, which still could also effect the first point, if those particular scientists haven't spent any considerable time in their lives truly contemplating the god question, then all of their scientific credentials don't necessarily mean much if they haven't applied some type of scientific thinking to the question of there being a god. I mean after all, to become a scientist does entail quite a bit of dedication to scientific study and work, so if some scientists really haven't spent much time considering the god question, then who can blame them really.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 02:13 PM
  #324
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,456
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
I'm saying religious understandings often see the creative forces (gods and whatever) as being larger than the reasoning of the things they create- not necessarily above or beyond or outside of reason. If you wanted to treat physics in this manner, the idea would be that the world and people (and our ability to reason) are created by movements of energy and mass. We are able to reason out some of it but there is more to it than we can figure out right now.
Sure, but as the motto goes, saying "I don't know" is always superior to making up a bullshit explanation for what we don't know.

There's a reason God Of The Gaps is a fallacy, therefore your argument is not anything beyond pseudo-intellectual crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Where did you idea that "history has shown that belief shouldn't begin until legitimate reasoning can be presented to support such a belief"?
I've presented the fruits of scientific reasoning and the requirement of reaching burden of proof before acceptance of a belief many times, I'm sure even to you.

Besides, in the end, what you're asking is "what's wrong with believing something without evidence". The absurdity of that question hopefully isn't lost on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
I'm also curious about what you think "reason" is beyond your personal reasons for believing the things that you do.
Can you rephrase? The bolded seems to have nothing to do with the non-bolded.

If you are asking me the definition of reason and the requirement for something to be considered reasonable, then both are readily available and should be easy to research for yourself (and very much objectively definable...it's not based on personal opinion), but I will try and answer both if that is what you're asking. It's complex, however, and I'd rather not waste my time answering a question you didn't ask when it'd take me probably a good amount of time and typing to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
You're both off the track because you read the quote and didn't read the link. The guy's an atheist.


This is a blurb on his book and the reason I brought it up in this thread.
WTF?

What does his personal beliefs have to do with anything? Are you trying to make an argument from authority here?

The fact that he's an atheist doesn't change anything about what I said.

Also, we've had the debate about the "religious community" aspect within some corners of the "atheist movement". It's not really all that groundbreaking a post here, nor is it in any way in opposition to "mocking religions", even if I don't understand it personally. There's a difference between adhering to "rituals" and believing in that which has no evidence to support it, and I don't mock religion for the rituals but for the beliefs (though some rituals are quite insane, but that's more a side-effect of the insane beliefs that influence said rituals).


Last edited by Leafsdude7: 10-18-2013 at 02:23 PM.
Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2013, 02:14 PM
  #325
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 17,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
That's an excellent post, Leafsdude. I'd like to see how JMiller gets around that one without giving another "cop-out" type of answer. Defenders of "faith" always ultimately resort to cop-out answers; JMiller is just an oddity because supposedly he defends from outside of the faith.
You see it as a cop-out because it doesn't work for your sensibilities and experience. But I am willing to accept both your understandings and those of people who draw theirs from different sensibilities and experiences.

JMiller is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.