"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by garbonzo, Apr 6, 2012.

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Not at all. Reason and logic are not world views, and they are what atheism directly results from and is justified by. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of a god. What about that statement is dependent on a particular worldview?

    My worldview has nothing to do with atheism. And what exactly is an "atheistic opinion?" I get the feeling this is just another attempt to broaden the definition of the word.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. keith1 Guest

    Odds favor the lock opens without a key. The fence is more likely not a fence but a membrane. Similar to other natural configurations as osmotic systems, placental barriers, dimensional variances, light-speed barrier, distinct individuality, etc.

    The two factions atheist and non-atheist are not polar opposites, but if both are wrong, then no amount of time will solve the schism, even with a complete censorship of either faction, then to lessen the odds.
    A day was reached, where ship navigators no longer scared the crew and merchandisers with stories of sea-monsters and a flat earth. That kind of day is always coming to the paradigms...
    The only urges to continue a belief system beyond it's "likely odds of someday being validated", is it's "lucrative synergy", or it's exposure to the "unanimous consensus of it's unlikeliness".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Does reason and logic inform your perspective on nature, values, and ethics? Your perspective is your world view.

    world·view
    1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
    2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

    Do you believe in any speculative science without conclusive evidence? Abiogenesis?

    Really?! :bugeye: Didn't you just say, "reason and logic are ... what atheism directly results from"?

    Atheism is obviously an opinion, as it cannot be proven conclusively by fact.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It certainly can.

    I can prove conclusively the following claim: - that I do not accept that there is compelling evidence of a god -

    You misunderstand the core tenet of atheism. It is not that there is no god; it is that atheists do not accept god as granted. True, some atheists have a stronger belief - that there is indeed no god. But that extreme stance is not a required tenet of atheism.
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    What you find compelling is subjective opinion, short of conclusive evidence. To argue against the existence of a god requires a bit more than an agnostic nonacceptance. Qualifiers such as "granted" seem superfluous or equivocal.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    What else, aside from personal testimony of one kind or another, is there?

    An ordinary person who does not have a personal revelation from God, necessarily has to depend on other people for any input on the topic of "God."

    And that which is referred to as "scriptures" is still effectively nothing but personal testimony, to a person who does not have some extraordinary means to establish that the scriptures are more than that.
     
  10. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    So it is.

    All animals accumulate information, but for most, that information dies with them. We humans however, can pass on information that accumulates from generation to generation. As a species, we are continually learning. There is no reason to assume that ancient knowledge is foreknowledge, something to be recovered rather than discovered.

    Of course, we all have biases at some level but cherry picking ancient text is a sure fire way of confirming them. When you have to tell yourself that, some parts are only meant to be taken figuratively, symbolically, or metaphorically then it’s time to exercise a little bias awareness.

    Like Richard Dawkins, I too, feel that belief may have had an evolutionary advantage, but religious beliefs are simply a byproduct, and merely a consequence of something that had an evolutionary advantage. For our own protection, as children, we had to listen to our parents, and believe whatever they told us.

    Not believing in something does not guarantee accuracy, but it does help to clear away superstitions and falsehoods.

    What’s your opinion? Do you think it is better to believe, or not to believe in something that appears incoherent, unjustifiable, and unprovable?

    "Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
    The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
    the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
    Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
    stop thinking about it."
    --Robert A. Wilson
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    What if we apply this kind of skepticism to everything you just said above, and to what Wilson is saying in the passage you quote?

    What if you were to apply
    "Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
    The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
    the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
    Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
    stop thinking about it."

    to
    "All animals accumulate information, but for most, that information dies with them. We humans however, can pass on information that accumulates from generation to generation. As a species, we are continually learning."

    - ?

    Clearly, you believe that "As a species, we are continually learning" and other claims you've made.

    But why do you believe them? Why aren't you skeptical about them?
     
  12. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Evidence.

    Goodnite, wynn. :sleep:
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Nonsense.

    I talk about them all the time : abiogenesis, life as nothing but a sum total of chemical reactions, etc etc

    sure ... by dumbing down the term



    Then I suggest you better back down now from any political/ontological suggestions that might further embarrass you ... (the statement you give below being but one grand example)




    You say that as if it isn't (edit with quotation marks mine)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If that was the case they wouldn't constantly be talking about what isn't on the (non-evidenced) strength of what is (eg : abiogenesis, reductionist views of life, religion as a purely culturally defined phenomena arising out of imagination and falsity, etc etc)

    :shrug:
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Then clearly I am (and you too for that matter ...) not talking about science since reductionist views of reality are not only non-evidenced but also logically incapable of being successful (on account of being epistemologically bound to a metonymic scope between the micro and macrocosm - IOW the further one goes into the grander scheme of things, whether via the telescope or microscope, the hazier it gets - to the point of fading out to nothing - on account of the intrinsic limitation of the senses, the core tool of empiricism)
    If one relegates issues of evidence to empiricism, one has for all intents and purposes, prohibited one's self from actually investigating the claim ... much like the deeper mysteries of temperature are lost to a fool who insists that a tape measure is the number one tool for the job.

    On the contrary, a philosophical investigation of empiricism clearly reveals why it is not a capable tool for the job ...

    Sure ... not to a person who insists empiricism has a monopoly on all claims of evidence ... much like the reality of temperature cannot be asserted to a fool who insists that all issues of evidence are determined by tape measures

    On the contrary, you cannot invent a special dimension to empiricism that lies technically beyond its capacity to even hope to have the glimmer of investigating ... which is also called special pleading, so I will leave you this piece of information to ruminate on ...

    Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption {wiki}​

    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    So my worldview is reason and logic? I've always understood "worldview" to imply preconceptions about the world that are not necessarily based on anything. But then, I suppose if I believe there is nothing after death, that would be part of a worldview, wouldn't it? Alright then. But that still doesn't mean atheism is a world view. It would be a consequence of rational thinking. I can't bring myself to say that "atheism is a result of my worldview," because it implies a rigidity or inflexibility that simply isn't there, but if that's what it is, that's what it is.

    Yeah, but I wasn't considering logic and reason as a worldview, because logic and reason are not preconceptions.

    I misunderstood you at first. But "I do not believe in God" is not an opinion, it's a fact. If I were to say "Yahweh does not exist," then you're getting into opinions, and some atheists define it as the latter, rather than the former.

    And at any rate, there's enough evidence to say with certainty that the God character of the Bible is not an historical figure. There are enough contradictions and signs of low birth, so to speak, to be able to say without a doubt that Yahweh is a mythical character. I mean, is it an opinion that Zeus doesn't exist? C'mon.
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    aaqucnaona




    Everything that leads to performing an action is a world view, unless you act without reason. If you are athiest for a reason, it means you see the world through atheist eyes, and every thought, and action is filtered through that.
    It has most definately become a world view, and becoming more anti-theistic, which is now synonamous with atheism, and that's exactly what folk like Dawkins are doing. They are rallying people to jump on the anti-theism bandwagon to gain more support so that they can achieve the destruction of God, and religion.

    The term ''religion'' is not a term that is used in scripture, it's use is very similar to ''yoga'' (i mean the real stuff), which mean ''link'' or ''ladder''. One meaning of the word ''religion'' stems the latin word ''re-ligare''. The prefix ''re-'' meaning ''again'', and ''ligare'' which means to ''connect with'' or ''to bind''. It doesn't stipulate what it is that we connect or bind, with. So ''religion'' is merely a process used to acheive a goal. The actions we perform determines our religion, but that process is an ongoing scenario, and we merely change it according to our state of mind.



    Because you don't talk about ''religion'' it self. You focus mainly on the Christian evangelical side, using that as a blueprint for what is religion.
    If you were serious about it, you would really look into it, and you wouldn't be trying to rebutt everything, based on Christian. If God is real, then it is of vital importance, so I'll look into it. In that way your understand would increase, because your mind would be free, and ready to accept.

    By ''accept'', I don't mean you agree with it, and just fall head first into it.
    It means that once you accept something for what it is, you are in a far position to understand it, than if you don't accept it.
    I don't get this freedom of mind from you, I sense that you are not prepared to go past a certain point, even if your point of view is proven to be lacking.
    You simply look for something else that may suffice, or you try and switch back to the asker. A symptom, IMO, of some kind of indoctrination that kicks in when challenged.



    It is in relation to scripture.



    You don't believe in God, because you don't see, or know of any evidence for His actual existence. Yes? Weak--agnostic/atheist, yes?

    When I look at this position, I don't see ''weak atheism'', or even ''agnosticism, I see full on, strong atheism, and I'll tell you why.
    There is a strong implication here that the person knows what the evidence is, that he may actually one day come to believe in God if such evidence is presented. But when asked to provide what they would regard as evidence, they settle for some supernatural event that THEY can't explain (therefore it must be God). So already, they have an idea of what God should be for them to accept, and that ideal is not God, the supreme being.

    They have already rendered a trancendenta being, the ultimate kick start to theism therefore atheism, non existent, by dint of not accepting any form trancendance, knowing full well that trancendance, by it's definition, is beyond particle matter, and cannot be verified, or proven using our gross senses. Therefore, even if such a being did exist, there is no difference from our perspective, to such a being not existing. Therefore God does NOT exist.


    For a start, part of it is comprised in some of the other aspects of religion spoken of here, not just the generalised Christian, evangelical world view.




    God, is the Supreme Being, the Absolute and Ultimate Truth, God is the origin of everything we percieve, what we don't percieve. God is One without a second, and the the abode of all soulls, both conditioned and not conditioned.
    God is the Original Person, from whom everything emanates, via His different energies.

    Religion, is the steps we take to come to the realisation that we are, at our essence, pure-spirit beings, who for whatever reason, desired to lord it, like God, and as a result fell into the trap of material existence, which ends up being a struggle for existence at one end of the scale, and a false sense of security, ownership, and identity, at the other.

    Theism is a belief in God.


    How's that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    Well gee! The entire vedic literature, interpolated, secretly, after and during the introduction of modern science. And nobody suspected anything.
    They sure are sneaky!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    As I thought, you are not prepared to answer that, because to do so would mean you have to accept something that directly contradicts your position.


    jan.
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Your skepticism is inconsistent.
     
  19. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    And why does that have to be so?
     
  20. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    No, and situaitional decisions based on the the circumstances rather than ideologies are a good example of my point.

    Do your views on environmentalism [or any other topic] define every thought and action of yours? How can you assert the same for my non-theism?

    No, the public debasement of religion is the goal, not the personal destruction of religion or its potentiality. And that is a goal I have aligned with and argued for the link above, so fell free to discuss this there.

    I dont care about the semantics of religion, Jan. I care about what is generally considered 'the world religions' and what they do to science, culture, safety, politics, progress and humanity. You must know that I am extreme pragmatist - the practical causality is the most important thing for me.

    So I bais myself on a 'if God exists', which would prime my mind to be dragged into irrational beliefs and unsubstantiated claims [not theological or philosophical speculations - religions are about as much about philosophy as porn is about storytelling]. Hardly free and open minded, is it Jan?

    As to why I focus on christianity in my opposition to religion, lets do a roll call, shall we - Buddish is the real nice guy, apart for some archaic woo-woo, it comes closest to what a real religion [IMO] would be like. So no issues with it. As far is hinduism is concerned, its neither possible for us to yet influence it nor are its billion tops followers ready yet for non-belief. Besides, Hinduism does only the mildly bad, like castes and sexism and oppression of sexuality, etc. Besides, Indians are one of the most tolerant people I have ever met. As for Jews, dont fuck with the bankers! No seriously, I sympatise with them. Tossed around by Christians and muslims for a long time, I almost feel thats its not their fault that they have been rendered stupid, ignorant or both. Coming to muslims, well, you dont mess around with guys ready to blow themselves up for their imaginary friend, simple as that! And leave the tribes alone please. But when you come to christains, they are a group most previledged by history and politics, perhaps the religion with the most advanced members [or residents of advanced places] - and when they, of all people, instead of leading the progress of humanity, waste their times fundamentally sticking onto the myths of desert nomads on a hunger trip, thats when I get disappointed. Add to that the active suppression of science and a drive to spread their insanity to the rest of us, much less impose it on our children [and our future] thorught dishonest tactics and political crap, its a fight I simply cant stand out on. Besides, if or when the tide turns, this* is where it will begin.

    *the west

    The reason is simple Jan, I extend the same standards for knowledge claims in religion as I do for everything else. Accepting it would mean lowering my rational guard against woo-woo, and as a former New-ager, I know where that can go. If religion is real, why does it need me to accept it to understand it to be true? Kinda weak for an assertion of the great unanswered questions in the world, dont you think?

    Thank you for contextualising it. Now onto the elaboration please?

    Yes.

    First Jan, no, unless I dont claim that "There is no GOD", no semantic acrobatics would qualify me as a strong atheist. Second, I dont have an Idea of what God is actually, that is on the theists to claim and then substantiate, to which I apply my usual scepticism. Its not on me to know what god is, neither is it on me to tell me what can change my mind, for I dont know that. All I can tell is whether or not something a theist suggests can or cannot convince, other than that, I cannot set a bar, for I have already thought of the problem you describe and have decided not the subject myself to it, which is why stance is carefully formed and well expressed as "Agnostic atheistic apatheism".

    And beyond the start?

    Ok, some refining needed here, to cut out the poetic and understand the epistemic:
    ,

    What does it mean for God to be a 'being'? Is he a being in the sense we are beings? Is he one in the sense of natural order or beauty or maybe like gravity?

    ,

    What does it even mean to for a being to not only be a source of absolute and ultimate truth [the existence of which itself is still debated] but also be that truth?

    ,

    Meaning what? That god makes it or works by intervening it all that happens, that He made it all?

    Which is something we can assert nothing about, even anything about its relation to God.

    Why so? Why not a pantheon of Gods?

    But he is a being, if is a being, he can either be seperate from all souls [whose existence is unsubstantiated] or he can not be a being at all and be something+collection of souls. He cannot both be a being and an abode of souls.

    What is that supposed to mean?

    So he is not only a being but also a person, a being with individuality and personality?

    Said that once already.

    Oooh, moving towards new age and mysticism, are we? And how do you know, must less define, nevermind understand, any of the above? How can you assert, or even proclaim it?

    And we know that that 'realisation' is not a delusional ideology because?

    Agreed.

    :shrug:

    Ignorine a cheap shot at humour, I didnt suggest a conspiracy, did I? Being malicious isnt a requisite for being baised.

    Actually Jan, I am not yet ready to answer that because you have not asked a definitive question. You have not given me examples of knowledge objectively evident in ancient times that cannot have been achieved without modern science. Unless you do give me said examples, what am I supposed to respond to? You want a good answer, ask a clear question!
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    In order to ardently stand by the precept that the universe is bereft of sentient orchestration of course
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Reductionist explanations for reality have demonstrated their effectiveness. Ever watch a TV? We can do that because we understand the electron.

    Also, science is not completely reductionist. We don't look to the atom to explain evolutionary psychology, for instance. So, science works on many levels.

    Seeing as how I can prove science works, and you cannot prove your transcendental investigations work, I have clearly made the superior argument.

    Furthermore, I have pointed out the logical fallacy of your argument, that you cannot assert a transcendent realm without having any objective evidence for it. The origin of this realm must then be merely the literary tradition of the supernatural. Empiricism is not applicable or necessary to explain fiction. This fiction is haziness personified, and has no explanatory power for anything other than the workings of one's imagination. This is the pit out of which you must crawl if you reject empirical investigation. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Tell us again why you keep talking?
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Proving the effectiveness of a tape measure in certain scenarios doesn't make it effective in all scenarios any more than proving the effectiveness of reductionist models in certain scenarios makes it effective in all scenarios.

    And if you want to start talking about the authority of soft science then it becomes the slippery slope of the softer the science, the more the evidence is malleable and open to interpretation

    If one keeps on insisting (merely for the sake of upholding their world view ... so it seems) that empiricism has a monopoly on all claims of evidence a few key points of discussion (such as the complete ineffectiveness of empiricism even on a theoretical level) have to be gone through before one can even hope to begin to advance anything further
    :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012

Share This Page