Should science be only for atheists

so you are trying to say that a spinning coin has nothing to do with in landing heads or tails?

Its more that god contextualizes the natural world (IOW it is like a sub-set of him) just like a coin contextualizes the landing of a head or tails (as well as having other properties beyond merely facing a certain way down or up)

first you say this

then you say this

make up your mind

the difference being?

(aside from from corrupting the terms of the argument for god being a rational argument - such as insisting on a dualistic approach to god and matter as opposed to a holistic one)

Wrong again

The claim is that god can be known.

The problem (at least for you) is that it works in much the same manner as knowing any other greater personality than one's self. Because you insist that god be known on your terms, you don't even come to first base, despite it being clear that one can't even know the president on one's own terms.

IOW once again you opt for a corrupted form of the argument to launch your so-called superior rational arguments from ... never mind that corrupting the terms of an argument can undo absolutely any claim of knowledge (aka the high school drop out vs the physicist scenario which doesn't get past "yrfullashit)"

:shrug: .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the problem is that you are not listening

Supernatural can take on a host of meanings according to context.

At the moment, you are using it to denote a dualistic approach (matter and spirit exist as two mutually exclusive categories) .

What you are not listening to is that god is commonly defined in a holistic approach (matter being a subset of god's greater potency).

As far as proving anything, its a hopeless case for a person who stuffs up at the point of theory

lol
feel free to prove anything in the mind of a person who stuffs up at the point of theory

If you could conceptualize it, you would immediately understand that the meaning you are driving with the use of supernatural (ie a dualistic schism between matter and spirit) is inaccurate and wouldn't hesitate to move on to an argument that actually acknowledges the correct terminology
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atheists have no proof of a god not existing. They only have an archive of written man-made litany. They are "stupid". They cannot even take on an examination of the fruitfly for perceived hints of intelligent structure. Atheists cannot be taken seriously by anyone with more than the cursory intellect level. In this respect, the "stupid majority" has no advantage. A majority of garbage is just a bigger pile.

(philosophy lesson 101 : the flexible premises of a tentative argument are always subverted by copy/paste)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your argument still requires me to accept that this greater potency (or greater reality) actually exists. Again, it's not that I am unable to conceptualize such a thing, it's simply that there is no sufficiently compelling evidence to suggest that what you're proposing is actually a true state of affairs.

Until you (or anyone else) can demonstrate otherwise, any demand that we refer to such a greater reality as natural rather than supernatural is absurd.

No. See above.

 

I didn't say they weren't related - but they are mutually exclusive... you either have a spinning coin (cause) or you have the result (effect). Not both. What exactly are you failing to grasp?

Which still doesn't negate the statement that God - or at least the part that is indistinguishable to nature - is SUPERNATURAL. Again... what are you failing to grasp?

Perhaps you need to re-read, as there is no inconsistency.
Science does not support God or the non-existence of God.
But the inability of science to support God leads many to the "no belief in God" style of atheism.

One is a position on what one considers rationally supported by the evidence, the other is a position on belief.

No need for a dualistic approach - just one that doesn't have an a priori assumption of God's existence. If God falls out as a requirement... so be it. If not, then why add it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your statement: "although at least theists have recourse to a process by which one can know god does it"
So how am I wrong?
You can follow a process and, unless you can somehow demonstrate (even to yourself) that the "knowledge" you have is actual knowledge, it can at best (to others) remain a claim of knowledge. And then you're stuck with appeals to authority, to confidence etc.
It might be the truth. It might not. But you have the small matter of "knowing" which it is.
I tend toward the "not knowing" in such matters.

So how do you know?

One can know the President quite simply if one wanted to... it's all on t'internet... his powers etc, what he currently looks like.

As for insisting that "god be known on my terms"... I guess I could wait for his terms...
And don't try to intervene by trying to tell me a process... 'cos those would be your terms, unless you could demonstrate to me that they were his terms... and so it will all begin again. :shrug:

You again accuse me of corrupting an argument... yet you have posited one possible example - which I haven't actually used - and no other. You'll need to do better.

 

Think about it for a second. If you nothing, you know everything about nothing. How?

Think about it logically.


If you were separated from social communication, would you know anything about communication? Possibly not much or nothing at all. Thus is when this comes in.

If you think about it, reverse process. You can know everything about social communication...

But you can also know everything about not communicating.

Thus you can know everything about not communicating.
You know everything about not communicating more than someone who communicates 24/7. It can be contradicted, but that contradiction can be contradicted.

I'm going to give you four quotes people.

"It's not how smart you are that matters, what really counts is how you are smart." - Howard Gardner

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." - W. I. Thomas
...
"We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anais Nin

"There is no truth. There is only perception." - Gustave Flaubert

So how do you know if atheists know more about science than everyone else? It isn't a joke. It's the reality. Perceptions are what we consider absolute truth, but if you think about it...

No one has the same exact built together perceptional formula.

Thus, can we consider anything "truth"?

Perceptions are reality. There is no "absolute" perception, thus...

There is no absolute truth.

If there was absolute truth, we would know it right when we were born. That isn't the case. We have deviance, criminals, and other types of people.

Some things are better not contradicted...

But everything can be contradicted.

 

You won't tentatively accept it even just for the sake of the discussion??


Although I don't blame you. Your reluctance is understandable, and there are good historical examples to justify such a fear. For example, the Communists in the Korean war had a very successful strategy for coverting American prisoners and getting confidential information out of them. For instance, they had the prisoners write essays on how great communism is; the prisoners didn't have to sign them, but sometimes the essays were read out loud on the speakers; or there was a competition on whose essay would be the best (and a small reward given, like fruit or cigarettes). It turned out that such subtle strategies were quite effective.

 

No, science should not be only for atheists.

 

Agreed.

 

I am certainly capable of doing that, and have done so many times already on these forums in the past. I've even engaged in debate in defense of such ideas. But it became a bit of a problem because people kept mistaking me for a Christian and addressing me as a theist. I got tired of posting disclaimers which clarified my real position so I just stopped doing it. Additionally, I was a practicing Christian myself once upon a time. I was much younger, sure, but I had just as much of a penchant for deep philosophical exploration back then as I do now. So I didn't just practice it, I studied it. Since that time I have seriously entertained as many different ideas about God as I have been exposed to or have been able to conceive of.

The real problem here is that most theists can't seem to accept that anyone who genuinely opens their mind to such possibilities can walk away an atheist, so they therefore conclude that anyone who is an atheist hasn't ever really opened their mind (or heart) at all. Well, I've done all of those things, and I put myself into them just about as much as anyone ever could. So tell me, signal, when exactly do I earn the right not to be called closed minded? A lot of people around here are clearly suggesting (albeit somewhat indirectly at times) that it wont be until I become a theist again. Do you think that's reasonable?

 

Here, let me give you an example: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2484488&postcount=350

In this thread I was trying to resolve the omnipotence paradox. I'm not saying that I was necessarily doing the best of jobs or anything, but it demonstrates my willingness to build an argument on the supposition of God's existence. I'm not about to go crawling through my entire post history in order to pull out a whole bunch of other examples, but they are indeed in there somewhere. I mean seriously, how much more open minded do you need an atheist to be? I went in to bat for the theists!

 

Yes, this is very common.

I can tell that you have not given some theistic paths a fair trial. Because some do expect that one give one's whole life to them. And if you're currently not in one - and you aren't-, then you haven't given these things a fair trial.

In many traditions, it is the moment of death that is seen as one of the most important moments in one's life, the moment of death being the real test of one's firmness in the practice.
Death can happen at any time; so if you're currently not practicing a theistic path, you will miss out on what death according to the path can give you.

I think the real problem is that you seem to expect some acknowledgement (from the theists in particular).
I think that one ought to be very careful whose approval and acknowledgement one seeks.

 

How much more open minded does an atheist need to be? A lot more.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I sometimes take up the theist cause as well. But as long as I am essentially like Switzerland in all this, it doesn't really bring me much.

In a battle, one actually has to take sides. Or live with the pains of trying to be neutral.

 

Well, that's true of absolutely everyone here as we only have one life to live and there is more than one religion/philosophy.

Again, the same applies to everyone.

No Signal. I replied to you and your insinuation that I was closed minded. I also had in mind similar but more direct comments made by others. In the end I care very little about the opinions others form of me during anonymous online discussion, but that doesn't mean I will let incorrect assertions stand.

 

Of course. Some theists seem to require that atheists be so open minded that they are willing to practice a religion for their entire lives before they can make a decision on it's validity, as you have suggested.

Well, I guess we are very different in that regard. I find such discussion rewarding because it forces me to think more deeply about my own convictions and learn more about those of others.

I am actually pretty neutral about theism in general, at least as much as it tends to confront me in day to day life. But in the context of a forum discussion, sure, I assume a position and argue for it vigorously.

 

So it's about your honor?

 

No, it's more about pointing out the arrogance and the absurdity of the theist position that all atheists are closed minded.

 

Do you think those theists are asking too much of atheists?
If yes, why?

After a while, PC wears off and the fangs become apparent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean, "thinking more deeply" and "learning about" is nice, but in my experience, things are not so lovey-dovey, especially not underneath.

Assuming a position and arguing for it vigorously still has effects on one, and one can easily enough lose one's neutrality.

As the above-mentioned American prisoners in communists camps, it is possible to develop a conviction simply by theoretically arguing for it, even if one initially was completely opposed to it.

 

Which is a matter of honor.

 

Absolutely. I think it's asking too much of anyone to devote their entire life to something when it may or may not ultimately benefit them any more than any other philosophy or way of life.

I really don't lose my cool in online discussion. Not anymore. I've never received a single infraction or warning here despite my tendency to become involved in highly controversial discussions. Aside from an occasional minor escalation, I find the discussion here engaging and enjoyable, mostly for the reasons I already stated.

I wouldn't deny that for a second. I get wrapped up just like a lot of people. But discussion really is a wholly positive thing for me, no matter where it leads. You always learn something.

Possible, yes, but not inevitable. I'm not going to claim that I wouldn't be effected by such techniques, but I do think a person is better equipped to withstand manipulation if they know themselves really well. Knowledge of self is key to everything.