|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 9, 2005 8:41:13 GMT -5
You wanted a response from an atheist, well - here I am! But don't complain about me starting the religious debates like on the old board. I didnt start this one  Good to see Fox propagating the same old nonsense A law is secular if it's arrived at by rational observation of reality. Just passing a law through congress doesn't make it secular. By your standard, Iran has nothing but secular laws. And that's pretty ridiculous. |
|
Fox
Monument  ![]() http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Feb 9, 2005 10:01:20 GMT -5
You wanted a response from an atheist, well - here I am! But don't complain about me starting the religious debates like on the old board. I didnt start this one Good to see Fox propagating the same old nonsense A law is secular if it's arrived at by rational observation of reality. Just passing a law through congress doesn't make it secular. By your standard, Iran has nothing but secular laws. And that's pretty ridiculous. A "rational observation of reality"  Which is mutally exclusive from morallity upon which all laws are based. your example actually works well because the US is a secular republic and Iran is a theocratic one. Here people can propose and stupid law for any stupid reason, there its all derived from Islam (as stated by their constitution) |
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands  ![]() http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Feb 9, 2005 19:21:48 GMT -5
Don't remember you saying you were an atheist on the old board Progster. I guess that discussion was pretty taboo over there, nice thing about separate rooms and threads. Nobody should complain...the title is it's own disclaimer. So what say you about the non-existance of God? Don't think anyone in here will want to fight....just a heated debate maybe...  Seth |
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 10, 2005 8:46:07 GMT -5
That's kinda funny, Seth. I think most old board regulars would say that if I'm known for anything, then it's my religious arguments lol. I'm not just any random atheist, either. I'm the President of UMD Atheist Students Association. I wrote up a bunch of arguments for our group website, so if you wanna check them out here's the link: www.wam.umd.edu/~autis/arguments.htmlI always welcome constructive criticism Andrey |
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands ![]() http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Feb 10, 2005 18:06:46 GMT -5
I remember a few religious discussions, but didn't want to promote too much myself. Figured it wasn't welcome, but it should work better here. You probably did mention your stand a few times and I may have missed it or forgot. I will look at your site soon(probably over the weekend) and comment. I think you and Sir Van Morrison...oops I mean Talvin...  could probably have a good debate on this. While I have many arguements, seems like one of his specialties...  For now, would you agree that atheism is a religion itself...or an act of faith as the Sir says? Seth |
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 10, 2005 19:35:05 GMT -5
I would very strongly disagree. Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair color Religion must involve a belief in something, in the sense of having faith. Atheism is not a belief, it's lack of beliefs. You may argue that athiests "believe that there is no God", which in a certain vague sense is true, but not in the sense of having faith in God's non-existence. Atheists think that there is no God because they have some rational reason to think that. It's not a matter of having unquestionable faith in this worldview. This as opposed to say Christians, who in the face of overwhelmingly controversial evidence regarding the origins of life still refuse to classify themselves as at least "unsure". |
|
BenMech
At Fates Hands ![]() http://www.fat
The One You Warned Me Of
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by BenMech on Feb 11, 2005 9:16:55 GMT -5
The problem with Atheism is that the atheists still put some weight on the idea that there is a something worth declaring Nonexistent in a relevant present tense.
Whereas, the truth of the matter is that even if there WAS once a deity (or more), it is now dead, obsolete, futile and unimportant, which reminds me of a Kids in the Hall sketch where they found god… as a fat, wasted corpse.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument ![]() http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Feb 11, 2005 11:31:08 GMT -5
Religion must involve a belief in something, in the sense of having faith. Atheism is not a belief, it's lack of beliefs. You may argue that athiests "believe that there is no God", which in a certain vague sense is true, but not in the sense of having faith in God's non-existence.  ).
B. I have faith in the non-existence of ProgRocker.Tell me, please, how is "A" different from "B"?
How ridiculous would I sound if I parroted your reasoning into a mathematical analogy like: You may argue that "2+2=4", which in a vague sense is true, but that's not the same as "3+1=4".Talk about splitting hairs! You are a mathematician, yes? I could be a condescending prick and remind you that (1+1+1) + 1 = 4 is the same as (1+1) + (1+1) = 4 but I'm not gonna do that, now, am I?[/s][/color]  Atheists think (read: believe) that there is no God because they have some rational reason to think that.
Of course, I added that parentheses in your sentence to emphasize--once again--that a belief in no god is an act of faith.It's not a matter of having unquestionable faith in this worldview. This as opposed to say Christians, who in the face of overwhelmingly controversial evidence regarding the origins of life still refuse to classify themselves as at least "unsure". |
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument ![]() http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Feb 11, 2005 11:51:41 GMT -5
...Sir Van Morrison...oops I mean Talvin... What? How dare you! I am no Lizard king! Ooops, sorry, let's keep this on topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 11, 2005 14:29:48 GMT -5
Sir Van Talvin, are you a student of Fox by any chance? You seem to make the same arguments that he's made for the last few years. Atheism is not a belief in something, and it's not a belief in nothing. It's merely an assertion that God doesn't exist, not based on faith, but based on complete lack of evidence of God's existence. It's as much a religion as saying that invisible unicorns don't exist. I have no proof that they dont, nor can there be one. But overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence in of itself. I dont worship science. Perhaps I reverse science in the sense that I find some mathematical proofs to be aesthetically appealing. I also find many churches and mosques to be aesthetically appealing, but it doesn't make the philosophy any more or less true. As to your non-existence of ProgRocker theory just take a look at how the more educated Christians explain their views. Every educated Christian that I ever argued with (including Fox on the old board) have conceded that they have no objective proof or evidence of God. Their argument usually goes "to me personally, this experience was a revelation". That is faith. If you had a revelation that I dont exist, that would be faith. If a person under the name of ProgRocker had never posted on this board, and you observed that, then you would rationally assert that "there is no poster named ProgRocker on this board". I am very unsure... ... very unsure what the origin of life is. I am sure that none of the plausible theories involve God. Which is why I am making the assertion that God doesn't exist. I dont "believe" that God doesnt exist. What would be the point of that? Any given statement is either true or false, my belief or disbelief has no effect on that. I'm just trying to find out what the truth is. When evidence is so overwhelmingly one-sided, it's rational to accept the answer. It's like gravity. It could be the case that if I drop a coin, it only falls with probability 90%, and it just hangs in the air forever with probability 10%. So far we've been very lucky, everything we've dropped has fallen. But it's still possible that one day a coin will just hang in the air forever. You are saying that we shouldn't buy into the theory of gravity then, because it could be false despite millenia of evidence. |
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands ![]() http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Feb 13, 2005 18:04:08 GMT -5
Been wanting to jump in on this, but man I am sick as dog...  Not stomach as that would suggest, just a sinus infection and maybe the flu....sucks ass. Enough whining though...I did read some of your site progster and will have some thoughts eventually. Seth |
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument ![]() http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Feb 13, 2005 22:48:23 GMT -5
It's merely an assertion that God doesn't exist, not based on faith, but based on complete lack of evidence of God's existence.
I went to the trouble of looking up the definition of "assert" in various on-line dictionaries and I liked very much what I found. The common thread in all the primary definitions (there were 2 or more alternative definitions in each dicitionary) was the idea of "...stating something as being true."
To wit, here's some of what I found:From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "....state (a fact or belief) confidently and forcefully"From the Cambridge Dictionary of American English:" to state (an opinion) or claim (a right) forcefully"The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary also adds: " Assert implies stating confidently without the need for proof or regard for evidence." The bottom line is that the concepts of "belief" and "assert" or "assertion" can not be divorced. So it is true that atheism is an assertion that God does not exist; and as an assertion, it is an act of faith. What you regard as a "complete lack of evidence of God's existence" is also an assertion (act of faith), because I assert (rightfully so) that you can not possibly exhaustively research the universe in any attempt to disprove God's existence. In case you missed what I said on page 2, allow me to quote myself:...how can atheists say there is no "higher power", or pantheon of "higher powers", if no one has ever been able to scrutinize every cubic nanometer of the universe? Absent such thorough scrutiny, how can anyone disprove the existence of any such "higher power", or pantheon of "higher powers"? It's as much a religion as saying that invisible unicorns don't exist. I have no proof that they dont, nor can there be one. But overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence in of itself. I dont worship science. Perhaps I reverse science in the sense that I find some mathematical proofs to be aesthetically appealing. I also find many churches and mosques to be aesthetically appealing, but it doesn't make the philosophy any more or less true.
Now, your 3rd sentence there is non-sensical. The aesthectics of an edifice has nothing to do with the veracity of the opinions held by the people who assemble therein. For example, the aesthetics of the buildings on a college campus has nothing to do with whether or not truth is being taught inside those buildings. As to your non-existence of ProgRocker theory just take a look at how the more educated Christians explain their views. Every educated Christian that I ever argued with (including Fox on the old board) have conceded that they have no objective proof or evidence of God. Their argument usually goes "to me personally, this experience was a revelation". That is faith.
First, let's call a spade a spade. I was putting forth a hypothesis (what you called the "non-existence of ProgRocker theory") in the form of two hypothetical statements. I was asking you to tell me the difference between those two hypothetical statements (with the certainty that you would be unable to do so). My point was to demonstrate the absurdity of your attempt to split hairs between "believing that there is no God" and "having faith in God's non-existence".
Second, I don't really care about your experiences with "educated Christians". Forget about them; you're dealing with me, now, and the logical problems I'm foisting upon you. Don't try to sidetrack the issues. I am sure that none of the plausible theories involve God. Which is why I am making the assertion that God doesn't exist. I dont "believe" that God doesnt exist.
How do you not "believe" in your own assertion? That doesn't make sense. I only see four possible ways a person would deal with his own assertion. To demonstrate, I'll use a person accused of committing a crime:1. He correctly asserts his innocence because he truly is innocent and believes it. 2. He falsely asserts his innocence and really believes he is innocent, calling into question his sanity. 3. He falsely asserts his innocence knowing he is guilty (and thus not believe it), but wanting or needing everyone else to believe his assertion. 4. He correctly asserts his innocence, but believes he is guilty, and wants or needs his assertion to be believed. In this case, he is either insane or confused or both! Am I missing something? I think not. Regardless, I invite you to revisit the defintion of "assert". Notice how "belief" is implicit in most and explicit (through the use of parentheses) in some others?What would be the point of that?
Existentialism aside, the point is to be consistent. It's inconsistent of you to say that you don't "believe" in what you assert. Any given statement is either true or false, my belief or disbelief has no effect on that. I'm just trying to find out what the truth is. When evidence is so overwhelmingly one-sided, it's rational to accept the answer. It's like gravity. It could be the case that if I drop a coin, it only falls with probability 90%, and it just hangs in the air forever with probability 10%. So far we've been very lucky, everything we've dropped has fallen. But it's still possible that one day a coin will just hang in the air forever. You are saying that we shouldn't buy into the theory of gravity then, because it could be false despite millenia of evidence.
Gravity is a constant. It's probability is 100%. Everyone is under it's constant pull and everybody is a constant witness this constant effect. It's a provable fact, not just a "theory". On the other hand, the logic and theories that I am debating with you does not fall under the realm of provable facts. So it is quite absurd of you to hypothesize on the 90% probability of gravity's effect and THEN compare my logic to the hypothetical 10% probability of gravity's non-effect. Non sequitur, indeed! |
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 14, 2005 9:13:21 GMT -5
Until you have thoroughly and exhaustively researched every single cubic nanometer of the universe, you can not assert (there's that word again ) any such thing as a "complete lack of evidence of the existence of God." To reiterate my point: if the existence of God can not be disproven, then believing in the non-existence of God is an act of faith. You have yet to prove my logic wrong.I'm asserting complete lack of evidence AS FAR AS SCIENCE GOES. Of course I cant assert complete lack of evidence anywhere in the universe. But that's an unrealistic standard to require. I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way any evidence of God could exist somewhere in the universe. What I'm saying is that it is RATIONAL to think that there is none, assuming that our cosmic vicinity is representative of the universe as a whole, which as far as we know is true. Sure, overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence, but is is INCOMPLETE evidence. No way can there be a complete lack of evidence of the existence of invisible unicorns without the ability to research them--and not just here on Earth, mind you (think universally, and not just globally). Again, you help me prove my point about beliefs that are acts of faith.Well, you're just proving my point. There is exactly as much evidence for invisible unicorns as there is for God. Do you believe in invisible unicorns? If not, then you're just as much of an atheist as I am.
First, let's call a spade a spade. I was putting forth a hypothesis (what you called the "non-existence of ProgRocker theory") in the form of two hypothetical statements. I was asking you to tell me the difference between those two hypothetical statements (with the certainty that you would be unable to do so). My point was to demonstrate the absurdity of your attempt to split hairs between "believing that there is no God" and "having faith in God's non-existence". Well that's very easy. There is no evidence of God's existence, there is plenty of evidence of ProgRocker's existence. Hypothetically, of course, there is a huge difference. You conveniently forget that, even though not explicitly mentioned, it is understood that ProgRocker is a human being. We know that human beings exist. We only need to know if one particular human being exists. We know the search space: everyone on Earth. So we could potentially seach for this ProgRocker. This option is not available with God. The issue is really the following: 1. If ProgRocker exists, then he is a human being, so we could potentially look at every human being and see if he exists. There is a finite search space. 2. If God exists, then the evidence of his existence is elsewhere in the universe, therefore some place in the universe is fundamentally different from anything we can observe from here. This contradicts the current scientific knowledge. (existence of God by itself doesnt contradict the current scientific knowledge, but the existence of a place we cannot observe from here does) Exactly how do you factually preclude the involvement of God in evolution? Since it can't be done, all that's left for you is to take it on faith that "none of the plausible theories involve God".Umm, no. The theory of evolution doesn't involve God, it's a fact. It doesn't preclude God's existence. But it doesn't require it, either, which was my point. If evolution required God, that would be evidence of its existence. Evolution doesn't preclude invisible allpowerful unicorns either. How do you not "believe" in your own assertion? That doesn't make sense. I only see four possible ways a person would deal with his own assertion. You seem to be missing the suble difference between "believe", "think", and "have faith". I believe in my assertion, in the sense that I think it to be true. I dont "believe" in it in the sense of ignoring all the evidence against it and blindly marching on. That's the religious belief. I'm sure everybody to some degree or another is in a search for the truth. What I like doing is challenging atheists to defend what they believe to be truth.Well you could start by reading the arguments I posted on my website. There's a link up in this thread. Knowing that you could not possibly know everything there is to know about the earth on which you reside (and even less about the universe which contains this earth), if you deem such woefully incomplete knowledge about all there is to be "overwhelming evidence", then I'd have to accuse you of not thinking big enough. Plain and simple.Then I'd have to accuse you of living in a fantasy world Some people will say we dont know anything except the logical tautologies, because everything we percieve is filtered through our perception organs. We dont know if this is REALLY what is happening. That's an impossible standard to live up to, just like yours. I live in the real world, and I draw my conclusions from the AVAILABLE evidence. Gravity is a constant. It's probability is 100%. Everyone is under it's constant pull and everybody is a constant witness this constant effect. It's a provable fact, not just a "theory". [/quote] Really? Can you prove that? We THINK it's 100% probability, because it has worked every time so far. But what if it doesnt work tomorrow? It could happen. Prove that it couldn't. And dont cite our experience on Earth. I bet there is a planet out there that we cant see in our telescopes where gravity just doesnt exist
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument ![]() http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Feb 14, 2005 14:15:00 GMT -5
I only have time to deal with the hypopthesis on ProgRocker's existence right now.
AGAIN, you miss the point! First, let me re-quote you for context:
You may argue that athiests "believe that there is no God", which in a certain vague sense is true, but not in the sense of having faith in God's non-existence.
B. I have faith in the non-existence of ProgRocker.I asked you to tell me how point "A" is different from point "B". It had nothing to do with whether or not I actually believed in this hypothesis, or the merits (or lack thereof) of this hypothesis, but rather if you could explain the difference between statement "A" and statement "B". I maintain that there is no difference.
Now, I have to run off somewhere and do some work.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 14, 2005 15:02:48 GMT -5
There may or may not be a difference between statement A and B, depending on the speaker. The word "believe" is vague, and has two different meanings, which is why I try to avoid it. Let me try to pinpoint this difference.
Statement B: I have faith in the non-existence of ProgRocker.
This means that you are convinced that ProgRocker doesn't exist, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make you change your mind.
Statement A: I believe that there is no ProgRocker.
Meaning #1: I have faith in the non-existence of ProgRocker.
Same as statement B
Meaning #2: I think it is the case that there is no ProgRocker
In other words, you have some reasons to think that there is no ProgRocker, but if there is such a person, and you see some evidence for it, you're perfectly willing to change your mind.
Atheists believe that there is no God only in the sense of meaning #2. Which is why I insist on using the word "assertion" and "think to be true" instead of believe.
Semantic ambiguity is a favorite tool of theists. Not only in trying to convince atheists that it's a religion, but also in most of the existence of God arguments. But I think your time would be better spent trying to come up with an argument for existence of God, rather than nitpicking the definitions.
|
|
