Page 26 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 33  Next

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

06 Jul 2015, 10:30 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Do you mean the lengthy and off-topic lecture on the nature of reality in which you unironically described a magical, physics-defying table as being a valid component of a physical model? Declining to respond is not the same thing as ignoring. I disagree with the subjective conclusion which informs your belief that your morals are objective.


No. Geez, the vanishing table was merely a metaphor, an example given to demonstrate a point, the point being that atemporal causality works. I don't actually believe that tables can literally do this (although there are some zany cosmologists who insist that entire universes can pop into existence).

Why do so many atheists and the majority of theists take everything literally? I guess they are one of a kind - stubborn dogmatists.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

06 Jul 2015, 11:24 pm

Lintar wrote:
No. Geez, the vanishing table was merely a metaphor, an example given to demonstrate a point, the point being that atemporal causality works. I don't actually believe that tables can literally do this (although there are some zany cosmologists who insist that entire universes can pop into existence).


You used a metaphorical magic table as part of a nonsensical model in a bid to describe physical reality. I took your example as an absurdity, not as literal, hence my casual dismissal and declination to initially respond (which you characterised as ignoring).

Now you're proposing that your (lengthy) list of assertions about physical reality were not to be taken literally. What, then, was the point of this ridiculous metaphorical endeavour?

Ah yes, you were attempting to provide an answer to a question aimed at ascertaining the subjective opinion of a third party.

Quote:
Why do so many atheists and the majority of theists take everything literally? I guess they are one of a kind - stubborn dogmatists.


:roll:



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

06 Jul 2015, 11:30 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Lintar wrote:
No. Geez, the vanishing table was merely a metaphor, an example given to demonstrate a point, the point being that atemporal causality works. I don't actually believe that tables can literally do this (although there are some zany cosmologists who insist that entire universes can pop into existence).


You used a metaphorical magic table as part of a nonsensical model in a bid to describe physical reality. I took your example as an absurdity, not as literal, hence my casual dismissal and declination to initially respond (which you characterised as ignoring).

Now you're proposing that your (lengthy) list of assertions about physical reality were not to be taken literally. What, then, was the point of this ridiculous metaphorical endeavour?

Ah yes, you were attempting to provide an answer to a question aimed at ascertaining the subjective opinion of a third party.

Quote:
Why do so many atheists and the majority of theists take everything literally? I guess they are one of a kind - stubborn dogmatists.


:roll:


Okay, whatever. I'm clearly wasting my time here. You can't argue with a person of blind faith, that's for sure.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

06 Jul 2015, 11:40 pm

Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.


No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there are no Gods.


Atheism is general or specific disbelief in the existence of gods.

From:

Atheist

n.

One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a god.

Agnosticism is either-

Belief that nothing is or can be known about immaterial things (especially gods).

Or

Lack of persuasion to a specific point of view (e.g. skepticism/sceptisism or apolitical).

Lintar wrote:
Okay, whatever. I'm clearly wasting my time here. You can't argue with a person of blind faith, that's for sure.


No? I think that I (and others) have done rather a splendid job of doing just that within this thread, but by all means wave your white flag and slink away.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

06 Jul 2015, 11:46 pm

JakJak wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.
Atheism is a belief system that is every bit as much a superstitious religion as voodoo. It has its own esoterica, prophets and high priests along with a plethora of irrational prejudices that have become unassailable dogma needing no justification other than that they suit the ideology.


No. Atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods. Most atheists would believe if there were solid proof. There isn't. To say that it holds irrational prejudices, you have to say the same for all other religions, because they believe that they are the ones who have it right, which means that all others are wrong. So, in that aspect, there is no difference. This is only a cheap way of singling out atheists, when it actually applies to every person on the planet.

It is not an ideology. It is not a religion. It just very simply means that the person holds no religion. To say otherwise is equally as rude as telling any other person that they are not of the religion that they claim to be.
You can count on me to be "rude" as I have "personality defects" fairly common to autistic types in that I am not the slightest interested in, or skilled at, "political correctness" or any other kind of "diplomacy".

Hair-splitting about a definition of Atheism will not save you from being a subscriber to a belief system that asserts (dogmatically) that God does not exist and that everything that does exist is physically tangible in one way or another.

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose; but it is a complete waste of time to present it because your lot will dismiss and ignore it for no reason other than that it is inconvenient to the prejudices of your religious ideology. i.e. "irrational prejudices that have become unassailable dogma needing no justification other than that they suit the ideology." In other words, Atheists will summarily reject anything, on any pretext at all, that conflicts their religious ideology.

For example; there has been presented here plenty of observational, logical (scientific) evidence that the main dogma of Atheism (i.e. "Evolution") is scientifically impossible. That has resulted in nothing more interesting than a flurry of heckling and evasions in the form of irrational and irrelevant accusations.
Quote:
This is only a cheap way of singling out atheists, when it actually applies to every person on the planet.
You are implying that "every person on the Planet" is as irrational as an Atheist?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

06 Jul 2015, 11:52 pm

Oldavid wrote:
There is plenty of evidence that the Universe is intelligently ordered for a purpose;
There's also plenty of evidence of the randomness of evolution. if there was an intelligent designer, why would they have made humans with only one heart? why is there an appendix organ in humans that serves no purpose aside from maintaining rectal flora but will kill someone easily if it gets perforated? this kind of thing belies any claim of intelligent design.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jul 2015, 12:07 am

Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.


No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there are no Gods.

atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jul 2015, 12:16 am

just because we don't know exactly how things started, doesn't mean god did it. we know more things every day. the reasons to use god as an explanation are getting to be fewer and fewer. used to be folks thought illness was a sign of god's displeasure. now we know about bacteria and mutations.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

07 Jul 2015, 1:13 am

cathylynn wrote:
just because we don't know exactly how things started, doesn't mean god did it. we know more things every day. the reasons to use god as an explanation are getting to be fewer and fewer. used to be folks thought illness was a sign of god's displeasure. now we know about bacteria and mutations.
Scientific agnosticism (you can't really know everything) does not mean that you can't know anything. More importantly, that we can't witness the "start" of the Universe does not mean that any fantastic presumption is a "valid hypothesis". Reality is inevitably stuck in the real.

Bacteria and mutations do not explain how or why they exist. A question does not equal an answer.

Obfuscation does not eliminate the problem; changeable things exist: where did they come from and why?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 1:19 am

Oldavid wrote:
Obfuscation does not eliminate the problem; changeable things exist: where did they come from and why?
chance is the where, time is the why.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jul 2015, 1:22 am

Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
just because we don't know exactly how things started, doesn't mean god did it. we know more things every day. the reasons to use god as an explanation are getting to be fewer and fewer. used to be folks thought illness was a sign of god's displeasure. now we know about bacteria and mutations.
Scientific agnosticism (you can't really know everything) does not mean that you can't know anything. More importantly, that we can't witness the "start" of the Universe does not mean that any fantastic presumption is a "valid hypothesis". Reality is inevitably stuck in the real.

Bacteria and mutations do not explain how or why they exist. A question does not equal an answer.

Obfuscation does not eliminate the problem; changeable things exist: where did they come from and why?

how they exist is explained by physics and chemistry. why they exist is probably not for the betterment of man, the universe is indifferent.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

07 Jul 2015, 1:29 am

cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.


No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there are no Gods.

atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
Atheism (A - theism; literally, there is no God) is a positive statement of belief. You believe that there is no God.

Agnosticism (A - gnosticism; literally, you cannot know) is also a positive statement of belief... the only thing you can know is that you cannot know anything. Irrationality has no bounds.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 1:33 am

Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.


No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there are no Gods.

atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
Atheism (A - theism; literally, there is no God) is a positive statement of belief. You believe that there is no God.

Agnosticism (A - gnosticism; literally, you cannot know) is also a positive statement of belief... the only thing you can know is that you cannot know anything. Irrationality has no bounds.
a lack of belief is the same as believing in something in the same way not keeping snowglobes is a hobby.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

07 Jul 2015, 1:34 am

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Obfuscation does not eliminate the problem; changeable things exist: where did they come from and why?
chance is the where, time is the why.
Give us examples of where and why.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

07 Jul 2015, 1:39 am

Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.


No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there are no Gods.

atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
Atheism (A - theism; literally, there is no God) is a positive statement of belief. You believe that there is no God.

Agnosticism (A - gnosticism; literally, you cannot know) is also a positive statement of belief... the only thing you can know is that you cannot know anything. Irrationality has no bounds.

how sporting of you to think you know what i believe. i have no belief in god. i don't believe there is no god. i believe god is vanishingly unlikely.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

07 Jul 2015, 1:47 am

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
Lintar wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
atheism is not a belief. it's a lack of belief.


No, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there are no Gods.

atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.
Atheism (A - theism; literally, there is no God) is a positive statement of belief. You believe that there is no God.

Agnosticism (A - gnosticism; literally, you cannot know) is also a positive statement of belief... the only thing you can know is that you cannot know anything. Irrationality has no bounds.
a lack of belief is the same as believing in something in the same way not keeping snowglobes is a hobby.
I do not believe that you are rational. I believe you are irrational. You will, no doubt, explain the difference in meaning between the two statements?