Atheists - Check Mate!

Post Reply New Topic

[quote="skafather84"Eris is the goddess of chaos but just because they're named doesn't mean they exist.[/quote]
But Eris does exist. It's the minor planet outside Pluto's orbit that started all the controversy about what exactly a planet really is. (Its discoverer gave it the placeholder name "Xena", but since that's from a TV show and not ancient mythology, the IAU renamed it.)

^ lol quote fail.

I agree with u ferdinand though.

Umm.... I don't see your point. My senses don't have to be infallible to be reliable, and anything that I perceive is dependent upon fallible senses or information processing by my brain, so I don't see how misperceiving a puddle really proves anything either way. My distrust of Descartes is in his foundationalism, as I think it is too naive and the notion of the evil genius irrefutable.


Well, you mean deism, and I suppose we can argue that deism is less bad than other theisms, but it still lacks a lot to recommend it. It is basically the ultimate god of the gaps idea.


The universe coming into existence 5 minutes ago cannot be tested, so you can't make the distinction you made.

I don't think that 100% is a very useful idea, nor do I think that whether a human being comes to believe something has any epistemic weight beyond that of their epistemic faculties as they apply to the matter. (which may or may not be any good at all)

So, I really don't see any point in the relativist proposition you put forward. I don't care who believes the earth is flat, it has nothing to do with whether I think I know an answer. The idea that a bunch of idiots can determine how true I consider something seems ridiculous to me, as why not uphold ANY OTHER ABSURDITY as a matter of indifference?

Even further, I would have to argue that poor reasoning is a disservice to my pleasure and the human race, so y'know, that works for me.


You don't understand the argument. The argument holds that an absence of evidence is an evidence of absence, meaning that a lack of evidence of the absence of God/whatever have you isn't required to hold that God/whatever have you does not exist, but the mere lack of evidence for God/whatever have you is enough to claim that God/whatever have you does not exist.


Umm.. I do not understand you insulted nobody nor were you rude.

No, but I still don't take the idea seriously.

You don't understand the argument. The argument holds that an absence of evidence is an evidence of absence, meaning that a lack of evidence of the absence of God/whatever have you isn't required to hold that God/whatever have you does not exist, but the mere lack of evidence for God/whatever have you is enough to claim that God/whatever have you does not exist.

[quote]

^^Greetings again Awesomely Glorious. I am sorry, however I do believe I understood. Perhaps I was not clear. "The absence of God" and the "The existence of God", are both statements to be proved. What I said is that there is no proof for either, thus presenting evidence for the other. This nullifies Orwell's argument.

Though I think there is evidence, which is different to proof, for both statements. I personally believe, for example, that the bible is evidence, but not proof for the existence of God, as in many ways the bible is similar to a witness's tale.

I am not attempting to imply that the those who believe in God are correct, just that they may be correct. (^^ Similarly that atheists may be correct).

Concerning the Elvis argument again, I was attempting to justify my agnostic stance. I think the difference we have is that you consider the believers to be idiots, with no reason to believe this, whereas I believe that they do have reason to believe this, otherwise they would not believe it. (Assuming they are not lying about their beliefs).

My reason for this is that I can only ever experience what I have experienced. In other terms, I can only be myself. They can only be themselves. We can only believe what we believe. Therefore I wish to understand them, empathise that they are very similar to myself in such a manner. Certainly, perhaps I may preach my beliefs to them, but if they cannot believe what I believe, then that is that. I do not consider them idiots. Because, if I did, then they would be equally justified to consider me an idiot.

I am not saying this is evidence to their beliefs - just how I wish to act in such circumstances.

Threads like this are why the this forum section needs an age limit... Like at least 16+ or maybe you have to earn the right to post here by applying to post on this board.

My point is that there is room for doubt and that everyone should question what they think they know. I am not suggesting that people shouldn't make basic assumptions and act on them (not doing that would paralyze everyone), but rather that they use the same critical thinking when it comes to what they believe as they do when they analyze what others believe. Even experienced scientists have to remind themselves to do this to some extent, not to blind themselves to the flaws in their own conclusions. We all have to beware the false puddles in our field of vision.



How is it more so than any other theism? It's still a goddidit thing.




Carbon dating? Shoot, you can X-ray my bones and tell I'm over 18 years old!

~Kate

No, I think 17.

^^I believe that I agree with you completely Meow101, particularly concerning analysing one's own beliefs.

I didn't deny anything of that nature though. The issue is that awareness shouldn't mean an omni-agnosticism or anything close for that matter.


I think most other theisms suck, so that's my point.


Umm....... FAIL!! !

Using physical methods to determine the physical age of things relies upon the reliability of our knowledge of physics. If reality is really only 5 minutes old though, then most of our methods and assumptions are wrong because we are assuming an age longer than 5 minutes. We can't prove that things aren't younger and only have apparent age though.

Depends. I tend to process this on two different levels at the same time, a practical level and a logical/philosophical level. On a practical level, as in what I *do*, I make basic assumptions that I *believe* are true, and in that sense I guess you can say I *behave* as an atheist, because I don't worship any god(s) or even, outside of discussions such as this one, or to battle the Religious Right over civil liberties, give the supernatural much thought. I *behave* as though it's been proven beyond a doubt that vaccines do not cause autism, because I really don't believe they do, based on the studies I've read. On a logical and philosophical level, though, to be intellectually honest, I cannot, especially when it comes to metaphysical things that have no way of being falsified, go that last few centimeters and dismiss altogether what is possible.



If we're going to throw out scientific method, then the physical lands in the same ballpark with the metaphysical, no way of testing.

~Kate

We have here now four pages of intricate mental wrestling with the idiotic proposal that naming something gives it physical reality. If nothing else, it says a good deal about this forum.

Not physical but abstract.

~Kate

Proof is a useful concept only in mathematics. In all other areas, we can accept a sufficient level of evidence as equivalent (for all practical purposes) to "proof." Is there any proof that ingesting large quantities of cyanide would kill you? No, but there is enough evidence that no rational person will think it safe to drink cyanide.

To go back to my previous example: my apartment is small and uncluttered. A thorough search that fails to find my missing USB drive can conclude that it is not here. We can count that as "proof." A dozen studies look for and do not find any connection between vaccines, and we can take that as proof that such a connection does not exist.


I fail to see how this is a problem for me, given that I am a Christian.

Even so, I don't think I understand your argument. Absence of evidence of absence is evidence of presence? I am now confused.