Atheism=Religion=Pointless

[Yig]

Can someone here please explain to me why atheism is just not another religion?

Believing that there is no God seems as pointless as believing that there is one.

[Gawdzilla]

Can someone here please explain to me why atheism is just not another religion?

Believing that there is no God seems as pointless as believing that there is one.

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.

[mikeyx]

Can someone here please explain to me why atheism is just not another religion?

Believing that there is no God seems as pointless as believing that there is one.

it essentially is, thing is it's those who force their beliefs on others, be they baptist, atheist, republican, liberal, the word that is consistent is obnoxious.

[Yig]

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.
Explain.

[Yig]

it essentially is, thing is it's those who force their beliefs on others, be they baptist, atheist, republican, liberal, the word that is consistent is obnoxious.
Agreed.

[bikerdruid]

if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[shandyjan]

So believing there are no unicorns is as pointless as believing there are? I know which side I'm on. How can not believing be pointless, you either believe or you don't.

[Gawdzilla]

Explain.

It's the absence of religion. Not "another" religion.

[Yig]

So believing there are no unicorns is as pointless as believing there are? I know which side I'm on. How can not believing be pointless, you either believe or you don't.
Don't pretend that believing in unicorns is the same thing as believing in God. The existence of unicorns(or lack thereof) is verifiable. God's existence isn't.

[Gawdzilla]

Who's on dart gun duty tonight?

[bikerdruid]

Don't pretend that believing in unicorns is the same thing as believing in God. The existence of unicorns(or lack thereof) is verifiable. God's existence isn't.

wrong...you can not prove that there have never been unicorns.

[John Jones]

Not this again!

OP, what do you understand an atheist to be?

[Puppycow]

Can someone explain to me why silence is not just another kind of noise?

And what's the point of it anyway?

[Gawdzilla]

Can someone explain to me why silence is not just another kind of noise?

And what's the point of it anyway?

Dry is just another kind of wet, you know.

[Yig]

It's the absence of religion. Not "another" religion.

So you are willing to acknowledge the possibility of God ,or something like it, existing?

[Gawdzilla]

So you are willing to acknowledge the possibility of God ,or something like it, existing?

No evidence. Whatcha got?

[Mr. Purple]

if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Awesome, funny, accurate.

[Yig]

wrong...you can not prove that there have never been unicorns.
Hahaha......Just like you can't prove that God does not exist.

[phatred]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Which definition would best fit atheism?

[Gawdzilla]

Hahaha......Just like you can't prove that God does not exist.

It's not on us to prove gods don't exist, you claim they do, you prove they do.

[Yig]

No evidence. Whatcha got?
"Evidence" is open to interpretation. The logic is what really matters.

[Puppycow]

Don't pretend that believing in unicorns is the same thing as believing in God. The existence of unicorns(or lack thereof) is verifiable. God's existence isn't.

Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

You don't have to "prove" that there is no god to be an atheist.
You just have to not believe the claims of the religious.

If you prefer, you can call yourself agnostic, but that sort of sounds like you think religious claims might be true. Like the Earth might possibly be 6000 years old, and Jesus might possibly have died and been resurrected, and angels might possibly exist. It does not necessarily mean these things, but it vaguely feels that way, whereas if you say you are an atheist, it's pretty clear that you don't think any of those things could possibly be true.

[Puppycow]

So you are willing to acknowledge the possibility of God ,or something like it, existing?

Define God.

[Yig]

It's not on us to prove gods don't exist, you claim they do, you prove they do.
I never claimed that "Gods" exist. Do you claim that they don't?

[Gao]

So you are willing to acknowledge the possibility of God ,or something like it, existing?

Most of us will. Just like most of us will acknowledge that on some planet somewhere in the universe, there could in fact be something that we could describe as unicorns. We just don't believe that such things exist.

This, however, refers to "God" in a rather vague way. It does not necessarily mean that there aren't specific gods that we know don't exist. For instance, there is no God that inspired an inerrant Bible, as the Bible has plenty of errors, and there is no totally omnipotent and omniscient deity, as those attributes are contradictory.

[Gawdzilla]

"Evidence" is open to interpretation. The logic is what really matters.

Sorry, that old dog won't hunt.

[John Jones]

Hahaha......Just like you can't prove that God does not exist.

That's pretty much impossible - that's why there's this thing called the burden of proof. The burden lies on those making the positive claim of existence.

Are you now, or have you ever been a staff member or student at Bob Jones University?

[Gawdzilla]

I never claimed that "Gods" exist. Do you claim that they don't?

I have no evidence that gods exist. Do you?

[John Jones]

"Evidence" is open to interpretation. The logic is what really matters.

Let's see your logic.

[Yig]

Define God.
Something akin to an intelligent designer.

[Gawdzilla]

Something akin to an intelligent designer.

Oh, god.

[John Jones]

Something akin to an intelligent designer.

Do you have evidence that such a thing exists?

[Gao]

Something akin to an intelligent designer.

Can you be a bit more specific? I mean by this definition, an engineer is a god.

[Yig]

That's pretty much impossible - that's why there's this thing called the burden of proof. The burden lies on those making the positive claim of existence.

Are you now, or have you ever been a staff member or student at Bob Jones University?
All arguments require a justification.

[Gao]

All arguments require a justification.

But what about those who state that they simply haven't been convinced of any deities and therefore don't believe that any exist?

[bikerdruid]

Hahaha......Just like you can't prove that God does not exist.

exactly

.

[Yig]

Can you be a bit more specific? I mean by this definition, an engineer is a god.
You know what I mean. Richard Dawkins argues that it does not exist.

[John Jones]

All arguments require a justification.

That's a right nice platitude.

Have you got any arguments?

[Yig]

But what about those who state that they simply haven't been convinced of any deities and therefore don't believe that any exist?
Yeah....Those too.

[KingMerv00]

Hahaha......Just like you can't prove that God does not exist.


Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

[fishbob]

Something akin to an intelligent designer.

The sum total of the evidence favoring the existence of an intelligent designer is:


Now that you have reviewed and evaluated the data, please string these facts together in such a way as to support the existence of an intelligent designer.

[Marduk]

yreg, is that you
:p

[Puppycow]

Something akin to an intelligent designer.

Then humans are gods, because humans are intelligent and we design things.

[Yig]

That's a right nice platitude.

Have you got any arguments?
I find it interesting how everyone here confuses acknowledging the possibility that something might exist with believing that it does.

[Gao]

You know what I mean. Richard Dawkins argues that it does not exist.

Why should anyone think that such a thing exists in the first place?

[John Jones]

Yeah....Those too.


Those too what? Their statement that they haven't been convinced by the evidence is self-justifying, unless you are claiming that they really believe in god but are pretending not to.

:rolleyes:

[Marduk]

I find it interesting how everyone here confuses acknowledging the possibility that something might exist

Evidence ????
:confused:

[John Jones]

I find it interesting how everyone here confuses acknowledging the possibility that something might exist with believing that it does.


I don't see that confusion. I see you claiming that it exists, and not doing too well in the attempt.

[Yig]

Then humans are gods, because humans are intelligent and we design things.
You can't imagine a scenario in which Human's become technologically advanced enough as to create another universe?

[Yig]

I don't see that confusion. I see you claiming that it exists, and not doing too well in the attempt.
Well then you are seeing things that aren't there.

[Puppycow]

I find it interesting how everyone here confuses acknowledging the possibility that something might exist with believing that it does.

I'm happy to acknowledge that "something" might exist, but there's no point arguing about it until we can agree on a definition for what it is.

Your first attempt to define it was so broad that it includes human beings.

[MarkCorrigan]

I find it interesting how everyone here confuses acknowledging the possibility that something might exist with believing that it does.

Eh? You're conflating not believing in something with stating it does not and cannot exist.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, that's it. An agnostic atheist states god might exist but they have no evidence and /or have seen no reason to believe. A gnostic atheist states absolutely that god does not exist.

Virtually everyone where is an agnostic atheist.

[John Jones]

You can't imagine a scenario in which Human's become technologically advanced enough as to create another universe?

Do you have a point?

[Yig]

Why should anyone think that such a thing exists in the first place?
Why discount any possibilities?

[Puppycow]

You can't imagine a scenario in which Human's become technologically advanced enough as to create another universe?

Like The Matrix?. Sure. But are you saying that humans are gods?

[John Jones]

Well then you are seeing things that aren't there.

Oh really? Allow me to quote you:

I find it interesting how everyone here confuses acknowledging the possibility that something might exist with believing that it does.

Q.E.D.

lol

[Yig]

I'm happy to acknowledge that "something" might exist, but there's no point arguing about it until we can agree on a definition for what it is.

Your first attempt to define it was so broad that it includes human beings.
You don't think that it could?

[MarkCorrigan]

Why discount any possibilities?

Because that would make it impossible to live.

If you discount nothing then you assume literally anything ever suggested is possible. Do you not see how stupid that is?

[Gawdzilla]

Well then you are seeing things that aren't there.

http://rationalia.com/z/Ratz%20Smilies%20Mk%203/index6_files/Groaner.gif

[Yig]

Like The Matrix?. Sure. But are you saying that humans are gods?
No.

[Gawdzilla]

Yig, welcome to the lion's den.

[bokonon]

Virtually everyone here is an agnostic atheist.
Hmmm.

AgAth a Christie?

[Cavemonster]

Why discount any possibilities?

In the broadest sense, I don't discount any possibilities.

There may be some being that we would describe as a god somewhere, there may also be unicorns somewhere in the universe. Anything is possible.

What's relevant though, what influences my day to day behavior and my provisional, pragmatic assumptions, is what is probable, what the evidence suggests.

The evidence is very clear on the the Abrahamic god, on the Norse and Greek and Egyptian gods and everyone I've looked at. Their texts and claims are self contradictory and at odds with the world as it is observed, recorded and predicted.

Of course I'm always open to new evidence. I'm just not a fan of the same weak non-evidence being regurgitated again and again.

I am open to the possibility that there may be a god in the way I am open to the possibility I may be wrong about anything else.

I am an agnostic atheist.

[Puppycow]

No.

Then you must come up with a new definition for god.

If your definition of god is any intelligent designer, then human beings are gods.

[John Jones]

Why discount any possibilities?

I have a bottle of Mountain Dew in my refrigerator that is controlling the course and ultimate fate of the universe.

Do you discount that possibility?

[quixotecoyote]

I have a bottle of Mountain Dew in my refrigerator that is controlling the course and ultimate fate of the universe.

Do you discount that possibility?

Obviously. My can of Coke Zero will cast it out in the upcoming apocalypse.

[Weak Kitten]

To me religion and the possible existence of deities is a very important question. Therefore it would be deeply wrong for me to lie about how I feel and what I think. I morally cannot worship any particular deity because I have no evidence of the existence of that deity. I would have to lie to myself about how I feel and what I think. Lying to yourself is the first step towards any number of other horrible moral failings, for if you are willing to lie to yourself what are you willing to do to others?

[Yig]

Touche. I take that back then.......humans could be gods.

[Yig]

I have a bottle of Mountain Dew in my refrigerator that is controlling the course and ultimate fate of the universe.

Do you discount that possibility?
It's not the same thing. That possibility is easily disproved.

[MarkCorrigan]

Touche. I take that back then.......humans could be gods.

Then your definition of god is too broad to be of any use.

Did you know some crows make and use tools and can even make a tool to solve a problem so they can get a tool for getting food? This means they are intelligent designers. Can crows be gods?

[MarkCorrigan]

It's not the same thing. That possibility is easily disproved.

This should be good. Disprove it then.

[John Jones]

It's not the same thing. That possibility is easily disproved.


Then please feel free to disprove the existence of a bottle of Mountain Dew in my ref that is controlling the universe.

I can't wait.

Did I mention that Mountain Dew works in mysterious ways?

[Yig]

In the broadest sense, I don't discount any possibilities.

There may be some being that we would describe as a god somewhere, there may also be unicorns somewhere in the universe. Anything is possible.

What's relevant though, what influences my day to day behavior and my provisional, pragmatic assumptions, is what is probable, what the evidence suggests.

The evidence is very clear on the the Abrahamic god, on the Norse and Greek and Egyptian gods and everyone I've looked at. Their texts and claims are self contradictory and at odds with the world as it is observed, recorded and predicted.

Of course I'm always open to new evidence. I'm just not a fan of the same weak non-evidence being regurgitated again and again.

I am open to the possibility that there may be a god in the way I am open to the possibility I may be wrong about anything else.

I am an agnostic atheist.
I agree with what you say. However, I don't think that the word "evidence" is relevant to any conversation about abstract entities such as "God" or an "intelligent designer".

[John Jones]

I agree with what you say. However, I don't think that the word "evidence" is relevant to any conversation about abstract entities such as "God" or an "intelligent designer".

You haven't given it a lot of thought, then.

[KingMerv00]

Why discount any possibilities?

Because not everything is true.

This thread is moving to fast. I put this at the end of the last page. I think you missed it:

Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

[Gao]

Why discount any possibilities?

We're not. We're just saying that we should not believe it without evidence. At the moment, we haven't seen evidence, so we don't believe. No one here has stated that such a being is impossible.

[Yig]

Then your definition of god is too broad to be of any use.

Did you know some crows make and use tools and can even make a tool to solve a problem so they can get a tool for getting food? This means they are intelligent designers. Can crows be gods?
In a strictly rational sense, yes.

[Yig]

Because not everything is true.

This thread is moving to fast. I put this at the end of the last page. I think you missed it:

Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
Sorry...I trying to respond to everyone.

[elbe]

I fear I am now forced to entertain the idea that you are all part of a race of malevolent, sentient pineapples who are trying to eat my spleen. Since I clearly can not disprove it I must now accept it as a distinct possibility.

[Gao]

I agree with what you say. However, I don't think that the word "evidence" is relevant to any conversation about abstract entities such as "God" or an "intelligent designer".

So how do you determine whether such a being exists at all? After all, anyone can just make up an abstract entity like that. How do you determine which beings are made up and which actually exist?

[Foster Zygote]

So you are willing to acknowledge the possibility of God ,or something like it, existing?

Yes. But until convincing evidence of the existence of gods is presented I will continue to lack belief in them.

[fishbob]

In a strictly rational sense, yes.

What other sense makes any sense?

[Gawdzilla]

I agree with what you say. However, I don't think that the word "evidence" is relevant to any conversation about abstract entities such as "God" or an "intelligent designer".

Okay then, theism and atheism have no meaning. God does/doesn't exist. Pie if money and my teeth dance naked in the moonlight.

[Weak Kitten]

So how do you determine whether such a being exists at all? After all, anyone can just make up an abstract entity like that. How do you determine which beings are made up and which actually exist?

That is an excellent question. Once you start lying to yourself, where do you stop?

[Yig]

Then please feel free to disprove the existence of a bottle of Mountain Dew in my ref that is controlling the universe.

I can't wait.

Did I mention that Mountain Dew works in mysterious ways?
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between statements that are verifiable and statements that are not. Your bottle of mountain dew is available for scientific analysis. A possible intelligent designer isn't.

If you think that it is not possible to disprove your claim then you must also acknowledge that it is not possible to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

[KingMerv00]

Sorry...I trying to respond to everyone.

Take your time. I would like a reply eventually, though.

[RoboTimbo]

Yig, maybe this will help. Define "religion".

[Yig]

I fear I am now forced to entertain the idea that you are all part of a race of malevolent, sentient pineapples who are trying to eat my spleen. Since I clearly can not disprove it I must now accept it as a distinct possibility.
If you can't disprove that statement then you're in a lot of trouble.

[Puppycow]

Did you know some crows make and use tools and can even make a tool to solve a problem so they can get a tool for getting food? This means they are intelligent designers. Can crows be gods?

Making tools isn't quite the same as designing tools, is it?

Human beings are the only animal (that we know of) I would confidently call an intelligent designer right now. Other animals have some rudimentary intelligence, but it would be pushing it a bit to call them "designers."

[Yig]

Because not everything is true.

This thread is moving to fast. I put this at the end of the last page. I think you missed it:

Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
Interesting. I guess my only response to this would be to say that I don't believe the possible existence of an intelligent designer to be as absurd an idea as russell's teapot.

[Yig]

Yig, maybe this will help. Define "religion".
I'll accept the definition that Wikipedia uses.

[Foster Zygote]

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between statements that are verifiable and statements that are not. Your bottle of mountain dew is available for scientific analysis. A possible intelligent designer isn't.

If you think that it is not possible to disprove your claim then you must also acknowledge that it is not possible to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Not being able to disprove something is not a logically sound reason to argue that it is erroneous to lack belief in it. That's pretty much the point of Russell's Teapot.

[elbe]

If you can't disprove that statement then you're in a lot of trouble.

How can I? You can't prove a negative. Now normally I can discount the incredibly unlikely but if I need to accept the possibility of gods than I, apparently, need to accept the possibility of other crazy improbable things.

[RoboTimbo]

I'll accept the definition that Wikipedia uses.

Good, then you should no longer confuse atheism with religion.

Religion - is a set of beliefs
Atheism - is the rejection of belief

Yig, any other questions?

[Yig]

Yes. But until convincing evidence of the existence of gods is presented I will continue to lack belief in them.
Why? The concept is so abstract that believing or not believing in it is irrelevant.

[Cavemonster]

Interesting. I guess my only response to this would be to say that I don't believe the possible existence of an intelligent designer to be as absurd an idea as russell's teapot.

Do you think your own emotional sense of what's absurd is a good guage to use to determine what's true? After all, people all over the world believe disparate and contradictory things that you would find absurd and they don't, and vice versa.

A lot of simple science experiments can show that our common sense, what feels reasonable, is often wrong. That's why we rely on evidence, especially for very important questions. Not emotions.

[Cavemonster]

Why? The concept is so abstract that believing or not believing in it is irrelevant.

It depends what sort of god you're talking about. If it's a deist sort of god, then yes, belief is irrelevant. Personally, I choose my provisional beliefs for usefulness, and i follow Occam's razor. There's less wasted time and energy to pick the most useful model with no unnecessary entities.

Why bother thinking something exists that makes no difference to your life?

[NewtonTrino]

Disproving god is easy. Unicorns on the other hand I have on good authority do actually exist.

[Yig]

Not being able to disprove something is not a logically sound reason to argue that it is erroneous to lack belief in it. That's pretty much the point of Russell's Teapot.
Ok...By the same token, not being able to prove something's existence is not a valid reason to disprove the possibility of it existing.

Is the concept of an intelligent designer really as absurd a concept as Russell's teapot?

[Foster Zygote]

Why? The concept is so abstract that believing or not believing in it is irrelevant.

Lack of belief is the default position. What other position should I maintain than either belief or lack of belief?

[Yig]

Do you think your own emotional sense of what's absurd is a good guage to use to determine what's true? After all, people all over the world believe disparate and contradictory things that you would find absurd and they don't, and vice versa.

A lot of simple science experiments can show that our common sense, what feels reasonable, is often wrong. That's why we rely on evidence, especially for very important questions. Not emotions.
You too are guilty of what you are accusing me of, you just don't see it.

There is no evidence that disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.

[RoboTimbo]

You too are guilty of what you are accusing me of, you just don't see it.

There is no evidence that disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.

There is no evidence to disprove the existence of the Great Green Arkleseizure who sneezed the universe out of his nose.

So any comment on the solution to your OP that I provided?

[NewtonTrino]

There is no evidence that disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.

What are you talking about? I thought scientists had disproved intelligent design a long time ago?

[KingMerv00]

Ok...By the same token, not being able to prove something's existence is not a valid reason to disprove the possibility of it existing.

So do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe the Heaven's Gate cult actually managed to board a spaceship? If not, why not?

In an absolute philosophical sense, you can't rule out any hypothetical. That being said, you can look at individual hypothetical ideas and decide whether or not there are good reasons to believe them. To do anything else is to believe everything at once, including contradicting ideas.

Is the concept of an intelligent designer really as absurd a concept as Russell's teapot?

God is actually more absurd. I know teapots exist and I know they could be placed into orbit. Intelligent designers of universes have never been observed.

[Yig]

It depends what sort of god you're talking about. If it's a deist sort of god, then yes, belief is irrelevant. Personally, I choose my provisional beliefs for usefulness, and i follow Occam's razor. There's less wasted time and energy to pick the most useful model with no unnecessary entities.

Why bother thinking something exists that makes no difference to your life?
I would argue that lack of belief in a God, or in this case, an intelligent designer, is an unnecessary entity for the reasons which I have already stated.

[devnull]

Interesting. I guess my only response to this would be to say that I don't believe the possible existence of an intelligent designer to be as absurd an idea as russell's teapot.

Why?

EDIT: Actually, kingmerv is (once again) much more eloquent in response.

[Gao]

Ok...By the same token, not being able to prove something's existence is not a valid reason to disprove the possibility of it existing.

Please show me one person who said that the possibility of a god of some sort was disproven? We're saying we don't believe that any exist, not that they're impossible. Is this really that hard to understand?

[Yig]

Lack of belief is the default position. What other position should I maintain than either belief or lack of belief?
Maybe for you it is. My point is that it doesn't matter.

[elbe]

Is the concept of an intelligent designer really as absurd a concept as Russell's teapot?

Since all the actual evidence supports natural evolution - or that the designer is an idiot - I find it ridiculous to think it more likely than evolution. (I also find it sadder to reject the majesty of nature, but that's just my opinion)

[Puppycow]

You know what I mean. Richard Dawkins argues that it does not exist.

I think that Richard Dawkins argues that the theory of natural selection is a better theory for explaining the existence of all the species of living organisms than the theory of intelligent design.

That's not the same as saying that no intelligent designers exist. They obviously do.

[Cavemonster]

You too are guilty of what you are accusing me of, you just don't see it.

There is no evidence that disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.

There is evidence that disproves all descriptions of the Abrahamic god.

And as for any other possible gods, I have yet to see a description that has better explanatory and predictive powers than the models science provides.

I choose to embrace models of the universe that are the simplest ones with the best explanatory and predictive powers. The natural, godless model of the earth explains why continents and lightning and animals come out the way they do. It predicts with great accuracy how a disease may be conquered by a vaccine and a rocket may be sent to space.

It is very very useful.

If you can define me a model of god that's more useful, for explaining and predicting events, then I'll embrace it.

[Yig]

What are you talking about? I thought scientists had disproved intelligent design a long time ago?
Hahahaha.

[KingMerv00]

Hahahaha.

Not an argument. If one of us says "Hahahahaha." would you accept that as a legitimate point or simply a gesture of pomposity?

[Foster Zygote]

Ok...By the same token, not being able to prove something's existence is not a valid reason to disprove the possibility of it existing.
I have not claimed that it is. One does not need to disprove the existence of something to lack belief in it. How many people in the 15th century believed in black holes?

Is the concept of an intelligent designer really as absurd a concept as Russell's teapot?
"Absurd" is subjective. Black holes were thought to be quite absurd by many astrophysicists when their existence was proposed.

It is simply about probability and evidence. No testable evidence of an intelligent designer has been presented.

[Cavemonster]

I would argue that lack of belief in a God, or in this case, an intelligent designer, is an unnecessary entity for the reasons which I have already stated.

Then you must be mistaken about the meaning of at least one of the words "lack", "belief" and "entity"

[Foster Zygote]

Maybe for you it is. My point is that it doesn't matter.
What does that even mean?

[devnull]

What are you talking about? I thought scientists had disproved intelligent design a long time ago?

This isnt strictly true.

Every instance of "intelligent design" proposed (the eye, bacterial flagellum etc) has been cut down, but that does not discount the possibility that one day they may come up with an instance that is technically impossible to have evolved.

All you can say for sure is that the hypothesis of ID has no favourable evidence as yet.

I know where my money is though ;)

[Yig]

So do you believe in Zeus? Do you believe the Heaven's Gate cult actually managed to board a spaceship? If not, why not?

In an absolute philosophical sense, you can't rule out any hypothetical. That being said, you can look at individual hypothetical ideas and decide whether or not there are good reasons to believe them. To do anything else is to believe everything at once, including contradicting ideas.



God is actually more absurd. I know teapots exist and I know they could be placed into orbit. Intelligent designers of universes have never been observed.
Just because something has not been observed does not mean it cannot exist.

When you are talking about things which are unverifiable, your belief does not matter.

[Yig]

Since all the actual evidence supports natural evolution - or that the designer is an idiot - I find it ridiculous to think it more likely than evolution. (I also find it sadder to reject the majesty of nature, but that's just my opinion)
What if an intelligent designer designed evolution.

[elbe]

What if an intelligent designer designed evolution.

You mean theistic evolution? Why make the beauty of evolution more complicated by adding a, likely, imaginary being to the mix? And it just leads to the question of where the designer came from.

[Yig]

I think that Richard Dawkins argues that the theory of natural selection is a better theory for explaining the existence of all the species of living organisms than the theory of intelligent design.

That's not the same as saying that no intelligent designers exist. They obviously do.
Agreed, but evolution does not explain away intelligent design.

[devnull]

When you are talking about things which are unverifiable, your belief does not matter.

I think this is the crux of your argument.

Technically, you are correct. Whether I or you believe in anything that is unverifiable has absolutely no effect on whether that thing exists.

However, where your argument falls down is the societal impacts of such beliefs. Belief or non-belief in a deity may not matter, but people act on such beliefs and as such they have impact on the real world.

People fly planes into buildings because of it. How can it not matter?

[Yig]

Not an argument. If one of us says "Hahahahaha." would you accept that as a legitimate point or simply a gesture of pomposity?
I thought he was making a joke.

[Puppycow]

Interesting. I guess my only response to this would be to say that I don't believe the possible existence of an intelligent designer to be as absurd an idea as russell's teapot.

Let's see if I can help you narrow this intelligent designer down.

An intelligent designer of what, specifically? Only the universe itself, or also the species of living things on Earth? In other words, are you suggesting that rats did not not evolve by natural selection, but were deliberately designed by an intelligent designer? Or did the intelligent designer just create the universe and then retire?

[devnull]

Agreed, but evolution does not explain away intelligent design.

You need to be careful with terminology.

Intelligent Design is the assertion that things did not evolve, and that there is evidence within biology that proves that a deity constructed us exactly as we are and that evolution of certain aspects of our biological makeup is/was impossible.

I think you are speaking about theistic evolution, which is the idea that one or deities "seeded" the universe to be an appropriate medium so that they could guide our evolution.

[Skeptic Ginger]

it essentially is, thing is it's those who force their beliefs on others, be they baptist, atheist, republican, liberal, the word that is consistent is obnoxious."Those who force their beliefs on others?" This is a version of a straw man. You are attributing a false characterization the group, atheists.

[Yig]

I have not claimed that it is. One does not need to disprove the existence of something to lack belief in it. How many people in the 15th century believed in black holes?


"Absurd" is subjective. Black holes were thought to be quite absurd by many astrophysicists when their existence was proposed.

It is simply about probability and evidence. No testable evidence of an intelligent designer has been presented.
Agreed. So I'll make my point again:

When a concept extremely abstract, believing or not believing in it is irrelevant. There is no default position which is more logical than the other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't pretend that believing in unicorns is the same thing as believing in God. The existence of unicorns(or lack thereof) is verifiable. God's existence isn't.Prove there are no unicorns in the Universe.

[Yig]

You mean theistic evolution? Why make the beauty of evolution more complicated by adding a, likely, imaginary being to the mix? And it just leads to the question of where the designer came from.
There's going to be questions no matter how you slice it. What difference does it make?

[devnull]

When a concept extremely abstract, believing or not believing in it is irrelevant. There is no default position which is more logical than the other.

So, any wild assertion is just as likely to be true as not?

[MontagK505]

To me religion and the possible existence of deities is a very important question. Therefore it would be deeply wrong for me to lie about how I feel and what I think. I morally cannot worship any particular deity because I have no evidence of the existence of that deity. I would have to lie to myself about how I feel and what I think. Lying to yourself is the first step towards any number of other horrible moral failings, for if you are willing to lie to yourself what are you willing to do to others?

"Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." — Thomas Paine

Self deception is the root of all evil.

[elbe]

There's going to be questions no matter how you slice it. What difference does it make?

Meh, it doesn't bother me if people want to reject scientific evidence in favor of imaginary stories.

[Yig]

I think this is the crux of your argument.

Technically, you are correct. Whether I or you believe in anything that is unverifiable has absolutely no effect on whether that thing exists.

However, where your argument falls down is the societal impacts of such beliefs. Belief or non-belief in a deity may not matter, but people act on such beliefs and as such they have impact on the real world.

People fly planes into buildings because of it. How can it not matter?
And people spend their entire lives feeding starving people in Africa because of it.

The fact that there can be religious terrorists and religious humanitarians implies that it is their interpretation of the religion that is the source of their behavior and not the religion itself. Their interpretation is colored by who they are as an individual. The religion does not matter.

[elbe]

So, any wild assertion is just as likely to be true as not?

See! There's no reason for me not to worry that you're all evil pineapples.

[nvidiot]

Believing in something which you have no evidence for, and admit can never have evidence for, and makes no material or practical difference to any endeavour or field of knowledge known to man, is not logical.

[Yig]

So, any wild assertion is just as likely to be true as not?
No.....Assuming that you could put numbers on such things.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is so much bunk in this thread, where does one start. :rolleyes:

There is overwhelming evidence that evolution theory is correct. No designer is needed and no evidence suggests a designer was involved.

There is overwhelming evidence all gods are mythical beings invented by humans. There is no evidence any real gods ever existed.

The scientific process which evaluates observable/detectable evidence has a tremendous success rate. That's how we know it is the correct means of assessing what is real in the Universe.

God myths have a success rate that is no better than chance. There is evidence god myths can be successful when used to manipulate people. That's it. You cannot pray and expect the gods to tell you when to seek shelter from a hurricane and the Bible is terrible for explaining the observable/detectable evidence.


There you have it in a nutshell. The reason atheism is not a religion is it has the unique aspect of being consistent with the observable/detectable evidence. There are no religions involving god beliefs that can make that claim.

There are atheists who've formed religious organizations like some of the humanists groups. But just gathering with like minded people such as the mountaineers is not defined as a religious meeting. Humanist associations might in some cases qualify as a religious associations, but that's a grey area.

[Yig]

Meh, it doesn't bother me if people want to reject scientific evidence in favor of imaginary stories.
Who said anything about rejecting scientific evidence?

[elbe]

Who said anything about rejecting scientific evidence?

When you start considering creationism as true...

[Yig]

Believing in something which you have no evidence for, and admit can never have evidence for, and makes no material or practical difference to any endeavour or field of knowledge known to man, is not logical.
Why?

[nvidiot]

Because there is no intrisic difference between believing in something that does nothing and doesn't have any observable interaction with the universe as we can detect it the default position logically is to LACK belief. Belief is a positive process which requires reasonable evidence.

As another poster put it, and many before them, would you regard not stamp collecting as a hobby? Does such a statement make any kind of logical sense?

[Foster Zygote]

Agreed. So I'll make my point again:

When a concept extremely abstract, believing or not believing in it is irrelevant. There is no default position which is more logical than the other.
Yes, there is. Given the total lack of evidence for the existence of supernatural beings, it is more logical to lack belief in them than to actively believe in them.

[fromdownunder]

Why?

It is a waste of valuable time. If religious people actually got off their collective bums and did something practical, and stop doing wasteful things like praying, or giving tithes to tax free organisations, the world could be a far better place.

Why pray to a God to end hunger. Do something practical instead. It makes one feel far better in the long run.

Why go to Church, when one could actually spend that time doing something productive.

Why blow up Abortion Clinics, when educating people in reality is a fer better option.

I could go on...

Norm

[Yig]

There is so much bunk in this thread, where does one start. :rolleyes:

There is overwhelming evidence that evolution theory is correct. No designer is needed and no evidence suggests a designer was involved.

There is overwhelming evidence all gods are mythical beings invented by humans. There is no evidence any real gods ever existed.

The scientific process which evaluates observable/detectable evidence has a tremendous success rate. That's how we know it is the correct means of assessing what is real in the Universe.

God myths have a success rate that is no better than chance. There is evidence god myths can be successful when used to manipulate people. That's it. You cannot pray and expect the gods to tell you when to seek shelter from a hurricane and the Bible is terrible for explaining the observable/detectable evidence.


There you have it in a nutshell. The reason atheism is not a religion is it has the unique aspect of being consistent with the observable/detectable evidence. There are no religions involving god beliefs that can make that claim.

There are atheists who've formed religious organizations like some of the humanists groups. But just gathering with like minded people such as the mountaineers is not defined as a religious meeting. Humanist associations might in some cases qualify as a religious associations, but that's a grey area.
I can tell by your reasoning skills that you were once religious.

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

[devnull]

No.....Assuming that you could put numbers on such things.

So..... your point is that belief or non-belief has the same impact on society?

If we could sum up the historical good and bad from religious belief and show that the bad outweighed the good, would that sway you?

Would you assert that without religion, the good people who do good things in the name of religion would do bad things instead?

[Foster Zygote]

And people spend their entire lives feeding starving people in Africa because of it.

The fact that there can be religious terrorists and religious humanitarians implies that it is their interpretation of the religion that is the source of their behavior and not the religion itself. Their interpretation is colored by who they are as an individual. The religion does not matter.

Which suggests that religions are human imaginary constructs, not accurate descriptions of the universe.

[nvidiot]

Are you saying that the intelligent "beginner" (not designer because ID is a name given to a specific pseudoscientific theory regarding complexity in life forms) is an unfalsifyable claim?

[Ausmerican]

Intelligent designers of universes have never been observed.

Merv, why do you hate Slartibartfast and the Magratheans?

[devnull]

I can tell by your reasoning skills that you were once religious.

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Again, you need to be careful with terminology.

If you assert supernatural origins of the universe, this is the position of a deist.

Few here would argue against deism, as there can be no evidence by definition. However, this does not mean it is a logical position to take by default.

[MontagK505]

I can tell by your reasoning skills that you were once religious.

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Supernatural design doesn't explain anything.

[elbe]

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

There is no evidence to support it. Would you assume that both "options" are equally valid?

[Yig]

When you start considering creationism as true...
Evolution can be made consistent with creationism.

[Yig]

Because there is no intrisic difference between believing in something that does nothing and doesn't have any observable interaction with the universe as we can detect it the default position logically is to LACK belief. Belief is a positive process which requires reasonable evidence.

As another poster put it, and many before them, would you regard not stamp collecting as a hobby? Does such a statement make any kind of logical sense?
It is not the default position, you just think it is. If it "does nothing and doesn't have any observable interaction with the universe as we can detect it", then it does not matter.

[elbe]

Evolution can be made consistent with creationism.

No, no they can't. I think you fail to understand creationism. Creationism is when god snaps his fingers and magics animals, fully formed, into existence. Theistic evolution is claim that evolution is guided by god.

And remember, evolution = science, it has evidence to back it up. Creationism is just something written in a book once, and every positive claim I've seen it make that can be tested has failed.

[Yig]

So..... your point is that belief or non-belief has the same impact on society?

If we could sum up the historical good and bad from religious belief and show that the bad outweighed the good, would that sway you?

Would you assert that without religion, the good people who do good things in the name of religion would do bad things instead?
No. My point was that the individual determines their actions, not the religion.

[MontagK505]

Evolution can be made consistent with creationism.

No. You can clam a deity created the universe. But such “explanations” don't increase understanding of what is observed.

[Yig]

Which suggests that religions are human imaginary constructs, not accurate descriptions of the universe.
Just because something is a "human imaginary construct", does not mean that it is not an accurate description of the universe. The theory of evolution is a human imaginary construct that is also an accurate(so far as we can tell) description of the universe.

[Foster Zygote]

I can tell by your reasoning skills that you were once religious.

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

The universe hatching from an egg is another explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the egg as the origin of the universe.

[Yig]

Are you saying that the intelligent "beginner" (not designer because ID is a name given to a specific pseudoscientific theory regarding complexity in life forms) is an unfalsifyable claim?
Yes.

[Foster Zygote]

Evolution can be made consistent with creationism.

How?

[Foster Zygote]

It is not the default position, you just think it is. If it "does nothing and doesn't have any observable interaction with the universe as we can detect it", then it does not matter.
Then why did you start this thread?

[Yig]

Again, you need to be careful with terminology.

If you assert supernatural origins of the universe, this is the position of a deist.

Few here would argue against deism, as there can be no evidence by definition. However, this does not mean it is a logical position to take by default.
Any position is logical when you are talking about that which is unverifiable. This is my point.

[elbe]

Any position is logical when you are talking about that which is unverifiable. This is my point.

So the unverifiable claim that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in your living room is logical?

[Foster Zygote]

Just because something is a "human imaginary construct", does not mean that it is not an accurate description of the universe. The theory of evolution is a human imaginary construct that is also an accurate(so far as we can tell) description of the universe.

The theory of evolution by natural selection has been thoroughly tested and has been shown to offer a great deal of explanation of natural observations as well as the ability to predict future observations. What supernatural claims have done the same?

[Yig]

Supernatural design doesn't explain anything.
I did not say anything about supernatural design. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Yig]

No, no they can't. I think you fail to understand creationism. Creationism is when god snaps his fingers and magics animals, fully formed, into existence. Theistic evolution is claim that evolution is guided by god.

And remember, evolution = science, it has evidence to back it up. Creationism is just something written in a book once, and every positive claim I've seen it make that can be tested has failed.
So God can't snap his fingers and create all life and the process of evolution.

[Yig]

No. You can clam a deity created the universe. But such “explanations” don't increase understanding of what is observed.
I made no such claim. I am merely making the point that if someone wants to entertain that possibility there is no reason not to.

[devnull]

So, any wild assertion is just as likely to be true as not? No.....Assuming that you could put numbers on such things.

Any position is logical when you are talking about that which is unverifiable. This is my point.

So...... ??????

Oh, I think I get your point!

Am I right to say that your point is that it really doesn't matter what you believe or disbelieve, what matters is your actions...... and those actions are generally not based on the person's beliefs but beliefs are merely used as a tool for post-hoc rationalisation?

[Foster Zygote]

Any position is logical when you are talking about that which is unverifiable. This is my point.

Really? Any position?

[elbe]

So God can't snap his fingers and create all life and the process of evolution.

Then it wouldn't be creationism. Defining terms is an important aspect in communication.

[Yig]

The universe hatching from an egg is another explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the egg as the origin of the universe.
We've been through this with the Russell's teapot argument. I don't think that there being an intelligent designer is as absurd an explanation. This does not mean that I am asserting that there is one, I am merely entertaining the possibility. Besides, even if I was asserting such a thing it wouldn't make any difference logically. This is my point.

[MontagK505]

I did not say anything about supernatural design. Don't put words in my mouth.

OK. Then Creationism dosen't explain anything.
BTW Creationist arguments are usually an appeal to the supernatural.

[fromdownunder]

We've been through this with the Russell's teapot argument. I don't think that there being an intelligent designer is as absurd an explanation. This does not mean that I am asserting that there is one, I am merely entertaining the possibility. Besides, even if I was asserting such a thing it wouldn't make any difference logically. This is my point.

So your point is that this thread has no point?

Norm

[MontagK505]

We've been through this with the Russell's teapot argument. I don't think that there being an intelligent designer is as absurd an explanation. This does not mean that I am asserting that there is one, I am merely entertaining the possibility. Besides, even if I was asserting such a thing it wouldn't make any difference logically. This is my point.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Is that your point?

[devnull]

We've been through this with the Russell's teapot argument. I don't think that there being an intelligent designer is as absurd an explanation. This does not mean that I am asserting that there is one, I am merely entertaining the possibility. Besides, even if I was asserting such a thing it wouldn't make any difference logically. This is my point.

You still havent explained why you think an intelligent designer is less absurd that a universe hatching egg or a celestial teapot.

In fact, someone pointed our that a celestial teapot is less absurd because we know teapots exist, and it is technically possible for someone to launch one into orbit...... did you respond?

[Yig]

Then why did you start this thread?
I felt like having an argument.

[KingMerv00]

We've been through this with the Russell's teapot argument. I don't think that there being an intelligent designer is as absurd an explanation. This does not mean that I am asserting that there is one, I am merely entertaining the possibility. Besides, even if I was asserting such a thing it wouldn't make any difference logically. This is my point.

I entertain the possibility of an intelligent designer too. I am still an atheist.

Learn the difference between "strong atheism" and "weak atheism".

[Yig]

So the unverifiable claim that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in your living room is logical?
Yeah...... why not?

[tsig]

Hahahaha.

Hehehehehe.

[Yig]

The theory of evolution by natural selection has been thoroughly tested and has been shown to offer a great deal of explanation of natural observations as well as the ability to predict future observations. What supernatural claims have done the same?
Someone imagined the theory of evolution before they started testing it, did they not?

[tsig]

Agreed. So I'll make my point again:

When a concept extremely abstract, believing or not believing in it is irrelevant. There is no default position which is more logical than the other.

If the concept of god is irrelevant then why did you start this thread?

[tsig]

I can tell by your reasoning skills that you were once religious.

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

The universe doesn't respond to your needs.

[SumDood]

I did not say anything about supernatural design. Don't put words in my mouth.
An intelligent designer, one that created the universe, is, by definition, a supernatural designer.

[MontagK505]

I felt like having an argument.

Congratulations, you've succeeded at something.:)

[Yig]

So...... ??????

Oh, I think I get your point!

Am I right to say that your point is that it really doesn't matter what you believe or disbelieve, what matters is your actions...... and those actions are generally not based on the person's beliefs but beliefs are merely used as a tool for post-hoc rationalisation?
If you think those two quotes contradict each other. They don't.

Who you are as a person determines your interpretation of religion. If your interpretation of religion were to determine your actions then it is actually who you are as a person that is determining your actions.

[tsig]

So God can't snap his fingers and create all life and the process of evolution.

God's got fingers?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I do have a few words to say on this topic.

Pudding. Snorkel. Defenestration.

Thank you. That is all.

[SumDood]

This statement:
There is no default position which is more logical than the other.

and your response here:

So, any wild assertion is just as likely to be true as not?

No.....Assuming that you could put numbers on such things.

seem contradictory to me. If there is no default position, then when one hears an assertion, it would be just as logical to believe the assertion as it would be to disbelieve it.

If someone said to you "I can breath fire and shoot laser beams out of my eyes", is there a default position to take on his assertion?

[SumDood]

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe.
Absolutely not true. An explanation would be nice, but it is not needed.

[MontagK505]

I can tell by your reasoning skills that you were once religious.

An explanation is needed for the origins of the universe. An intelligent designer is one such explanation. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Once more, it doesn't explain anything.

[Yig]

Really? Any position?
I'm sure the Raelians make plenty of verifiably false claims.

[Yig]

Then it wouldn't be creationism. Defining terms is an important aspect in communication.
It isn't?

[Yig]

OK. Then Creationism dosen't explain anything.
BTW Creationist arguments are usually an appeal to the supernatural.
Neither does atheism.

[fromdownunder]

Someone imagined the theory of evolution before they started testing it, did they not?

That would be a "No"

Norm

[Yig]

So your point is that this thread has no point?

Norm
My point is that there is no correct position when it comes to unanswerable questions.

[MontagK505]

Neither does atheism.

Atheism is NOT an appeal to the supernatural and it dosen't claim to be an explanation for anything. It's the end result of lack of evidence.

[Yig]

You still havent explained why you think an intelligent designer is less absurd that a universe hatching egg or a celestial teapot.

In fact, someone pointed our that a celestial teapot is less absurd because we know teapots exist, and it is technically possible for someone to launch one into orbit...... did you respond?
Look....if you want to believe that a universe hatching egg is more reasonable than an intelligence creating a universe....go right ahead.

[Halfcentaur]

Once you realize the idea of a god comes from the limited frame of reference you would expect a social ape with dominant alpha male hierarchies to come up with, it's clear you can free yourself from the concept you were exposed to from childhood. There is no more reason to consider there may be a god than there is to consider there may be an all encompassing original universal smell.

You only have the idea because you're wired to look up to dominant protectors and creator like figures, instinctively. A god figure at it's most generic and rudimentary base is clearly a projection of our species.

[Yig]

I entertain the possibility of an intelligent designer too. I am still an atheist.

Learn the difference between "strong atheism" and "weak atheism".
Strong atheism, weak atheism, intermediate atheism, "whatever I want atheism to mean" atheism.....Who cares.

[Yig]

If the concept of god is irrelevant then why did you start this thread?
When did I say the concept of God was irrelevant?

[PixyMisa]

My point is that there is no correct position when it comes to unanswerable questions.
You're not talking about unanswerable questions, you're talking about unfalsifiable propositions.

There are infinitely many of these, and their truth values are indeterminable. Since there is no way to select among them, and there is no value in accepting any of them, the only consistent position is to reject them all as useless.

[Yig]

The universe doesn't respond to your needs.
No it sure doesn't.

[MontagK505]

Look....if you want to believe that a universe hatching egg is more reasonable than an intelligence creating a universe....go right ahead.

Do you think one is a more reasonable explanation than the other? If so why?

[nvidiot]

Look....if you want to believe that a universe hatching egg is more reasonable than an intelligence creating a universe....go right ahead.

The point is that they are both absurd propositions.

An unfalsifyable claim is not a scientific one. So supernatural causes for the universe, be they teapot like or god like, or egg like, whatever takes your fancy, are fundamentally philosophical conjectures, not logical or reasonable claims.

So in essence you're saying that deism is or should be the default position for claims regarding the beginning of the universe?

Ever heard of Ochams Razor?

[Halfcentaur]

The thing which bothers me the most is that I've gone by Yig as a nickname just about everywhere I've needed a moniker for the past 17 years. This guys is the reason I am deprived here?

[Yig]

An intelligent designer, one that created the universe, is, by definition, a supernatural designer.
So if human's were, in the future, to create another universe, they would be supernatural.

[Yig]

This statement:


and your response here:


seem contradictory to me. If there is no default position, then when one hears an assertion, it would be just as logical to believe the assertion as it would be to disbelieve it.

If someone said to you "I can breath fire and shoot laser beams out of my eyes", is there a default position to take on his assertion?
Again..... I'm talking strictly about unverifiable claims.

[MontagK505]

You're not talking about unanswerable questions, you're talking about unfalsifiable propositions.

There are infinitely many of these, and their truth values are indeterminable. Since there is no way to select among them, and there is no value in accepting any of them, the only consistent position is to reject them all as useless.

This is a formal version of "a difference that makes no difference".

Thank You

[Yig]

Once more, it doesn't explain anything.
Once more, neither does atheism.

[Yig]

That would be a "No"

Norm
I see.... So the idea spontaneously came into existence, independent of any human's conception.

[Sledge]

Once more, neither does atheism.

You keep saying this as if it means something. Atheism doesn't claim to explain anything, so saying "neither does atheism" does nothing but suggest you have a hidden agenda.

[MontagK505]

The point is that they are both absurd propositions.

An unfalsifyable claim is not a scientific one. So supernatural causes for the universe, be they teapot like or god like, or egg like, whatever takes your fancy, are fundamentally philosophical conjectures, not logical or reasonable claims.

So in essence you're saying that deism is or should be the default position for claims regarding the beginning of the universe?

Ever heard of Ochams Razor?

Occam's razor: Choose the explanation that requires the least number of assumptions. Is that right?

[fromdownunder]

Once more, neither does atheism.

But atheists don't try to explain anything. We rely on what the real Universe offers as evidence, and offer falsifiable evidence as counterpoints to anything, be it Gods, Ghosts or Goblins.

"There is no spoon" only exists in Movieland

Norm

[Yig]

You're not talking about unanswerable questions, you're talking about unfalsifiable propositions.

There are infinitely many of these, and their truth values are indeterminable. Since there is no way to select among them, and there is no value in accepting any of them, the only consistent position is to reject them all as useless.
Jeez... you people...... does every idea you have need to be useful?

[fromdownunder]

Jeez... you people...... does every idea you have need to be useful?

Naahhh. Sometimes we just like to poke sticks at dead animals.

Norm

[Yig]

The point is that they are both absurd propositions.

An unfalsifyable claim is not a scientific one. So supernatural causes for the universe, be they teapot like or god like, or egg like, whatever takes your fancy, are fundamentally philosophical conjectures, not logical or reasonable claims.

So in essence you're saying that deism is or should be the default position for claims regarding the beginning of the universe?

Ever heard of Ochams Razor?
Occam's razor is a heuristic, meaning that it does not always work. And no, I'm not saying that deism is the default position, I'm saying that there isn't one.

[Yig]

The thing which bothers me the most is that I've gone by Yig as a nickname just about everywhere I've needed a moniker for the past 17 years. This guys is the reason I am deprived here?
I joined after you did.

[SumDood]

Yeah, you already answered my next question with this exchange:


Any position is logical when you are talking about that which is unverifiable. This is my point.
So the unverifiable claim that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in your living room is logical?
Yeah...... why not?

Would it not be more logical to take what is known through one's life experience and make a judgment call? Invisible, intangible dragons have never been known to exist and contradicts all human knowledge. How would it be logical to take the default position that they do exist?

[Yig]

You keep saying this as if it means something. Atheism doesn't claim to explain anything, so saying "neither does atheism" does nothing but suggest you have a hidden agenda.
The point I was making is that both the ideas have the same utility.

[devnull]

If you think those two quotes contradict each other. They don't.

Who you are as a person determines your interpretation of religion. If your interpretation of religion were to determine your actions then it is actually who you are as a person that is determining your actions.

If this were true, childhood indoctrination wouldnt work and atheism would be the majority.

I agree there are many different interpretations of religion, but I disagree that every individual is entirely responsible for their chosen interpretation.

[Yig]

Yeah, you already answered my next question with this exchange:


Would it not be more logical to take what is known through one's life experience and make a judgment call? Invisible, intangible dragons have never been known to exist and contradicts all human knowledge. How would it be logical to take the default position that they do exist?
How can something which you cannot know anything about "contradict all human knowledge".

There is no default position.

[Sledge]

The point I was making is that both the ideas have the same utility.

I know. And that's a very stupid point. Why? Because it's a flawed comparison. You're comparing the notion of an intelligent designer (which is supposed to explain how the universe exists) with atheism (which makes no attempt to explain anything). You are holding a leaking cup and attempting to avoid criticism by pointing out that my sieve doesn't hold water either.

[Yig]

I will concede that who you are as a person is also influenced by environmental factors.

[devnull]

I will concede that who you are as a person is also influenced by environmental factors.

But doesnt that destroy your point?

Are you conceding your point?

[MontagK505]

If this were true, childhood indoctrination wouldnt work and atheism would be the majority.

I agree there are many different interpretations of religion, but I disagree that every individual is entirely responsible for their chosen interpretation.

I suspect many people fail to spot or don't want to see, the massive counteractions in most religious doctrines and as a result they allow the shaman to decide what it all means and thus avoid taking moral responsibility for any actions that might arise from such beliefs.

"God / Satan told me to do it!"

[Yig]

I know. And that's a very stupid point. Why? Because it's a flawed comparison. You're comparing the notion of an intelligent designer (which is supposed to explain how the universe exists) with atheism (which makes no attempt to explain anything). You are holding a leaking cup and attempting to avoid criticism by pointing out that my sieve doesn't hold water either.
You know, that really is my problem with atheism, it makes no attempt to explain anything. Instead you just sit there pretending that all well accepted theories are Gospel, that the scientific method has reached some sort of end state and that you have the answers for everything. Open your mind.

[Yig]

But doesnt that destroy your point?

Are you conceding your point?
How so?

[brodski]

God's existence isn't.

What is the difference between a god whose existence cannot be detected and a god that does not exist?

[elbe]

You know, that really is my problem with atheism, it makes no attempt to explain anything. Instead you just sit there pretending that all well accepted theories are Gospel, that the scientific method has reached some sort of end state and that you have the answers for everything. Open your mind.

What? Who thinks that?
And atheism is just a position on gods, nothing else. I think you need to work on your definitions.

I do love my theory that the people who complain about others being "closeminded" are the ones who are unwilling to entertain other ideas.

[Sledge]

Yig, what do you think atheism is?

[Yig]

Look....I get it. It's a lack of belief. My problem is that there's absolutely no reason for it.

[Sledge]

That doesn't make any sense unless you're claiming there's irrefutable evidence for religion.

[MontagK505]

You know, that really is my problem with atheism, it makes no attempt to explain anything. Instead you just sit there pretending that all well accepted theories are Gospel, that the scientific method has reached some sort of end state and that you have the answers for everything. Open your mind.

I know, demanding evidence is such a mean thing to do. :rolleyes:

[MontagK505]

Naahhh. Sometimes we just like to poke sticks at dead animals ideas.

Norm

Fixed it for you.

[MontagK505]

Look....I get it. It's a lack of belief. My problem is that there's absolutely no reason for it.

It's a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence.

[Yig]

That doesn't make any sense unless you're claiming there's irrefutable evidence for religion.
I would argue that very little evidence could be called irrefutable. If there was evidence for religion, would you be able to accept it?

There's nothing to be lost by entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer.

[Sledge]

I would argue that very little evidence could be called irrefutable. If there was evidence for religion, would you be able to accept it? I don't care what you'd argue. Your idea that there's no reason for atheism only makes sense if there's irrefutable evidence for religion. Do you have any?
There's nothing to be lost by entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer.
Nothing to be gained either. Stop flitting around and engage in discussion.

[MontagK505]

I would argue that very little evidence could be called irrefutable. If there was evidence for religion, would you be able to accept it?

There's nothing to be lost by entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer.

There's also nothing to be gained.

[Yig]

It's a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence.
Who cares what people believe? You can believe whatever you want as long as it's consistent with the facts at hand.

[ynot]

There's nothing to be lost by entertaining the idea of an intelligent designer.
Truth, honesty, reality, knowledge, credibility, sanity, etc. are hardly "nothing"

[ynot]

Who cares what people believe? You can believe whatever you want as long as it's consistent with the facts at hand.
So where are yours?

[nvidiot]

The scientific community does not accept ID as a scientific hypothesis with any kind of falsifyable prediction.

And science is anything but dogmatic. It's the only investigative method humankind has found which changes with new information. Religious and other philosophical ideas do not, because they are not based on evidence and logic.

[ynot]

Who cares what people believe?
Tell that to the people who lost their loved ones in the twin towers.

[MontagK505]

Who cares what people believe? You can believe whatever you want as long as it's consistent with the facts at hand.

It's a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. Show the facts that would refute a lack of evidence.

[NewtonTrino]

Look....I get it. It's a lack of belief. My problem is that there's absolutely no reason for it.

I already told you. We believe in Atheism because back in the 50's they disproved the bible. Didn't you see the special on noah's ark where they figured out it was actually an alien craft? They've got it in area 51 to this day but they refuse to release the technology because it will disprove the bible which the global elite uses to suppress the truth.

Anyway my cousin works in a LABORATORY and he told me a lot more about things in the bible proven wrong (for example Jesus was a hybrid and the "immaculate" conception was alien inception).

Now please disprove all of the above if you can. Otherwise you have to believe it!

[Yig]

I don't care what you'd argue. Your idea that there's no reason for atheism only makes sense if there's irrefutable evidence for religion. Do you have any?

Nothing to be gained either. Stop flitting around and engage in discussion.
Of course there's no irrefutable evidence. It's a philosophical question.

Why is it so hard for someone here to say "Yeah, an intelligent designer might exist".

[MontagK505]

I already told you. We believe in Atheism because back in the 50's they disproved the bible. Didn't you see the special on noah's ark where they figured out it was actually an alien craft? They've got it in area 51 to this day but they refuse to release the technology because it will disprove the bible which the global elite uses to suppress the truth.

Anyway my cousin works in a LABORATORY and he told me a lot more about things in the bible proven wrong (for example Jesus was a hybrid and the "immaculate" conception was alien inception).

Now please disprove all of the above if you can. Otherwise you have to believe it!

Did thay disprove the FSM and IPU as well? :D

[Yig]

Truth, honesty, reality, knowledge, credibility, sanity, etc. are hardly "nothing"
Truth, eh?

[Yig]

It's a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. Show the facts that would refute a lack of evidence.
It must be nice not to have to justify your own beliefs.

[MontagK505]

Of course there's no irrefutable evidence. It's a philosophical question.

Why is it so hard for someone here to say "Yeah, an intelligent designer might exist".

I could postulate an invisible being that hides behind the fabric of space-time manipulating everything. But whether the being exists or not doesn't matter.

So what would be the point of saying such a being might exist?