Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Atheism
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 16 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Well, he can say that there but much of his language in the past has been extremely strident. Calling a book the "god delusion" is a start. He has also allowed himself to be called an atheist repeatedly and this is the first time I have heard him challenge that label. Of course, he may be agnostic as he claims so that is up to him.

But there are atheists out there and there are atheists who claim to know that they are correct. I apologise to Dawkins and his agnostic followers if I have misrepresented them.

Jun 26, 2012, 04:56


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Kazak wrote:


Heh, I just tackled this on another forum. It IS faith, and my faith is immense. Any and all belief is based on faith. The difference is, my faith is based on the scientific method, not on Bronze Age mythology. Is it wrong? Can you answer the question I posed? Will a spirit neural network produce my conscience? I'm going to need a neural network, we can agree?



I don't dispute your right to believe in science but as long as you agree it is faith, you have no power of logic over theistic faith. The scientific method can explain your birth and death just like theism can. You posit that somehow science can justify the death of you as a mortal is the end of you as an entity but I fail to see how this is deductively valid. If you suggest that a neural network is required to exist as an entity I would ask you how you know this?
The fact that your mortal self begins and ends with one is in no way grounds to suggest that the afterlife would require such a device. The appearance of Lee Majors on my TV depends upon me turning it on but the existence of Lee Majors is not dependent on my TV. Thus, in this life you may require a neural network but there is no proof that this would be required in the afterlife.
Furthermore, even if you demand to have a neural network as a necessary condition of living in the afterlife (an absurd and flimsy claim given that you have absolutely no knowledge of the conditions of existence in this afterlife) a theist may argue that god takes over the powering of your neural network. At the death of your body, the power is switched from DC to AD.


"as long as you agree it is faith, you have no power of logic over theistic faith."

disagree with that because the scientific method has worked time and time again to explain things to humans that were once inconceivable to us. Faith has never had a provable outcome.

"If you suggest that a neural network is required to exist as an entity I would ask you how you know this?"

We know that because we would die without a brain.

"The appearance of Lee Majors on my TV depends upon me turning it on but the existence of Lee Majors is not dependent on my TV. Thus, in this life you may require a neural network but there is no proof that this would be required in the afterlife."

Kudos for using Lee Majors as a reference point.

"a theist may argue that god takes over the powering of your neural network. At the death of your body, the power is switched from DC to AD."

anyone can argue anything. theists can argue that, you're right.

:)

Jun 26, 2012, 05:00


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Well, he can say that there but much of his language in the past has been extremely strident. Calling a book the "god delusion" is a start. He has also allowed himself to be called an atheist repeatedly and this is the first time I have heard him challenge that label. Of course, he may be agnostic as he claims so that is up to him.

But there are atheists out there and there are atheists who claim to know that they are correct. I apologise to Dawkins and his agnostic followers if I have misrepresented them.


whats wrong with being strident? he would never have gotten his views out there if he was namby-pamby about them. he named his book "god delusion" because he knew it would get attention. nobody would read him if he called his book "i kinda think god doesn't exist, sorry if i offend anybody." he's firm in his views and he expresses them eloquently like many revolutionaries have in the past. thats how change happens through time. as for "allowing" himself to be called an atheist- he calls himself that. the 6.9 quote is something, if not in those exact words, i've heard him say a lot. he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.

Jun 26, 2012, 05:08


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

You responded well. Some degree of plausibility has to play in here. Hito acts like since I have faith in the scientific method, and the theist has faith in his theism, then it must be a 50/50 proposition, right? 'Fraid not.

Jun 26, 2012, 05:15


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

Mars Rover wrote:
hito wrote:
Well, he can say that there but much of his language in the past has been extremely strident. Calling a book the "god delusion" is a start. He has also allowed himself to be called an atheist repeatedly and this is the first time I have heard him challenge that label. Of course, he may be agnostic as he claims so that is up to him.

But there are atheists out there and there are atheists who claim to know that they are correct. I apologise to Dawkins and his agnostic followers if I have misrepresented them.


whats wrong with being strident? he would never have gotten his views out there if he was namby-pamby about them. he named his book "god delusion" because he knew it would get attention. nobody would read him if he called his book "i kinda think god doesn't exist, sorry if i offend anybody." he's firm in his views and he expresses them eloquently like many revolutionaries have in the past. thats how change happens through time. as for "allowing" himself to be called an atheist- he calls himself that. the 6.9 quote is something, if not in those exact words, i've heard him say a lot. he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.



william lloyd garrison was pretty fucking strident. martin luther king was pretty fucking strident. rachel carson was pretty fucking strident. need i go on?

not saying dawkins is that important in history mind you...

Jun 26, 2012, 05:19


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

matthew6
matthew6
1897 posts

Re: Atheism

I think atheism's biggest beef is with man made gods. The ones that obviously don't exist.

Jun 26, 2012, 05:35


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

matthew6 wrote:
I think atheism's biggest beef is with man made gods. The ones that obviously don't exist.


:)

Jun 26, 2012, 05:45


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Kazak wrote:
hito wrote:
Both pantheism and theism are perfectly compatible with evolution, just not Old Testament style fundamentalist Christianity.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago." is not compatible with "God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." Is God present, or isn't God? BTW, before you even go there, I do not dispute deism and never have, I don't think we'll ever know, it does preclude theism though.


Why is the idea that life evolved from a common ancestor incompatible with an interventionist god. Suppose that interventionist god planted the seed 3.7 billion years ago. Hey presto, you have a god and evolution.
I can make a cake and leave it to go mouldy. It will eventually take a course of its own but I made it. I can come back to that cake and pull a piece off, squash it, set it on fire, whatever. Do you suppose to claim I didn't create the cake? Do you suppose to claim that I didn't set it on its course when I knew that it would go mouldy?
And who are you to set the limits of intervention? It is sure that some Christian claims of a benevolent god are certainly challenged by rape, famine, war, flood etc. but that is not all theism. All one needs is a creator and some capacity to intervene.


I said atheism, not adeism.

Jun 26, 2012, 05:51


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

The Greatest
The Greatest
309 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:

As for the panentheism or pantheism stuff, it is still some belief in a supernatural power. It is just a subspecies of theism (belief in a god). It seems to get a cushy ride from people who care about the environment because god is in the trees and seas and bees but it is not more plausible than a god sitting on a chair in the clouds. It is not as widely condemned as monotheism - I suspect - because monotheism is linked with nasty Christian bigots, Islamic terrorists and Jewish land grabbers. As it is, many monotheists believe that god is omnipresent (meaning everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) so it is very similar to these pan theories. Unless you reduce panentheism down to simply being a biological life force, it is still a supernatural belief in a god that is as valid and invalid as any other theism.


Yes, it is in fact way more plausible than a man sitting in a chair in the clouds.

And for the record, panentheism IS a form of monotheism, since you don't know.

Jun 26, 2012, 15:07


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

The Greatest wrote:
Kazak wrote:
I find the God language superfluous. We need to apply Occam's Razor. There's no God in the universe, there's just the universe. What is God inside of? It's turtles all the way down.


If the universe sprang from nothing and returns to nothing, then God is the "nothing" from which it sprang. This is an ancient teaching. Kabbalists refer to God as the No-Thing.



No-Thing? I love this talk given by Lawrence Krauss about the possibilities of nothing. It's long, and may seem like it takes a while to get to the point (about something from nothing), but I think it's well worth the effort. Try to ignore that it's introduced by Dawkins, if he bothers you. I might have posted this before.



Jun 26, 2012, 20:11

Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 16 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index