Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Atheism
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 18 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

calapia
calapia
252 posts

Re: Atheism

Kazak wrote:
This is getting pretty silly. If there were an intervening god, it should end this thread.


Jun 27, 2012, 22:12


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:

"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."

Hang on, you said you had faith (unsubstantiated belief) in science.
Anyway, I am not arguing that science has proven all sorts of things about our mortal existence. My question is about the power of science to explain that which happens after death. I don't disagree that you and I may believe that the end of our mortal lives is the end of us as entities but I am not able to convince somebody else that their belief in an afterlife in incorrect. I certainly cannot use science to prove that they are wrong. I can suggest that their reason for believing in an afterlife is based on information from dubious organisations, I can say that I have no evidence that an afterlife exists but that is about it.

"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."

You need to make the distinction between a mortal requiring a neural network and an entity requiring a neural network. According to those who believe in an afterlife, the conditions are different. They would argue that you as an entity exist from mortality to the afterlife but your mortal body dies.

"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."

Cheers

"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."

Therefore you need to counter that argument if you wish to prove theists are incorrect. You could of course leave it and agree to disagree but that empowers theism and disempowers your argument that science can explain the matter.


ugh...well i'm gonna leave it here because i don't have the patience to keep responding to you. i don't care if anything i wrote "empowers theism and disempowers your [my] argument" (i dont think i did, but...)..this is a stereolab forum afterall. meh...like i said, people can believe whatever they want.

Jun 28, 2012, 02:25


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

revox
revox
800 posts

Re: Atheism

Mars Rover wrote:
...like i said, people can believe whatever they want.


That's nice of you... er, thanks.

~8^|>

Jun 28, 2012, 21:02


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:

whats wrong with being strident?


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


Your own subsequent post answered your question. It was unpleasant, aggressive and unlikely to persuade anyone to share your point of view. Swearing, using rhetorical questions, dismissing other beliefs and more are all tactics but they are not constructive. Being forthright can be useful but being strident is a step too far.

Mars Rover wrote:

he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.



From your own link
"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."

You have perhaps proved the point that few people read to the end of a news article.


jeebus man, do you ever go to sleep?

i didn't really feel i needed to read that interview, i've heard him speak hundreds of times and read his books. he has a complex view on agnosticism, i know that. sheesh.

Jun 28, 2012, 21:36


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Atheism

Deepak Chopra ? The philosophical equivalent of Nicholas Sparks or Thomas Kinkade.

Jun 28, 2012, 21:41


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Atheism

Mars Rover wrote:
hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:

whats wrong with being strident?


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


Your own subsequent post answered your question. It was unpleasant, aggressive and unlikely to persuade anyone to share your point of view. Swearing, using rhetorical questions, dismissing other beliefs and more are all tactics but they are not constructive. Being forthright can be useful but being strident is a step too far.

Mars Rover wrote:

he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.



From your own link
"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."

You have perhaps proved the point that few people read to the end of a news article.


jeebus man, do you ever go to sleep?

i didn't really feel i needed to read that interview, i've heard him speak hundreds of times and read his books. he has a complex view on agnosticism, i know that. sheesh.


Mars Rover wrote:
ugh...well i'm gonna leave it here because i don't have the patience to keep responding to you. i don't care if anything i wrote "empowers theism and disempowers your [my] argument" (i dont think i did, but...)..this is a stereolab forum afterall. meh...like i said, people can believe whatever they want.


I know from the number of posts you have made that the claim that "this is a stereolab forum" (presumably where non-Stereolab topics are not discussed) is disingenuous beyond belief.

It is interesting that - after having spent time discussing this issue - you respond with feigned indifference. It is perhaps no coincidence that this comes after a number of your logical inconsistencies have been laid bare. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't get into 10 pages of discussion then act like an apathetic teenager having to put up with a lecture from a parent.

Jun 29, 2012, 01:41


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Atheism

hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:
hito wrote:
Mars Rover wrote:

whats wrong with being strident?


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


Your own subsequent post answered your question. It was unpleasant, aggressive and unlikely to persuade anyone to share your point of view. Swearing, using rhetorical questions, dismissing other beliefs and more are all tactics but they are not constructive. Being forthright can be useful but being strident is a step too far.

Mars Rover wrote:

he doesn't claim to be agnostic. he has a whole chapter about that in god delusion.



From your own link
"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did."

You have perhaps proved the point that few people read to the end of a news article.


jeebus man, do you ever go to sleep?

i didn't really feel i needed to read that interview, i've heard him speak hundreds of times and read his books. he has a complex view on agnosticism, i know that. sheesh.


Mars Rover wrote:
ugh...well i'm gonna leave it here because i don't have the patience to keep responding to you. i don't care if anything i wrote "empowers theism and disempowers your [my] argument" (i dont think i did, but...)..this is a stereolab forum afterall. meh...like i said, people can believe whatever they want.


I know from the number of posts you have made that the claim that "this is a stereolab forum" (presumably where non-Stereolab topics are not discussed) is disingenuous beyond belief.

It is interesting that - after having spent time discussing this issue - you respond with feigned indifference. It is perhaps no coincidence that this comes after a number of your logical inconsistencies have been laid bare. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't get into 10 pages of discussion then act like an apathetic teenager having to put up with a lecture from a parent.


oops, what can i say? you got me.

by saying "this is a stereolab forum" i meant THIS IS NOT FUCKING HOMEWORK or that serious. (i think you're reading into stuff too much.) excuse my "inconsistencies," but to explain dawkin's complete view on this would take a long time and work. its more complex that just "he's an atheist." he says so. or "he's an agnostic" he said that too. its complex. its best described here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100139447/richard-dawkins-is-an-agnostic-but-we-knew-that-already/

"By any sensible measure, Dawkins is an atheist; he is also an agnostic. So this is not a partial Damascene conversion by the unbeliever's unbeliever; it's a restatement of his long-established and philosophically sound views."

by naming something "POVERTY of agnosticism" what do you think he thinks of it?

this is what i was thinking of -



PAP. TAP. SPECTRUM OF PROBABILITY.

"i am agnostic only to the extent that i am agnostic to fairies at the bottom of the garden."

Jun 29, 2012, 04:18


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Kazak
Kazak
1618 posts

Re: Atheism

Yes, your arguments have been extremely convincing. *sigh*

Jun 29, 2012, 04:28


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

calapia
calapia
252 posts

Re: Atheism

You get an A+ in semantics and philosophy!

Jun 29, 2012, 04:57


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Re: Atheism

Kazak wrote:
Yes, your arguments have been extremely convincing. *sigh*


LOL hito...

Jun 29, 2012, 05:30

Pages: 15 – [ Previous | 18 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ]

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