McBackup Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If it's laughable to believe in aliens but not God why is it OK to believe in God and not aliens?!? The evidence for both are equal. Both are potential higher powers and both are supported by whack jobs who utter mindless jibberish who make the others that share their view look complicit. Anyone who uses their belief in the unknowable as evidence for anything are doing a disservice to those that may have sympathetic leanings. Don't defend stupid people or ridiculous beliefs. It's stupid.... and makes to look ridiculous in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I like how your name corresponds to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 And all i'm saying is that if someone came off the street and asked me, i'd tell them that I have no reason to believe the claim that one does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancin'Droid Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The fact that life arose on it is more a testament to life than the planet itself. We have bacteria that can live in places upwards of thousands of degrees, or places without oxygen. A human is incapable of surviving in such an environment. Life is adaptable. At one point humans and dolphins shared a common ancestor. The branch that became humanity adapted itself to the land, while the ones that became porpoises adapted to the water. Basically, it's life that's being fine tuned. Not the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 And what no love for my Creation vs. Evolution Panada bear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancin'Droid Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 We will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Cells are made of molecules. Molecules have no survival purposes therefore wouldn't evolve. Life isn't adaptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 That makes sense when you take in the fact that our population is growing each year. We'll be "extinct" from the earth after Judgement Day but some of us will still be living, just not on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Perhaps you should do something about your slutty definition of religion then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Here is an interesting Q&A that I remember reading a year or two ago given the topic of the day I think most of you would find it interesting if nothing else. Then we can pick a new topic Q: In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they "lack belief in God". They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God. What would be a good response to this? Thank you for your time, Steven. A: Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference. But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God. There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God. But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses, the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew) Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God. One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in. So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Here is an interesting Q&A that I remember reading a year or two ago given the topic of the day I think most of you would find it interesting if nothing else. Then we can pick a new topic Q: In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they "lack belief in God". They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God. What would be a good response to this? Thank you for your time, Steven. Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference. But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God. There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God. But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses, the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew) Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God. One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in. So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 People really don't know what 'Agnostic' means. You can be Agnostic Atheist and an Agnostic Theist. You can also be a Gnostic Atheist and a Gnostic theist. Agnostic Atheist-"I don't think there is a god, but I cannot know for sure." Agnostic Theist-"I think there is a god, but I cannot know for sure." Gnostic Atheist-" I know for a fact that there is no god." Gnostic Theist-"I know for a fact there is a god." People who claim they are 'agnostic'- "I don't know for certain that __________" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Well I would hope so. It's just interesting atheists say they have no reason to believe in a god, they lack a belief in god, and then they give reasons appealing to science, philosophy, reason, etc. for why god doesn't exist. In making a case for the non-existence it seems to me like they are defending a belief. I mean otherwise what are they arguing? They're arguing that it's very improbable that god exists they're not arguing that they just lack a belief on the matter... I mean I lack a belief in the Easter bunny, I have good reasons to think he doesn't exist, so I don't believe he exists. It's a combination - I lack the belief and I do not believe. Two different things yes but both are reasonable given the evidence, or lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I am that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Agnosticism is an answer to a different question than atheism, though. It's a statement of knowledge, not belief. Also, I think the quote confuses "amoral" with "immoral". Amoral in its proper definition (lacking moral values) actually supports atheism being a lack of belief. Also, the definition of atheism given there would make me an atheist in regards to some definitions of a deity, but not others, which makes things unnecessarily convoluted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Cells are made of molecules. Molecules have no survival purposes therefore wouldn't evolve. Life isn't adaptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Why? Has someone claimed to you that one exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If you read closely you'll see the quote is showing the redefinition of the word - so it is supporting atheism being a lack of belief. But yeah I agree agnosticism and atheism are answering two different question - one I do not know, the other I do not believe (or as the word has been come to mean; I lack a belief). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 People really don't know what 'Agnostic' means. You can be Agnostic Atheist and an Agnostic Theist. You can also be a Gnostic Atheist and a Gnostic theist. Agnostic Atheist-"I don't think there is a god, but I cannot know for sure." Agnostic Theist-"I think there is a god, but I cannot know for sure." Gnostic Atheist-" I know for a fact that there is no god." Gnostic Theist-"I know for a fact there is a god." People who claim they are 'agnostic'- "I don't know for certain that __________" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 That makes sense when you take in the fact that our population is growing each year. We'll be "extinct" from the earth after Judgement Day but some of us will still be living, just not on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.