Fathoms Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 well then provide some EVIDENCE to back up your ASSUMPTION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 All atheism refers to is to people who accept that that which does not exist does not exist. Remember that the burden of proof rests first on those who are making the positive claim about reality. An atheist is unable to disprove the existence of god unless he is first presented with a definition of what god is. All of the definitions theists produce invariably include contradictory and supernatural elements, which is why we can be confidant that the gods they believe in do not exist. It is exactly the same logic that applies whenever the Defence in a courtroom drama presents a story that contradicts itself over and over again, or requires the inclusion of supernatural elements in order to "prove" the defendants innocence. A rational person would not lose any sleep over a guilty verdict. It is you who is assuming without evidence that the question of god is more credible than the question of the murderer who claims he was framed by backwards talking elves from the north pole. Agnosticism is faith based. Atheism is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 How is agnosticism faith based and atheism not? When people use those terms isn't it "I don't know if there is a God" and "I believe there is no God."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 How do you know that in an alternate universe you are not Tony the Tiger? Is it faith based of me to emphaticlaly declare that you are not Tony the Tiger? A consistent agnostic would have to say that I am closed minded for rejecting the possibility. A consistent agnostic would have to be agnostic about their agnosticism. Once you accept that supernatural claims are credible you must be free to entertain the possibility that your mind is being controlled by a rag-tag gang of backwards talking elves from the north pole, who have convinced you that agnosticism is a reasonable position when in actual fact it is at best naive, and at worst delusional or even cowardly. The post you quoted explained explicitly why agnosticism is faith based and why atheism is not. Please try to follow the argument. edit: just read your edit. my goal with this post was to stick with definitions... arguing from the strong atheist position ("There is not god"). IMO the agnostic position is really the weak atheist position ("I don't believe in god") but disguised in a way that it will deflect the scorn and attention of theists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 Agnostic position is honestly admitting to not knowing of the existence of a creator (particularly the "cannot be proved/disproved" aspect), how that relates to being faith based is something I'm still awaiting an adequate, and likely humorous, explanation of. Being led by faith is blatant theism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Agnostic position is honestly admitting to not knowing of the existence of a creator (particularly the "cannot be proved/disproved" aspect), how that relates to being faith based is something I'm still awaiting an adequate, and likely humorous, explanation of. Being led by faith is blatant theism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 If agnostics do not have a belief in god than what evidence do they have that god is a credible enough hypothesis that no certainty is reasonable either way? Because they seem pretty damn certain that certainty is irrational and yet they never take the time define which god it is that they take the possible existence of seriously. Is it Zeus? Is it Ra? Is it the God of Abraham? Throughout history the belief in god has always referred to a specific entity with specific properties. And logic can be used to easily disprove the existence of these deities in the same way it can be used to disprove the existence of Tony the Tiger, or backwards talking psychic elves from the north pole. To say that they cannot be proved or disproved is completely irrational, and hence is a faith based perspective. If, on the other hand, agnostics are referring to the possible existence of some undefinable creator being that is currently unknowable to modern science, than they are practicing a faith in selective reasoning. There is an infinite amount of conceivable imaginary beings one could dream up that are currently unknowable to the practices of modern science. To simply say that this unknowable being somehow created the universe through unknowable means is meaningless. Whatever science discovers in the future will necessarily be NEW knowledge, not OLD knowledge that somehow vindicates the beliefs of the theist and the waffling of the agnostic. Furthermore, epistemology itself is undermined by the type of dishonest thinking agnostics are engaging in when it comes to the god debate.There is no way you can prove or disprove that I am not a space leprechaun god from a galaxy on the other side of the cosmos, yet no reasonable person would dream of calling you closed-minded if you said you were a space leprechaun god atheist. Why is the case? It is because agnosticism on the question of space leprechaun gods is spectacularly silly, and nobody will get upset with you if you state flatly that you reject both the existence of space leprechaun gods and the possible existence of space leprechaun gods. And yet we are expected to believe that the debate about god is somehow different. That both sides have made a case that is equal and that reasonable people should suspend their judgment and adopt the agnostic perspective. This is a cop-out. It doesn't mean anything. It especially doesn't mean anything if you fail to adopt the agnostic perspective across the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Science cannot prove or disprove something non-falsifiable. Please don't use science in your description whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 All atheism refers to is to people who accept that that which does not exist does not exist. Remember that the burden of proof rests first on those who are making the positive claim about reality. An atheist is unable to disprove the existence of god unless he is first presented with a definition of what god is. All of the definitions theists produce invariably include contradictory and supernatural elements, which is why we can be confidant that the gods they believe in do not exist. It is exactly the same logic that applies whenever the Defence in a courtroom drama presents a story that contradicts itself over and over again, or requires the inclusion of supernatural elements in order to "prove" the defendants innocence. A rational person would not lose any sleep over a guilty verdict. It is you who is assuming without evidence that the question of god is more credible than the question of the murderer who claims he was framed by backwards talking elves from the north pole. Agnosticism is faith based. Atheism is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Can't disagree with anything stated here. If I can build on anything written it's that agnosticism is often thought of having equal weight between the aspects of provability vs dis-provability....as if there's equal evidence, logic or reason for either side and the agnostic is simply stuck in the middle. An agnostic could very well come to the conclusion that in their mind they're 99.9% able to conclude from all evidence/non-evidence and logic that there is no personal God as claimed by some theologies out there....but can't be 100% certain that there isn't any type of a deity out there, or a being that we could consider a deity, such as Spinoza's God or the non-personal and outside of nature kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I fail to understand why in a conversation about belief or non belief in a god you have managed to introduce alternate dimensions , and guilty verdict of a murderer who was framed by backward talking evles from the north pole . I will put this as simply as i can , there is no evidence or proof that a god exists , there is no evidence or proof that a god does not exist , therefore i have an open mind on the subject . and i would like to point out that i do not assume anything . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I'll have to apologize for not making myself clear. I have such a habit of building up a universe conclusions in my head that it can be hard for me to empathize with the fact that others may rightfully conclude that I am totally out to lunch. this problem is exacerbated when I am working with with a limited server time. I tend to get over anxious to respond and hit post when the truth is that a number of revisions to what I have written is warranted. Ideally I would always to be crisp and too the point with my responses. So anyway, one last crack at this and hopefully you might have a better understanding of where it is that I am coming from... Unfalsifiable propositions have no truth content. The proposition that god created the universe has no truth content. If the term god is meant to refer to an entity that posses supernatural and incomprehensible powers that can intervene at will with the natural laws of reality, than to believe in this entity is too undermine the very methodology that truth is ascertained by (reason and empiricism). So if you have the viewpoint that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god than this belief must necessarily translate as protocol for all other supernatural claims to knowledge (you cannot prove or disprove that we haven't all been brainwashed by the elves, for example). So as an atheist, if I start from the perspective that supernatural claims to knowledge have no truth content, than I can be content to dismiss these claims with exactly as much evidence as they are presented. I do not treat the claim that god created the universe any different than I would treat a claim invoking backwards talking psychic elves as creators of the universe. I see both as equally unfalsifiable propositions. I do not see the invocation of god as a possible explanatory mechanism as warranting special consideration, and this is the source of my frustration with the agnostic position. The fact that it explicitly holds the proposition that god created the universe as more credible than any other explanation of phenomena that invokes supernatural powers. Hope I wasn't overly obtuse this time. three paragraphs... frack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fathoms Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I do not know how to make it any simpler , if you believe in god or you do not believe in god you are making an assupmtion , because you cannot prove one way or another that there is a god out there . as science has taught me if you cannot find evidence of somethings existence or non existence then it is wise to keep an open mind on the subject , and hope that futher information may become available to you , though this is something i doubt will happen . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Okay Ratiocinator, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you haven't even attempted to address any of my arguments. You seem to be so preoccupied with the image of yourself as a person that has an open mind that you have lost any interest in actually maintaining one. I am giving you this further information right now. I am demonstrating the lack of consistency in your viewpoint. An open minded person strives to eliminate inconsistency from their thinking. But all you are doing is making the assumption that you aren't making assumptions, and repeating the mantra like a security blanket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 How do you know that in an alternate universe you are not Tony the Tiger? Is it faith based of me to emphaticlaly declare that you are not Tony the Tiger? A consistent agnostic would have to say that I am closed minded for rejecting the possibility. A consistent agnostic would have to be agnostic about their agnosticism. Once you accept that supernatural claims are credible you must be free to entertain the possibility that your mind is being controlled by a rag-tag gang of backwards talking elves from the north pole, who have convinced you that agnosticism is a reasonable position when in actual fact it is at best naive, and at worst delusional or even cowardly. The post you quoted explained explicitly why agnosticism is faith based and why atheism is not. Please try to follow the argument. edit: just read your edit. my goal with this post was to stick with definitions... arguing from the strong atheist position ("There is not god"). IMO the agnostic position is really the weak atheist position ("I don't believe in god") but disguised in a way that it will deflect the scorn and attention of theists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I'll have to apologize for not making myself clear. I have such a habit of building up a universe conclusions in my head that it can be hard for me to empathize with the fact that others may rightfully conclude that I am totally out to lunch. this problem is exacerbated when I am working with with a limited server time. I tend to get over anxious to respond and hit post when the truth is that a number of revisions to what I have written is warranted. Ideally I would always to be crisp and too the point with my responses. So anyway, one last crack at this and hopefully you might have a better understanding of where it is that I am coming from... Unfalsifiable propositions have no truth content. The proposition that god created the universe has no truth content. If the term god is meant to refer to an entity that posses supernatural and incomprehensible powers that can intervene at will with the natural laws of reality, than to believe in this entity is too undermine the very methodology that truth is ascertained by (reason and empiricism). So if you have the viewpoint that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god than this belief must necessarily translate as protocol for all other supernatural claims to knowledge (you cannot prove or disprove that we haven't all been brainwashed by the elves, for example). So as an atheist, if I start from the perspective that supernatural claims to knowledge have no truth content, than I can be content to dismiss these claims with exactly as much evidence as they are presented. I do not treat the claim that god created the universe any different than I would treat a claim invoking backwards talking psychic elves as creators of the universe. I see both as equally unfalsifiable propositions. I do not see the invocation of god as a possible explanatory mechanism as warranting special consideration, and this is the source of my frustration with the agnostic position. The fact that it explicitly holds the proposition that god created the universe as more credible than any other explanation of phenomena that invokes supernatural powers. Hope I wasn't overly obtuse this time. three paragraphs... frack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hmm I would respectfully disagree I think. I think the difference here is we're comparing facts with unknowns. As in it is a fact that I am not Tony the Tiger and can be readily proven and hence for you to believe does not require faith. Similar to seeing the earth revolve around the Sun, you don't need faith to say that it does because it can be demonstrated and accepted as fact. Whereas with the concept of God we only have arguments and evidence both for and against his existence. Whether he exists or not is entirely unknown and no matter which side of the fence you sit you have to do so by faith. I would argue that being an agnostic and saying "I don't know if there is a god or not" is not a statement of faith but of intellectual honesty. To say either "I believe there is a god" or "I do not believe there is a god" are both faith based statements because they are made without 100% knowledge. Now of course one can say they are 99% sure there is no god in which case they are an agnostic atheist and I think that is a reasonable and intellectually honest position to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Doctor banned for prescribing 'gay cure' to teen An Australian doctor and member of a conservative Christian sect has been banned from practicing medicine after he prescribed a teenager a chemical castration drug to be used as a "gay cure." Dr. Mark Craddock of Sydney, who is also a member of the Exclusive Brethren Christian Fellowship sect, prescribed an 18-year-old man who was also part of the sect with the drug after he came out as gay, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. In a letter to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, the unnamed man, who is now 24, said that when he came out as gay, a church leader told him ''there's medication you can go on." He continued, ''He recommended that I speak to Dr Craddock on the matter with a view to my being placed on medication to help me with my 'problem','' the New Zealand resident said, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. The teen went to visit the 75-year-old doctor who then prescribed him with a "gay cure": the anti-androgen therapy cyproterone acetate, sold under the brand name Cyprostat, along with five repeats, according to ninemsn. He said the doctor did not refer him to a psychologist or discuss the drug's side effects. Cyprostat is a form of hormone therapy used to treat prostate cancer. The drug will "work by stopping testosterone from reaching the cancer cells. Without testosterone the prostate cancer cells are not able to grow," according to the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity. Hormone suppressants have been used to "chemically castrate" sex offenders, the Guardian notes. A hearing by the Medical Council of the Australian State of New South Wales determined, "Dr Craddock failed to adequately assess the patient and failed to provide appropriate medical management of the patients therapeutic needs," in anexcerpt obtained by Gay Star News. The committee found that Craddock was guilty of "unsatisfactory processional conduct. He was severely reprimanded and practice restrictions were placed on his registration." There are more than 40,000 Exclusive Brethren around the world, according to the sect's official website. They "believe strongly in the traditional family unit. Marriage is held in the greatest [honor], as one of God's original thoughts of blessing for the human race." Some doctors, like Craddock, have taken somewhat dangerous steps in an attempt to "cure" homosexuality. In 2010, Dr. Maria New of New York City's Mount Sinai was reportedly experimenting with injecting fetuses with steroids to potentially make girls "more feminine" and reduce odds they turn out gay, the Oregonianreported at the time. The American Psychiatric Association has condemned the "treatment" of homosexuality, according to GLAAD, saying, "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient." Activists have championed against "gay cures" in the United Kingdom, which includes Conversion Therapy. Last year, Apple pulled Exodus International's "Gay Cure" app from its collection. Other 'Gay Cures' over the years: Exorcism In 2009 Manifested Glory Ministries came under fire when a 20-minute video posted on YouTube showed a 16 year old being subjected to an exorcism to "cure" him of his homosexuality. The boy is shown writhing as church members stand on his feet, hold him under the arms and scream, "Come on, you homosexual demon! You homosexual spirit, we call you out right now! Loose your grip, Lucifer!" Electrocution Electrocution has long been a go-to tool for "curing" homosexuality and is still used to this day. In October Nathan Manske, the founder and Executive Director of I'm From Driftwood, a 501©(3) non-profit forum for true lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer stories, shared the story of Samuel Brinton on HuffPost Gay Voices. Brinton was raised in rural Iowa and he spoke of growing up gay in a conservative, Southern Baptist family that subjected him to forced Christian conversion therapy. "We then went into the 'Month of Hell,'" Brinton explains in the video above. "The 'Month of Hell' consisted of tiny needles being stuck into my fingers and then pictures of explicit acts between men would be shown and I'd be electrocuted." Prostitution Baron Albert von Schrenck-Notzing, a German psychiatrist who practiced during the 19th century, prescribed a trip to a brothel, preceded by lots of drinking, to cure men of their homosexuality. Women who were "afflicted," it's noted, "were referred only to their husbands." Hypnosis Hypnotism was a common tool used during the 19th century to "cure" homosexuals. When Schrenck-Notzing wasn't busy sending gay men to brothels, he was hypnotizing them. In 1892 the German psychiatrist reported success in treating 32 cases of "sexual perversions." Of the 32 cases, 12 were classified as "cured," meaning "the patients were completely able to 'combat fixed ideas [about homosexuality], deepen a sense of duty, self-control, and right-mindedness.'" Fetal Intervention Günther Dorner, who worked with the Institute for Experimental Endocrinology in the middle of the 20th century, believed that homosexuality is "determined by prenatal gendering of the brain caused by endocrinological disturbances." He hypothesized that if you could alter any hormonal imbalances present in the womb -- as he attempted to do with fetal rats -- homosexuality could be prevented before it even developed. 'Overdosing' On Homosexuality In the 1960s British psychologist I. Oswald would pump a gay man full of nausea-inducing drugs before surrounding him with glasses of urine and playing audio recordings of men having sex. Oswald was attempting to "overdose" gay men on homosexuality in hopes that they would "turn to women for relief." Bicycling American neurologist Graeme M. Hammond suggests bicycling as a cure for homosexuality. He believed "homosexuality was rooted in nervous exhaustion and that bicycle exercise would restore health and heterosexuality." Cold Showers In June of 2011 Hong Kong reportedly hired a psychiatrist to give a government-sponsored training session on conversion therapy. Among the techniques Hong Kwai-wah suggested for "curing" homosexuality were cold showers, prayer, and abstinence. Transplants Eugen Steinach (1861-1944), director of the Biological Institute in Vienna, believed that homosexuality was the result of hormonal imbalances. To prove his hypothesis, the scientist implanted sex organs in neutered rats and Guinea pigs and claimed to have conducted successful "sex change" operations on the rodents. Steinach's research didn't end with animals. He also transplanted testicles from heterosexual men into gay men in hopes of "remasculizing the recipient." http://www.cabinetma...s/29/turner.php Cocaine, Strychnine, Genital Mutilation Physician Denslow Lewis believed that women brought up in wealthy 19th century homes could develop "sexual hyperesthesia [excessive sensitivity to stimuli]" and become lesbians. In order to cure these women he prescribed "cocaine solutions, saline cathartics, the surgical "liberation" of adherent clitorises, or even the administration of strychnine by hypodermic." Though he claimed that some of his patients were "cured" and became wives and mothers, one went insane and died in an asylum. http://www.glreview....hp?articleid=42 Praying "Pray the gay away!" has become the battle cry of the conversion therapy movement. From Marcus Bachmann's alleged conversion clinic to an ex-gay iPhone app, those who believe homosexuality is not only wrong but curable rely on the power of prayer to make a miracle happen. http://www.thenation...-ex-gay-therapy http://outspokennyc....gay-sashay-away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 We can always expect to see sharpshooter in these religious threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 There are several reasons why agnosticism does not fit the bill as a healthy or rational middle ground between atheism and theism. For starters it is a claim to knowledge that you do not have, namely that the existence or non-existence of God are equal propositions. Equal in the sense that some agnostics believe that evidence could be just around the corner that proves the case for or against God, while others believe that evidence of either is fundamentally impossible and therefore nothing for certain can be said on the subject, which is of course a contradiction because to say nothing for certain can be said on the subject is to say something is for certain on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.