News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Drew_2017

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Certainty is not a claim. In this case, it's scepticism. Not all claims are worth equal consideration. Given how no spiritual forces have been observed in a controlled and repeatable setting, 80% certainty or more is quite reasonable.

I realize that saying certainty isn't a claim makes a big splash in this pond in the real market place of ideas its absurd. If you are 80% or more certain why hide behind this ridiculous charade? Is atheism and naturalism such flimsy ideas you afraid to enter the game and stand for what you believe is true?

Here's the problem with attempting to delineate between spiritual and so called natural forces. You would claim right now that the existence of a ghost is a spiritual event correct? What if ghosts did routinely appear and it was observed and repeated in a scientific setting. There would be nothing supernatural or spiritual about it, it would be a known repeatable natural phenomena as is any phenomena that is known to occur no matter how bizarre or unexpected. Or maybe you'll pin the tail on the laws of physics? However we already know the laws of physics differ in the quantum world than they do in a macro world. Does that mean quantum phenomena is supernatural? No because its been observed to occur so even though some observations are inexplicable they're natural. The best theory about the universe is it came out of a singularity a phenomenon in which the laws of physics don't apply. Is that spiritual? Is it a supernatural feat for scientists to create a virtual universe? Is it unnatural?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Blackleaf

#181
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 16, 2017, 10:39:04 PM
I realize that saying certainty isn't a claim makes a big splash in this pond in the real market place of ideas its absurd. If you are 80% or more certain why hide behind this ridiculous charade? Is atheism and naturalism such flimsy ideas you afraid to enter the game and stand for what you believe is true?

Here's the problem with attempting to delineate between spiritual and so called natural forces. You would claim right now that the existence of a ghost is a spiritual event correct? What if ghosts did routinely appear and it was observed and repeated in a scientific setting. There would be nothing supernatural or spiritual about it, it would be a known repeatable natural phenomena as is any phenomena that is known to occur no matter how bizarre or unexpected. Or maybe you'll pin the tail on the laws of physics? However we already know the laws of physics differ in the quantum world than they do in a macro world. Does that mean quantum phenomena is supernatural? No because its been observed to occur so even though some observations are inexplicable they're natural. The best theory about the universe is it came out of a singularity a phenomenon in which the laws of physics don't apply. Is that spiritual? Is it a supernatural feat for scientists to create a virtual universe? Is it unnatural?

Oh for fuck sake. You cannot be this dense. How certain are you that invisible pink unicorns don't exist? How certain are you that there is no flying spaghetti monster? 50%? 80? How do you justify your claim that neither one exists? Do you have evidence that they don't exist? Do you see how stupid you sound?
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Baruch

Quote from: davoarid on September 16, 2017, 09:10:40 PM
Drew's posts remind me of a bit from CS Lewis's Mere Christianity: it's we atheists who have to maintain that the overwhelming majority of humans who walk and have walked the earth were wrong about the central question of our existence ("Is there a Creator?").

Truth isn't black and white.  It isn't even a fact vs a non-fact ... it is a person vs a non-person.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

#183
Quote from: davoarid on September 16, 2017, 09:10:40 PM
Drew's posts remind me of a bit from CS Lewis's Mere Christianity: it's we atheists who have to maintain that the overwhelming majority of humans who walk and have walked the earth were wrong about the central question of our existence ("Is there a Creator?").
Not sure why I never read CS Lewis before.  I guess I didn't recognize his importance, and maybe I confused him with Alice in Wonderland.  So he says the majority of humans who have walked the Earth were wrong about the central question (creator).  Does he claim to know what position the majority held in that regard, and how does he know they were wrong, or is this something the reader understands from the context?  I'm also trying to understand how this is reminiscent of Drew.

Edit:  Disregard that.  I reread your post and about the fourth time, the meaning sunk in.  I get it.  Lewis is shifting the burden as if the fallacy of numbers determines where the burden belongs, while making unwarranted assumptions about what the out group claims.

SGOS

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 16, 2017, 10:39:04 PM
I realize that saying certainty isn't a claim makes a big splash in this pond in the real market place of ideas its absurd. If you are 80% or more certain why hide behind this ridiculous charade? Is atheism and naturalism such flimsy ideas you afraid to enter the game and stand for what you believe is true?

80%, 90%, or 99.99% certainty = uncertainty.  In your mind, what makes this a ridiculous charade?  And, I'm still hung up on why you took 100% certainty off the table in your poll, because it's an odd debate strategy to disallow a 100% certainty in the poll, and then with a wave of the hand say, "Tut, Tut!  80%, 100%; It's all the same." 

They are not the same.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 12:01:05 AM
Truth isn't black and white.  It isn't even a fact vs a non-fact ... it is a person vs a non-person.
Calling Drew a non-person, I see.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 10:05:16 AM
Calling Drew a non-person, I see.

Actually quite the opposite.  Materialists call themselves and others, non-persons ... but they don't always realize it.  Drew is no more a materialist than I am.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 11:23:46 PM
Oh for fuck sake. You cannot be this dense. How certain are you that invisible pink unicorns don't exist? How certain are you that there is no flying spaghetti monster? 50%? 80? How do you justify your claim that neither one exists? Do you have evidence that they don't exist? Do you see how stupid you sound?

What do you attribute to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monster or what evidence in favor of their existence do you submit? If you don't attribute anything to their existence and they haven't been observed then its a frivolous claim. If you claim a pink invisible unicorn knocks down all your tools in your garage we can set up a camera and determine if its an invisible unicorn or some neighborhood kid did it. I attribute the existence of the universe and life to a Creator, you attribute it to mindless naturalistic forces. We can't observe the Creator or the mindless forces that you allege caused the universe but we can observe the universe and attempt to determine what caused it (if anything) to exist. You guys should consider retiring this stupid argument, it makes those who use it look foolish. Not to mention its standard atheism 101 argument.



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 10:49:26 AM
Actually quite the opposite.  Materialists call themselves and others, non-persons ... but they don't always realize it.  Drew is no more a materialist than I am.
Sort of odd for you--you are claiming that only you and Drew are actually persons, while the rest of the posters here are non-persons.  That is typical theist thinking--only they (of whatever brand of theism they claim) are persons and the rest are non-persons.  Odd, for you, in that you claim you are not a typical theist.  Yet in this important case, you claim you are.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Drew_2017

Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 06:56:36 AM
80%, 90%, or 99.99% certainty = uncertainty.  In your mind, what makes this a ridiculous charade?  And, I'm still hung up on why you took 100% certainty off the table in your poll, because it's an odd debate strategy to disallow a 100% certainty in the poll, and then with a wave of the hand say, "Tut, Tut!  80%, 100%; It's all the same." 

They are not the same.

If a person claims to be a 'weak atheist' they should have no certainty God doesn't exist because they don't deny God exists. What would be the difference between being 99.9999 percent certain and a 100%? My thinking was no one can be a 100% certain of anything. Even things scientifically proven to be factual are only as certain as we can be.

The charade is the claim atheists make no claim. Many of them state with 80% or greater certainty God doesn't exist (out of one side of their mouth) but some how that isn't a claim or a belief. If I said I was 80% sure mindless naturalistic forces alone didn't cause all we observe would you say oh that's fine at least you're not making any claims about it...really?

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 11:19:25 AM
Sort of odd for you--you are claiming that only you and Drew are actually persons, while the rest of the posters here are non-persons.  That is typical theist thinking--only they (of whatever brand of theism they claim) are persons and the rest are non-persons.  Odd, for you, in that you claim you are not a typical theist.  Yet in this important case, you claim you are.

Again, a misreading by literal thinking.  Metaphysically, atheist fundies are very similar to theist fundies .. in their literalism.

No, I don't claim any of you are a non-person ... materialists claim that, and I am a theist, not a materialist.  So you are putting words in my mouth, you are misreading, Derrida style.  And no, I am not a typical theist, but a theist just the same.  If one is a materialist (not all atheists are) ... then one is just a cloud of atoms, no different than the trash in my kitchen trash can.  Is the trash in your kitchen trash can, a person?  Well hopefully not, that would violate rather severely the laws of hospitality.

And the atheists here, in some cases, claim to be ubermenschen.  Something quite a bit more than a mensch.  They aren't materialists.  Nihilists are materialists.  They dismiss, if not hate, their own humanity.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 10:05:16 AM
Calling Drew a non-person, I see.

No worries I've been called worse...
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 12:28:44 PM
No worries I've been called worse...
Not worried--but I can imagine................
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 11:29:56 AM
If I said I was 80% sure mindless naturalistic forces alone didn't cause all we observe would you say oh that's fine at least you're not making any claims about it...really?
I would be mildly curious about how you arrived at all this, but not enough to ask you about it.  For weak atheists there is nothing to defend.  Most strong atheists are willing to defend their position.  I won't say I'm convinced by the arguments, however.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 11:36:50 AM
Again, a misreading by literal thinking.  Metaphysically, atheist fundies are very similar to theist fundies .. in their literalism.

No, I don't claim any of you are a non-person ... materialists claim that, and I am a theist, not a materialist.  So you are putting words in my mouth, you are misreading, Derrida style.  And no, I am not a typical theist, but a theist just the same.  If one is a materialist (not all atheists are) ... then one is just a cloud of atoms, no different than the trash in my kitchen trash can.  Is the trash in your kitchen trash can, a person?  Well hopefully not, that would violate rather severely the laws of hospitality.

And the atheists here, in some cases, claim to be ubermenschen.  Something quite a bit more than a mensch.  They aren't materialists.  Nihilists are materialists.  They dismiss, if not hate, their own humanity.
I can only go by what you say--not what you meant to say, for only you know that.  Same with the world/universe.  I can only go by what I can see (or sense--using one of your senses), not what is meant by what I see.  I don't read between the lines (so to speak) since I don't see any lines and nothing to lead me to think there is anything other than what I see (and what scientific instruments indicate, as well).  God has not presented itself or left any traces of it's existence.  Nature or the material is all around and so far leads me to think that that is all there is.  Until/unless a god(s) steps up, I see no logical reason to think there is such a thing.  I do see plenty of evidence though, that people all over the world have invented god(s) for their own use--to answer questions, to control others, or what have you.  I have seen no evidence to refute that yet. 

As for those labels you are so fond of using, I try not to use them except in the most broad terms, for when a real conversation takes place those terms need to be defined if any sensible communication is to take place.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?