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: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 04:40:17 PM
It seems to me that STRONG atheists have more in common with theists.  Both assert positive claims of knowledge.  The weak atheist makes no claims, which would be the opposite of both the theist and the strong atheist.

Theism whether philosophical or religious is a belief, its often referred to as a faith. When people say they 'know' God exists they are referring to some subjective knowledge they claim confirms God's existence which perhaps for them it does. True the weak atheist doesn't deny God exists. If someone claims to be a weak atheist it would be pointless to have a debate about whether God exists because they don't deny God exists and either does the theist. Sooner or later the weak theist lets the cat out of the bag and makes a statement that reveals their true opinion.

Quotearguments are centered around testing the claims of theists, but finding no credible evidence for a god.  They are not searching for evidence of NOT god, which is (so I've been told) logically absurd.

That depends on if they're weak anaturalists as well. That is to say they don't reject the claims of naturalism they just lack that belief due to lack of evidence. In my experience they never are remotely skeptical of naturalism (defined as mindless natural forces without plan or intent causing all we observe) its only theism they are skeptical of. Why the bias?Since there very position depends on no evidence, no fact presented will be called evidence because they say so.

The existence of the universe alone is a fact (evidence) it was caused by naturalistic forces its just as probable it was caused by a Creator. Since weak atheists don't deny God exists they can't deny God caused the universe to exist also. To the best of our knowledge things are caused to exist intentionally or caused unintentionally by unguided forces. The existence of the universe is perfectly valid evidence it was caused by naturalistic forces its also (barring a better naturalistic explanation) valid evidence it was caused by a Creator. When people say what leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator? The existence of the universe with the properties to cause sentient life to exist and lack of a better explanation.   


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

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

Drew_2017

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?

Quote from: Hydra009 linktopic=11931.msg1192091#msg1192091 date=1505681008
The same evidence you claim is in favor of your God.  Both arguments are equally stupid of course, yet you hold one as the height of wisdom and the other as nonsense because one backs a conclusion you already hold and one does not.

No just because you say belief in invisible pink unicorns is the same as belief in a Creator of the universe doesn't make it so anymore than if I said belief in naturalism is as stupid as belief in the flying spaghetti monster. Are you ever going to up your responses to something you actually thought of yourself rather than these shopworn arguments you always resort to? Let me know if you ever come up with something original.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Cavebear

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 11:35:56 PM
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?

No just because you say belief in invisible pink unicorns is the same as belief in a Creator of the universe doesn't make it so anymore than if I said belief in naturalism is as stupid as belief in the flying spaghetti monster. Are you ever going to up your responses to something you actually thought of yourself rather than these shopworn arguments you always resort to? Let me know if you ever come up with something original.

I am constantly amused by people who confuse their "certainty of faith" with facts.  I am also utterly angered and frustrated by the same.  NO degree of faith has any connection to "fact".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
Theism whether philosophical or religious is a belief, its often referred to as a faith. When people say they 'know' God exists they are referring to some subjective knowledge they claim confirms God's existence which perhaps for them it does.
This is why theism has more in common with strong atheism than weak atheism.  Both claim to know something.  Whether the epistemology is based on knowing by way of faith or knowing by way of facts, they both claim truth based on the knowledge claim.  KNOWLEDGE is what separates strong atheism from weak atheism, not some arbitrary tipping point where one is actually stronger than the other  Strong atheism just claims knowledge, as does faith based theism.  At least this is the definition I learned.  Some self identified strong atheists contest that definition, as I'm guessing you do.  Such is the weakness of semantic arguments, which I usually try to avoid.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
True the weak atheist doesn't deny God exists. If someone claims to be a weak atheist it would be pointless to have a debate about whether God exists because they don't deny God exists and either does the theist.
I disagree that the debate is pointless.  You have only stated half the issue when you claim that neither the weak atheist or the theist denies God's existence.  What you ignore is that the weak atheist does not hold a belief in God, while the theist does.  This is a major oversight, and therein is where the debate and discussions of epistemology and logic take place.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
Sooner or later the weak theist lets the cat out of the bag and makes a statement that reveals their true opinion.
You make it sound like letting the cat out of the bag is when a weak atheist reveals he has actual knowledge.  If he makes a claim, it would be good practice to justify it, as trdsf did earlier in regards to epistemology.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
In my experience they [weak atheists] never are remotely skeptical of naturalism (defined as mindless natural forces without plan or intent causing all we observe) its only theism they are skeptical of. Why the bias? 
That's probably because there is no strong reason to be skeptical of natural forces.  We can observe them, and indeed they do appear to be mindless, even if someone else tries to imply they do have a mind.  However, skepticism does apply to "where it all came from" because we have no evidence for or against creation (defined as something coming from nothing).  No evidence for or against any force existing prior to the universe that would have exerted a causal effect, and no evidence for against there always being something there.  I would be skeptical of any answer at this point.  But natural forces have been observed.  God, not so much.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
The existence of the universe alone is a fact (evidence) it was caused by naturalistic forces its just as probable it was caused by a Creator. Since weak atheists don't deny God exists they can't deny God caused the universe to exist also. To the best of our knowledge things are caused to exist intentionally or caused unintentionally by unguided forces. The existence of the universe is perfectly valid evidence it was caused by naturalistic forces its also (barring a better naturalistic explanation) valid evidence it was caused by a Creator. When people say what leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator? The existence of the universe with the properties to cause sentient life to exist and lack of a better explanation.   
I accept that is your opinion.  But my opinion is that "existence, therefore Creator" is non sequitur, and is customarily avoided in logic.  That doesn't make it wrong of course.  Hell, I don't even deny a creator.  It just makes it illogical.


SGOS

Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 01:59:31 AM
NO degree of faith has any connection to "fact".
Which is the definition of faith.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 02:10:42 AM
Which is the definition of faith.

Which is why any mention of "faith" has to be considered irrational and illogical.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

fencerider

now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

hmm things hoped for - that's a verb, and substance is a noun ... so we have to change everything into a noun for it to make sense. got it. its a birthday wish, ya that's it. a birthday wish (wishful thinking) is the substance of things hoped for.

and the other part faith is the evidence of things not seen, that means faith provides the proof of existence of things you can't see

if we put that all together we get a birthday wish is the proof of the existence of things you can't see; like god.

well I'm glad we got that settled


I think Cavebear will be munchin on pink unicorns before Trump becomes a good president. And Trump will become a good president long before we get the real proof of creation that Drew is looking for.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Cavebear

Quote from: fencerider on September 19, 2017, 03:10:20 AM
now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

hmm things hoped for - that's a verb, and substance is a noun ... so we have to change everything into a noun for it to make sense. got it. its a birthday wish, ya that's it. a birthday wish (wishful thinking) is the substance of things hoped for.

and the other part faith is the evidence of things not seen, that means faith provides the proof of existence of things you can't see

if we put that all together we get a birthday wish is the proof of the existence of things you can't see; like god.

well I'm glad we got that settled


I think Cavebear will be munchin on pink unicorns before Trump becomes a good president. And Trump will become a good president long before we get the real proof of creation that Drew is looking for.

I present you with a prize for humor...  Take it lightly for the joke of it...


Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

Quote from: fencerider on September 19, 2017, 03:10:20 AM
now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

hmm things hoped for - that's a verb, and substance is a noun ... so we have to change everything into a noun for it to make sense. got it.
Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.

Sal1981

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.
Quantum flow field healing process crystals.

[spoiler]I just made that shit up on the spot.[/spoiler]

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.
I am SO GLAD I'm not the only one who thinks Chopra is an idiot! 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

I don't think he's an idiot, but a very smart, well-practiced manipulator of words that sound profound but are merely misleading.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

SGOS

Some cons are good at what they do and take pride in their ability to mislead others.  It's a skill, like computer programming or chemical engineering.  Many lucrative sources of personal income are based on skills of deception.  The good con artists are rich, famous, and powerful.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 10:56:50 AM
Some cons are good at what they do and take pride in their ability to mislead others.  It's a skill, like computer programming or chemical engineering.  Many lucrative sources of personal income are based on skills of deception.  The good con artists are rich, famous, and powerful.
Apparently one of the easier fields for these people is in religion.  Just channel surf after midnight and note how many of these rich fleecers there 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?

Unbeliever

Fleecing flocks for felonious financing?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman