Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 14
Atheistic fundamentalism
Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,626 Views)
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 04:05 PM
Quote:
 

Just as all Christians are not the same in their opinions, neither are all atheists. I do not agree with what Moonbat and Jeffrey say. I do not believe that atheism is intellectually superior to religion, and I'm afraid I find that opinion rather arrogant. Neither do I believe that atheism is an empty shell - I find the universe an absolutely wonderful place and I'm very glad to be a part of it.


Do you think it's equally arrogant to say that acreationism is intellecutally superior to the belief that the world is 6000 years old or that ascientology is intellectually superior to scientology?

I mean surely it's not arrogance to say that one should use reason and evidence to determine what is true about the world.

Using reason and evidence is just fine, Moonbat. But if you're truly using reason and evidence, then you have to stop ignoring the evidence you don't agree with. Yes, some believe in a 6,000 year old earth. They're ignoring evidence just like you are. There's more to it than you see, and you are refusing to look. Based on your view that religion has been harmful to humanity, it's easy to see that you are letting unscientific bias interfere with your ability to use reason.

Religion isn't even the issue, Moonbat - God is not religion. Religion *is* man made.



Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the world is not 6000 years old. Satisfactorily demonstrating the non-existence of God is somewhat more problematic.


That's fair enough but then in order to make a comparison where there is no ability to demonstrate the non-existence one invariably has to choose something silly (which i'm sorry i think God is an example of).

I mean if one does pick something one can't simply demonstrate the non-existence of with any ease would you say it was equally arrogant to claim disbelief is the correct position? Do you really think it's arrogant to say that belief in ghosts is intellectually inferior? (though that's your terminology John - i'd stick with just silly)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Using reason and evidence is just fine, Moonbat. But if you're truly using reason and evidence, then you have to stop ignoring the evidence you don't agree with. Yes, some believe in a 6,000 year old earth. They're ignoring evidence just like you are. There's more to it than you see, and you are refusing to look. Based on your view that religion has been harmful to humanity, it's easy to see that you are letting unscientific bias interfere with your ability to use reason.

Religion isn't even the issue, Moonbat - God is not religion. Religion *is* man made.


What evidence am i ignoring Larry? Oh and it really has nothing to do with the view that it's harmfull i think it's harmfull _because_ it's a set of irrational beliefs.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:18 PM
Quote:
 

It's pretty easy to demonstrate that the world is not 6000 years old. Satisfactorily demonstrating the non-existence of God is somewhat more problematic.


That's fair enough but then in oprder to make a comparison where there is no ability to demonstrate the non-existence one invariably has to choose something silly (which i'm sorry i think God is an example of).

I mean one does pick something one can't simply demonstrate the non-existence of with any ease would say it was equally arrogant to claim disblief is the correct position? Do you really think it's arrogant to say that belief in ghosts is intellectually inferior? (though that's your terminology John - i'd stick with just silly)

It's equally silly to say that all of reality came into being with no causality. Why is that galaxy out there? Where did all that stuff come from? Just saying "it is" is a bit silly too, don't you think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

It's equally silly to say that all of reality came into being with no causality. Why is that galaxy out there? Where did all that stuff come from? Just saying "it is" is a bit silly too, don't you think?


Well one can explain the galaxy and the planets and everything all the way back to the big bang. And then we don't know. Maybe there is something else beyond that maybe there isn't. That's it, at the moment that's all you can say. Nothing more, anything beyond that is faith, and hence a waste of time.

If and when we get a theory of quantum gravity or if some novel discovery is made in cosmology then we can look again perhaps that will offer us an answer or some new insight on the topic, perhaps not, we'll have to wait to and see.

What's silly though is to simply assert that a cosmic pillar did it, or a creator God did it or that a collection of Gods or spirits did it, or any description (and there are zillions of them) that lacks any kind of basis.

I mean like i said i don't think it's silly to say perhaps there was a cause, it's just silly to make a specific claim without evidence for that claim.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Scientists say that just one atom out of place and none of this would be here, none of us would exist. The only "irrational belief" I see is the one that says man's mind can come up with all the answers, and that until man's mind comes up with those answers we must take it on faith that this all came to be for no reason at all, just random happenstance........

*that* is the most irrational thinking I've ever heard.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:27 PM
I mean like i said i don't think it's silly to say perhaps there was a cause, it's just silly to make a specific claim without evidence for that claim.

You, my young MiLord, are getting closer to where I'm comming from. :biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Scientists say that just one atom out of place and none of this would be here, none of us would exist. The only "irrational belief" I see is the one that says man's mind can come up with all the answers, and that until man's mind comes up with those answers we must take it on faith that this all came to be for no reason at all, just random happenstance........

*that* is the most irrational thinking I've ever heard.


It's remarkable how many mistakes you can make using so few words.

1) Scientists don't say if one atom was out of place none of this would be here. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

What you probably trying to get at is the fine tuning argument, the idea that if the constants of the standard model were slightly different the universe would be very different and presumably not have us in it.

That idea of course offers no support whatsoever for theological concepts of God. I can smash it to pieces for you if you like, but it doesn't seem worth it since it's not you listen reason is it? It's not like if i refute your arguments you'll change your mind.

2) In no sense do i claim certainty or even confidence that we can figure everything out. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. i don't know but simply acknowledging that we may not be able to figure everything out in no sense makes any of the culutural myths likely to be true. Just examine the reasoning: We may not be able to understand everything therefore there was a cosmic pillar that created everything... uhhhh no. We may not be able understand everything therefore there was a God... uhhh. no.

3) There is no faith at all to anything i think. The very idea of faith is fundamentally stupid, go as far as the evidence will take you and go no further.

4) Your concept of "random" is blatently flawed, the universe is not random it's highly structured. To call it happenstance is equally flawed and of course applies equally to your own myths. You think it's just "happenstance" that there was a God don't you? I mean you have no explanation for the fact that is a God do you? You see your argument applies equally to your own position and so in no sense can be used as a justification for that position.

5) You don't know what rational thinking is.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
TomK
Dec 23 2007, 09:34 PM
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:27 PM
I mean like i said i don't think it's silly to say perhaps there was a cause, it's just silly to make a specific claim without evidence for that claim.

You, my young MiLord, are getting closer to where I'm comming from. :biggrin:

It's always been my position Tom. I consider the claim that there is an intelligent creator to be irrational just as i consider the claim that there is a mystical pillar creator to be irrational or any other of the zillions of possible accounts that lacks evidence for it.

But in terms of whether the big bang has a cause or is acausal, that's unknown to me, i have no position on it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. When quantum gravity comes along hopefully we will be in a bettter position to examine the question.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:44 PM
TomK
Dec 23 2007, 09:34 PM
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:27 PM
I mean like i said i don't think it's silly to say perhaps there was a cause, it's just silly to make a specific claim without evidence for that claim.

You, my young MiLord, are getting closer to where I'm comming from. :biggrin:

It's always been my position Tom. I consider the claim that there is an intelligent creator to be irrational just as i consider the claim that there is a mystical pillar creator to be irrational or any other of the zillions of possible accounts that lacks evidence for it.

But in terms of whether the big bang has a cause or is acausal, that's unknown to me, i have no position on it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. When quantum gravity comes along hopefully we will be in a bettter position to examine the question.

And I consider anthing other than a cause or a non cause of the universe to be anything other than irrational. You may not agree with me--but at least you can see that I'm logically consistant.

At this point I don't know if there is a God. I don't KNOW that. But, I do believe. I don't think you are saying much more on the other side.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Moonbat: "Welcome to delusion city ... enjoy your stay."

Is this an English expression? In the States we say "here's a ticket for the clue bus, catch it before it leaves" or something similar.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
My own point of view is that physical science is not going to be able to factually ascertain the existence/nonexistence of a spiritual being.

I can look at the world and from my perspective, I can see evidence of a great benevolence. I can go into contemplation and in my inner experiences, I can see and feel the power of a great love that is deeper and of a greater magnitude than the sum of my parts. Something like that cannot be measured by science, and I'm the only one who can interpret my personal experience. To me, as it's rooted in personal, individual experience, there's no one that can tell me that all I've got is faith or belief, and there's no one that can take that experience or my interpretation of that experience, away from me.

It may not be measurable by physical science, but it is visible and absolutely measurable in the laboratory of my life, and the results thereof.

:shrug:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Frank - I feel the same was about wood sprites. Thanks for your support. Physical science is not going to be able to factually ascertain the existence/nonexistence of a tree spirit.

It may not be measurable by physical science, but it is visible and absolutely measurable in the laboratory of my life, and the results thereof.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I don't look kindly on being mocked, Jeffrey. As far as I know, I've never had a cross word to you, and you're behaving boorishly.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 23 2007, 06:06 PM
Frank - I feel the same was about wood sprites.  Thanks for your support.  Physical science is not going to be able to factually ascertain the existence/nonexistence of a tree spirit.

Yea, yea, yea. We got the bile thing just fine.

Time to stop sniping and add someting to the discussion, don't you think? :biggrin:

(Didn't mean to jump on your post, Frank.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 02:09 PM
Quote:
 

That is not a definition of time, that is an application of time.

What is time?


Well it seems like a definition to me - it species what time is in terms of it's relationship with space.

Time is a dimension, like the spatial dimensions in which one find elements of matter (though matter is ordered in time in a different way than it is ordered in space).

You are not defining time, you are only comparing it to other dimensions.

Space is given to be three dimensional. Each dimension (X, Y, Z or height, width, length or what ever you want to name them) denotes a comparison. Height is the relative comparison between two points on the Z plane, etc. Volume is is amount of space contained within the relative changes in the X, Y and Z planes (or something to that effect).

If you are going to define time in relation to space, then it needs to be something like the measure of change in moving from one point to another in the X,Y and Z planes.

Now I am sure you will come up with some theoretical physicist who shows this is completely wrong, and no doubt you will unleash a torrent of scientific terminology to support that position. So I'll try to make sense of whatever you respond with. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Jeffrey
Dec 23 2007, 10:00 PM
Moonbat: "Welcome to delusion city ... enjoy your stay."

Is this an English expression? In the States we say "here's a ticket for the clue bus, catch it before it leaves" or something similar.

No, it's a Moonbatism :)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Time is money, and I run out of it every non-denominational winter-festival.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
"Welcome to delusion city ... enjoy your stay."
But such remarks can be taken either way.

Can't they? :biggrin:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I like my delusions. Reality bites.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 23 2007, 06:51 PM
I like my delusions. Reality bites.

John--I have never seen anyone who could use (to a good and happy purpose) a pile of money more than you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
TomK
Dec 23 2007, 03:54 PM
John D'Oh
Dec 23 2007, 06:51 PM
I like my delusions. Reality bites.

John--I have never seen anyone who could use (to a good and happy purpose) a pile of money more than you.

:wave: i could.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Frank - Please take my comments as a reductio ad absurdum of a position, which I see "argued" all too frequently, and not so much directed at you personally.

If you wish a more serious response: have you tried any of the yoga techniques for lucid dreaming? They are in fact effective - I'd imagine more or less anyone can have a lucid dream if they wish using these methods, and I have been able to reproduce these results in a few weeks of trying.

The yogi preachers claim that lucid dreams are "proof" of the reality of the yoga world view (we are in a state of illusion and samsara, we are in reality immortal mind-monads, law of karma and all that). Now do you take lucid dreaming to be proof of the yoga world view, or not? If not, why not?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
And like all reductio arguments and appeals to ridicule are considered fallacies. So what again was your point?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I'm not arguing any position. You and others appear to live in a world where God is not reality for you. I respect that. Myself and others appear to live in a world where God is reality. How come the respect doesn't run both ways?

As for reality, I see it as something that is quite subjective: I don't live in the same world as a Wall Street banker, or an impoverished child begging on the streets of Bangladesh.

As for lucid dreams and out of body experiences, etc., it would depend on the nature of the experience and how I chose to interpret it and apply that experience in my everyday life.

My view of reality is rooted in the subjective, especially as concerns personal experience. Objective life is what happens to us. Subjective reality is what we choose to make of it.

:shrug:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 14