|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism isn't a belief? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
iano writes: A 10 year old can be convicted of a crime he has never been told about by his parents (or anyone else) based on the fact that he is considered to be in possession of a knowledge of natural law *sigh* Dude, a good percentage of what costitutes criminal 'justice' is, "If you hurt me, I get to see that you're hurt back." It also serves the public safety (and the public's perception of safety even more so), and serves as an example to others. And, as an afterthought, the criminals might end up rehabilitated by the negative reinforcement.
iano writes: There is no way to demonstrate that his conscience is equal to everyone elses but it is assumed that it is. Guilty until proven otherwise in this respect. Factors such as upbringing may be taken into consideration but wrong he considered to have done. He cannot claim ignorance due to parenting because ignorance of a law is not considered a defence. You are presumed to be able to have known about it regardless of upbringing. Neither could we use Evolution as a defence "M'lud. My clients mutational makeup has all the evidence (circumstantially) of being one which is slightly other than average - as phenomenon which has been proven by Evolution Theory. This theory poses that advancement will occur due to this very same mutational advantage allied with a process know as survival of the fittest. M'lud, he killed the driver of that vehicle in order to claim the vehicle from it's 'owner' purely on the basis of a mutational makeup outside his control. He pleads innocence based on totally diminished responsiblity and requests that the charge of murder be dropped" Doesn't matter, now does it? 1. "If you hurt me, I get to see that you're hurt back."Does it matter if he was genetically predisposed to do what he did? Nope. 2. Public safety.Does it matter if he was genetically predisposed to do what he did? Nope. It does mean that he'll likely do it again when released if not properly reconditioned, but a genetic predisposition cannot yet be demonstrated, and we rarely go beyond the negative reinforcement of imprisonment as far as reconditioning goes, anyway. 3. Example to others.Does it matter if he was genetically predisposed to do what he did? Nope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
purpleyouko writes: As I pointed out, You don't need to have a different belief in order to lack one in god. True. But if you have no belief in anything then you stop dead at a-anything not at atheism. Investigation or no, the atheist weak or otherwise will point to no evidence of God AND evidence of nature. At least the atheists here have - including you at various points. No one to my recollection has said they are a-anytings
As you may also have noticed, I DO NOT personally believe that there are limits to what science will be able to address . If I were to re-phrase the above and ask you the question: "do you believe that science has the potential to eventually address everything" - what would you say? (remember a 'yes' answer brings in belief and if any other answer which says the same thing - remember Occams Razor) "But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
iano writes: The atheist needs to show reasonably, that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't. Reasonably thus, he doesn't know where the true borders may lie. Thus atheism is rationalised only via a belief that the borders he works within are the only borders there are. Nope.M-Theory allows for multiple 4-dimensional expansions of spacetime -- multiple universes. Say that there are multiple universes. So, 2 universes over, there might be a dog fighting a chicken somewhere within it. Now, your position seems to be that since this 'dog fighting a chicken' wouldn't leave any evidence in our universe, and since I haven't looked in that universe so see whether or not there is a dog fighting a chicken, that I'm irrational if I don't believe in it. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [edit to correct to the right theory. Thanks PurpleYouko.](If I'm not mistaken, Superstring didn't allow for it, so that was way off.) This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-26-2005 12:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Investigation or no, the atheist weak or otherwise will point to no evidence of God AND evidence of nature. I know atheists who just don't care enough to ask the question of why they don't believe. Theirs isn't a reasoned position. They plainly and simply can't be bothered with the whole question.
At least the atheists here have - including you at various points.
Well that isn't surpising as everybody here obviously cares enough to make their voice heard. We are probably not a very good cross section of society to base this kind of classification on. What if you were to meet somebody who had lived their whole life alone in a cave and had never even heard of another human let alone the concept of God?Would he be an atheist? Sure he would. He quite literally has no belief in a concept that he has never encountered. Is he a-anything? Of course not. He believes in his cave, the ground, that he needs to eat when he is hungry and drink when he is thirsty. Remember that to be an atheist you simply have to NOT be a theist. If I were to re-phrase the above and ask you the question: "do you believe that science has the potential to eventually address everything" - what would you say? (remember a 'yes' answer brings in belief and if any other answer which says the same thing - remember Occams Razor)
Apart from the fact that my answer here would have absolutely no bearing on atheism as it does not really address god at all, I think it is a completely unfair and biased question.Do I believe in potential? It isn't a cut and dried yes/no kind of question. A lot depends on your definition of belief. If you mean blindly believing in something without evidence (a' la faith) then no I do not believe it. If you mean believe as in "hold a tentative belief" as with a scientific theory with evidence to back it up but no absolute certainty then I would say yes. I normally equate belief with the first definition when I am involved in this kind of discussion and have also been involved in a number of threads where I have argued this point. Under this definition of belief = faith = certainty without proof, then my answer is a resounding NO How the heck does Occams razor apply here? I am not adding any unnecessary complexity no matter what my answer is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
DominionSeraph writes:
My understanding (admittedly based on nothing more than the science channel and a small amount of googling) is that superstring theory and several other competing theories were all based on 10 dimensions. Then somebody proposed "M" (membrane) theory based on 11 dimensions and suddenly all of the conflicting theories turned out to be exactly the same thing but with a missing dimension. Nope.Superstring Theory allows for multiple 4-dimensional expansions of spacetime -- multiple universes. Say that there are multiple universes. So, 2 universes over, there might be a dog fighting a chicken somewhere within it. I could be wrong of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Lack of belief in God does not mean a lack of belief in other things as I explained in Message 248. Atheism only deals with God. Just as theism only deals with God, not beliefs in anything else. You have been shown that Atheism is not a belief or religion, please address it. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
purpleyouko writes: So you agree then that it is only possible to "know" something if it is literally true. Do you also agree that if something like the statement that "God exists" is absolutely true for one individual then it must be absolutely true for all? If you do agree then your definition of "know" must match my own. I wouldn't use the word 'literally', I would just use the word true. True is just true, it needs no support (although it can be characterised possibly by saying that it is absolute, unchanging, intolerant of falsehood). If we assumed for example that God exists then: God exists is true. It is true for everybody - whether they believe it or not. God is true does not depend on iano's knowing, Purpleyoukos knowing not (or believing not) or anything anyone else knows. God exists is just God exists. God would exist if there was no one to know. True is independant of any of this. There will be something about True which differs from something which isn't true. If a person comes to know what is true it will be because of this difference. It will be this difference, this flavor - which lets them know that what they know is true. But they won't be able to explain it to others to convince others. This difference is something one would have to experience for themselves to understand. The Bible speaks of unbelievers of being blinded. - how do you explain to a blind man what 'red' is?- how do you explain to someone who can't smell what roses smell like? - how do you explain to someone who doesn't know true what knowing true is like? The only what to know any truth is to experience between not knowing and knowing for yourself. I suggest that the 'difference' is not at all unlike 'red' or 'smell'. That's how different true is from not true, maybe true, I believe, I think, Science says....and all the rest of it Can I tell you what the difference is. No. You'd have to know it for yourself. And maybe you do (p.s. Not that we should worry about never finding answers. Death is not a theory. Death is true. Death, the (true) democracy will provide the answer for each and every body - whether they know it or not...) "But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
The Bible speaks of unbelievers of being blinded.
Naturally. It has to have some way to rationalize the total lack of proof on which it is founded and the fact that these "unbelievers" can see right through it. Just shift the onus onto the "unbelievers". They will never notice.
(p.s. Not that we should worry about never finding answers. Death is not a theory. Death is true. Death, the (true) democracy will provide the answer for each and every body - whether they know it or not...)
And what if when you die you find yourself waking up after a good long sleep session in a fantasy induction-anti-boredom machine. In this machine you dreamed that you lived in a fictitious country called Ireland and spent your dream life believing in some god that had absolutely no evidence. You engaged in long, interesting (and possibly a little wacky) discussions with an imaginary person called Purple Youko by means of a thing called the internet.Once you leave the boredom reduction facility, you would go back to your mundane immortal life of boredom and long for the next time you can take some R&R in dreamland. Your turn will come around again... eventually. Is this just a fantasy story? or does it have exactly as much reason to believe in it as the story you are proposing? As you say, we will all find out when we die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The existance of atheism relies completely on there being atheists. No atheists then no atheism. So lets look at the building blocks without which there is no church.
religion4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Meriam Websters online dictionary) Every adherent to atheism is a believer in something by faith - other that God. The doctrine of Atheism is: 'No God ...because of something else'. This, because it's the people (who all don't believe God 'because of something else') who form the doctrine 'No God'. Like, 'No God' didn't come out of mid-air. The people who formed the doctrine just forgot to insert the 'because of something else' when they were doing it. No harm, just a typo. Nothing changes by inserting it now - it was always the case anyway. Now. Atheism is held to with ardor and it's doctrine includes faith in something. Thus atheism is a religion. (there are no athesists who don't believe (by faith) in something else. If they don't believe something else then they are a-anythings - not atheists) I don't want to go on and on about it PD, if your're prepared to concede that every atheist follows a religion but that which they follow isn't itself a religion - then I'm prepared to meet you half way and let it go at that. Talk about turning the other cheek This message has been edited by iano, 26-Aug-2005 07:05 PM "But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
religion
I will go along with that.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Meriam Websters online dictionary) The doctrine of Atheism is: 'No God ...because of something else'.
No it isn't. There is no doctrine of Atheism and there is no "something else". A newborn baby is by definition an atheist.
The people who formed the doctrine just forgot to insert the 'because of something else' when they were doing it. No harm, just a typo. Nothing changes by inserting it now - it was always the case anyway.
Nobody formed a doctrine. There is no doctrine. Atheists become atheists because they lose (or never had) a belief in god. End of story.
Now. Atheism is held to with ardor and it's doctrine includes faith in something. Thus atheism is a religion.
I am utterly lost for words. Has nothing that Purple Dawn, DominionSeraph, myself and others have said, sunk in at all?
(there are no athesists who don't believe (by faith) in something else.
OK you got me. I believe in air. Satisfied? I have absolute faith that there is air in this room with me. Oh wait that doesn't work since air can actually be measured, tested, falsified so it isn't faith.Bugger that must mean I don't exist then. POOF!! (vanishes in a puff of logic) I don't want to sound rude here but debating you is a bit of a waste of time. No matter how many examples I throw at you that substantiate my position, you just ignore them and carry right on, utterly unaffected. There is no middle ground here. You are making assertions that atheism is a religion with tenets, creeds, faith etc. You are trying to push belief systems onto me that are just plain wrong. Atheism is defined by one single thing. That thing is a lack of belief in god.It doesn't matter one tiny little bit what else I believe or don't believe. That one central feature defines me as an atheist. I don't believe in god. Everything else is completely and utterly irrelevent to everybody except you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Again you are ignoring reality. You have been told that atheism only deals with god, not anything else. As I showed you in Message 248. If I believe that nature is all that exists, then I am a naturalist. That is a belief but it has nothing to do with atheism. Again, atheism is a lack of belief. Theism is a belief in god, not anything else. It doesn't mean you practice a religion or that you believe in fairies, or trolls, etc.
quote:There is no doctrine of atheism. You may run into people who give you their reason for not believing, but that doesn't constitute a doctrine. Etymology of AtheismIt is nothing more than a tag to identify those without gods. quote:I'm sure you don't because I have shown you to be wrong and you have yet to show otherwise. quote:Why in the world would I want to concede to a sentence that makes no sense, especially since I've already proven you wrong? No matter how much you manipulate word meanings to try and make your point, you have not succeeded. You have not shown that atheism is a belief. You have said it is, but you haven't shown that it is. Babble on! "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Alas, our purpleness had no effect on him. I think he's using the repition sales technique. Keep saying the same thing over and over until they give in. Although I would appreciate it if an Admin would at least let us know if we did make our point in this debate, since I'm sure iano will not concede. I've never gotten to this point in a debate where a very solid point has been made and I felt it was supported. Oh well I'm off to feed the purple dragon in my garage. Take care. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Maybe the IPU was right all along.
Maybe nobody pays any attention to us poor people of purple persuasion. Take care with that purple dragon of yours. I am off to study up on the holy video of Star Wars and see if I can find the deeper meanings of that strange noise that Chewbaka always makes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
purpledawn writes: I think he's using the repition sales technique. Keep saying the same thing over and over until they give in. I don't think he has a choice in the matter. He seems to have some need to believe that atheism is irrational; and, in typical Fundie fashion, is unwilling to give up that belief no matter what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4785 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
iano writes: Every adherent to atheism is a believer in something by faith - other that God. The doctrine of Atheism is: 'No God ...because of something else'. This, because it's the people (who all don't believe God 'because of something else') who form the doctrine 'No God'. Like, 'No God' didn't come out of mid-air. The people who formed the doctrine just forgot to insert the 'because of something else' when they were doing it. No harm, just a typo. Nothing changes by inserting it now - it was always the case anyway. What's the 'something else' if you don't believe that there's a dog fighting a chicken two universes over?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024