Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1 of 165 (616461)
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
I think many forms of anti-theism can rightly be called systems of irrational beliefs.
Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably.
As with all people, of course, their statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs. The greatest harm comes in their false portrayal of themselves as being rational and reasonable, when they are not. Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
One of the primary beliefs and behaviors that I have seen in this group is the rejection of the reality of any real basis for religious belief. Another is the willingness to resort to bullshit, illogical argumentation strategies for any possible opportunity to 'bash' religious beliefs.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about, and some of the threads that inspired me to propose this topic.
In a thread on another forum, I've been participating in a debate about the death of Jesus and its significance to Christians as a human sacrifice story. Here is the OP and the author's thesis:
quote:
kennyc in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
I was watching this: Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&feature=playe...
(Great video on its own, but not totally relevant to this topic)
and at one point he talks about human sacrifice (to cure the king of syphilis or to bring the rains) and it suddenly struck me that the whole Jesus crucifixion story is really just a "human sacrifice to the gods" story that has been spun and adapted and modified to fit the christian religion. Human sacrifice to save the society....
My first reply was this:
quote:
Gremled the Great (Jon) in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
Since the 'christian religion' didn't exist at the time of the crucifixion, and not even for several decades after, I find it difficult to believe that the crucifixion was designed to fit a preconceived worldview.
In reply to me, the OPer wrote:
quote:
kennyc in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
There was much propaganda of a savior etc. way before it happened. It doesn't matter if it had a name or not. The point is the event was just an magnification/enhancement/spin of prior human sacrifice events within the developing religion, just as "God" was a combination of prior gods but spun into the christian god for fun and profit.
And then there was this malarkey:
quote:
OlegTheBatty in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
You are assuming that the crucifixion actually happened, and that Jesus actually lived, though neither premiss has compelling evidence to support it.
If, as evidence suggests, the Jesus mythology was created decades later, then the crucifixion portion is a form of human sacrifice, with the authors of the myth doing the sacrificing of their story's hero (but not really, cause they bring him back to life a few days later) for their own purposes.
After a short volley of posts in which I requested some evidence for the claims, I was hit with the typical reply from people who have nothing to support their fantasy delusions:
quote:
kennyc in Is the crucifixion story just a spin on human sacrifice? at The Skeptics Society Forum:
You need to educate yourself on the history of religion and gods.
Shocked to see self-proclaimed intellectuals closing their mind to reasoning and evidence, I did more research and found out that there is a whole movement of these loons:
quote:
Wikipedia on Jesus Myth Theory
New Testament scholar Robert M. Price, who argues it is quite likely there never was an historical Jesus in the sense that the Gospel version is in essence a composite character and therefore unable to be reasonably verified as a single historical person, writes that the Jesus myth theory is based on three pillars:
  • There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
  • The Pauline epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus.
  • The story of Jesus shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Price writes that Christian apologists have tried to minimize these parallels.

What I take from this is that these people (anti-theists) are willing to close their minds to any reasonable evidence or discussion in order to continue under the delusion that no religion (especially the currently popular ones) could possibly have its origins in any actual historical events. Such closed-minded bias used to support a position contrary to any reasonable interpretation of reality is what is typically referred to as fundamentalism, which is an extremist form of belief. What is most important to this observation is not the belief itself that is held (the real Jesus may well have been so different from any accounts of his life as to be unrecognizable to any modern person studying the matter), but the fact that the belief is held and clung to in the face of reasoning against it.
As another example, let me link to a thread at FA, which I already linked to once in a different thread here about a different topic. In an effort to bash religious beliefs in any manner possible, the OPer in that thread has been arguing for and clinging to a set of ridiculous beliefs regarding the origin of the OT God, most notably that he was originally worshipped as a volcano (or something like that). Here is a link to one of the later posts; I think reading from there to the end of the thread should be sufficient to demonstrate the utter lack of reasoning or evidence for TheJackel's claims, as well as his standard of argumentation, which consists of openly using logical fallacies, quotemines, strawmen, irrelevant 'evidence', and much more. As an example, he states:
quote:
TheJackel in An interesting questions for Christians at Friendly Atheist:
1) Your very reply, or post here is direct evidence that supports my position.
2) Things like G-lock, deep water blackouts, and sedation also support many key points of my position
3) Information theory is evidence for my position, digital physics is evidence of my position ect ect.
4) Total lack of ANY evidence on your part is evidence for my position..
5) Your inability to reply without using information/energy is evidence, and proof of my position.
6) My correct use of the terms use such as "Omniscience", 'Omnipresence", ect are evidence for my position.
Thus, I conclude that it is highly likely that anti-theism (extreme atheism, religious hatred, etc.) meets the minimal standards to rightly be called a belief system, and an extremist one at that, driven by the same type of ignorance, mental gymnastics, and sophistry so typical of any other religious fundamentalism.
But I imagine there are some here who disagree with me, so I'm open to a discussion.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : subtitle

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2011 3:36 PM Jon has replied
 Message 4 by Trae, posted 05-22-2011 4:24 PM Jon has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 5:42 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 10 by fearandloathing, posted 05-22-2011 6:05 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 6:07 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 05-22-2011 7:43 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-23-2011 1:01 AM Jon has replied
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-23-2011 8:50 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 49 by Bailey, posted 05-23-2011 6:19 PM Jon has replied
 Message 62 by Panda, posted 05-23-2011 8:09 PM Jon has replied
 Message 84 by ScientificBob, posted 05-24-2011 10:43 AM Jon has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 2 of 165 (616463)
05-22-2011 2:37 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 165 (616465)
05-22-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
I think that you are going over the top here.
The first point you object to is pretty vague - it's not clear that it is even questioning the crucifixion or simply pointing to how events were interpreted by early Christians. If the latter is true then it is your objection that is poor, since it completely ignores that point.
The Jesus Myth hypothesis is,in my view likely wrong, but that isn't because there is strong evidence for a historical Jesus. Rather, I consider the existence of a historical Jesus to be the best explanation of the limited evidence that we do have. The Jesus Myth hypothesis is a fringe idea, but not one that can be conclusively disproven. (That said there are some versions that are downright silly).
And while there are eares where I think that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is too widely accepted, I do think that you have to be careful choosing examples. If I were to try to use Buzsaw or Dawn Bertot as examples of typical Theists that would be VERY unfair on Theism. Concentrating on a few individuals is NOT a good way of making your point. There will always be the suspicion that you are cherry-picking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 05-22-2011 5:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 4 of 165 (616469)
05-22-2011 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Clearly, some atheists also hold some illogical beliefs about religions. Also, clearly, some atheists are less capable than others to conduct debate. Still, it seems you’ve done little than other than loosely establishing those points.
It is not an unreasonable or an illogical position that Jesus may have been a composite figure. I believe there are threads about discussing this, or you could try and start another.
Jon writes:
Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably.
As with all people, of course, their statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs. The greatest harm comes in their false portrayal of themselves as being rational and reasonable, when they are not. Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
Jon writes:
Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership. Despite claims of being rational, many anti-theists most often present arguments about religious matters that are irrational and unreasonable, and even seek out religious topics to which to apply these irrational, unreasonable argumentsi.e., they target dissenting opinions with irrational, unreasonable garbage arguments. The great danger, here, of course, is that their belief in their own 'unreasonable reasoning' prevents reasoning with them on any matters relating to religion about which they've already formed their beliefs: They cannot be reasoned with in matters where they are behaving blindly unreasonably.
What qualifies someone for the label ‘fundamental atheists’?
What exactly are these core beliefs you claim but do not seem to cite?
Jon writes:
As with all people, of course, their statements are not always irrational, unreasonable, and/or wrong. But unlike their rational, more reasonable counterparts (agnostics, weaker atheists, etc.), they often succumb to the same reasoning errors, illogical mental gymnastics, and sophistry typical of religious apologists. In this they reveal their positions not to be supported by reasoning and rationality, as they claim, but instead to be supported by irrational and unreasonable beliefs. The greatest harm comes in their false portrayal of themselves as being rational and reasonable, when they are not. Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.
Please support your claim that atheists are less reasonable and rational than agnostics, weak atheists, etc.
I think you would do better by supporting the later part of the quoted paragraph. Please pick on person you think meets your claim and clearlyshow:
Jon writes:
Thus they fail to recognize rationality and reasonability and are so incapable of understanding arguments based on rationality or reasonability regarding the beliefs to which they cling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 05-22-2011 4:59 PM Trae has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 165 (616471)
05-22-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Trae
05-22-2011 4:24 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Clearly, some atheists also hold some illogical beliefs about religions. Also, clearly, some atheists are less capable than others to conduct debate.
Well, those are the people this thread is primarily about.
It is not an unreasonable or an illogical position that Jesus may have been a composite figure.
I think you should read through the first thread I linked to in the OP. The position that the Christian religion was invented in its basic current form for profit and a laugh is down-right unsupportable. Clinging to this position can be nothing other than an unwillingness to address reality and reasoning.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for people having the right to hold to unrealistic and unreasonable beliefs without being judged. But when they begin deluding themselves and others into thinking that their unrealistic and unreasonable beliefs are supportable facts, then they have rightly earned themselves the label 'fundamentalists'.
What qualifies someone for the label ‘fundamental atheists’?
What exactly are these core beliefs you claim but do not seem to cite?
Well I did actually mention two of them, and then gave some examples:
quote:
Jon in Message 1:
One of the primary beliefs and behaviors that I have seen in this group is the rejection of the reality of any real basis for religious belief. Another is the willingness to resort to bullshit, illogical argumentation strategies for any possible opportunity to 'bash' religious beliefs.
There was the thread at the Skeptics Forum (link in OP) as well as the one at FA (link also in OP). If you feel that these examples were nonillustrative, then let me know what you find wrong with them so that I may present other examples that you may not consider failures.
Please support your claim that atheists are less reasonable and rational than agnostics, weak atheists, etc.
I don't think that all atheists are unreasonable, just the ones who behave in a manner similar to what I laid out in the OP, that is, just the ones who behave unreasonably.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Trae, posted 05-22-2011 4:24 PM Trae has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 165 (616474)
05-22-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
05-22-2011 3:36 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
I think that you are going over the top here.
A:
There are atheists. There are unreasonable people. There are unreasonable atheists.
1. There are unreasonable atheists who admit to holding unreasonable positions.
2. There are unreasonable atheists who are unwilling to admit the unreasonableness of their unreasonable positions.
B:
There are theists. There are unreasonable people. There are unreasonable theists.
1. There are unreasonable theists who admit to holding unreasonable positions.
2. There are unreasonable theists who are unwilling to admit the unreasonableness of their unreasonable positions.
I think it is appropriate to label people of type A2 and B2 'fundamentalists' (as well as any potential C2, D2, etc.).
This thread is to discuss the A2 variety; why their positions are unreasonable, why they hold to their unreasonable positions, why they are convinced that they are not unreasonable, etc.
We've many threads here discussing those things regarding the B2 variety. Now we have one for discussing the A2 variety.
If I were to try to use Buzsaw or Dawn Bertot as examples of typical Theists that would be VERY unfair on Theism.
Well, I'm not talking about 'typical' atheists. I am specifically saying, let's examine the atheist counterparts of folk like Buz and Dawn.
Concentrating on a few individuals is NOT a good way of making your point. There will always be the suspicion that you are cherry-picking.
I am not hoping to draw sweeping conclusions about atheism. I am hoping to look at a particular group of atheists and study them.
It is my position that such a group is large enough to warrant investigation.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : mssng letters

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2011 3:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2011 5:45 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 5:58 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2011 9:52 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 7 of 165 (616475)
05-22-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Perhaps it would be better to address your complains to those who merit them, as and when the occasion arises, rather than painting all "anti-theists" with the broadest brush you can lay your hands on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 165 (616476)
05-22-2011 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
05-22-2011 5:10 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
quote:
Well, I'm not talking about 'typical' atheists. I am specifically saying, let's examine the atheist counterparts of folk like Buz and Dawn.
Jon, I read the OP. That is certainly NOT clear.
I also note that you don't deal with the point that your criticisms seem to be somewhat exaggerated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 05-22-2011 5:10 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 165 (616477)
05-22-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
05-22-2011 5:10 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Well, I'm not talking about 'typical' atheists. I am specifically saying, let's examine the atheist counterparts of folk like Buz and Dawn.
Then perhaps you should have said so. What you wrote was: "Amongst the anti-theists, and by that I mean people typically regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters in general, there flows a set of core beliefs and behaviors that define them as a group in the same manner that members of religious denominations hold to tenets that define their membership."
Now many people are "regarded as fundamental atheists or religion-haters" (in fact pretty much any atheist is so regarded by religious nutters irrespective of his actual opinions) and yet they do not share "core beliefs" such as bad arguments for the mythical status of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 05-22-2011 5:10 PM Jon has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 10 of 165 (616478)
05-22-2011 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
There are nuts on both sides, but I dont see any evidence of a belief system atheist live by. Atheist agree there is no god, 1 common belief is not a system.
Please explain what other beliefs I have, as I am unaware of being part of any belief system, rather the opposite.
I dont think JC was a sacrifice, I think he was found guilty of a crime and was punished. Was this right, not by our standards today, but look at how many have been killed by Christians unjustly.
Sorry, little off-topic, but my point is the only belief all atheist have is there is no god.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 05-23-2011 5:08 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 165 (616479)
05-22-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Jon writes:
I think many forms of anti-theism can rightly be called systems of irrational beliefs.
I agree completely.
Technically, by math and science alone, the default position should be agnosticism. Neither theists nor atheists have any definitive proof for their position. Now if we factor in the humanities, which already has the term human within, perhaps a case can be made against strong atheism based upon which serves which, Utopian socialism or objectivism, Kurtzwellism, Skynet, or HAL9000.
Science is meant to serve humanity, not become its master, a point too often lost.
That being said it is important to remember one of the humanities, namely history, which clearly shows science has saved more people's lives than religious intolerance ever managed to murder even in its wildest dreams.
There is more to human life than Vulcanism.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 6:38 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 05-23-2011 6:31 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 87 by ScientificBob, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM anglagard has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 165 (616480)
05-22-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by anglagard
05-22-2011 6:07 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Technically, by math and science alone, the default position should be agnosticism.
I disagree. Math doesn't come into it; and in science the default position is that any given class of objects does not exist --- which in the case of deities constitutes atheism.
In science such an attitude is conjoined with a willingness to revise this position if positive evidence is forthcoming; but if that qualification to disbelief is what you mean then I don't think you should call it agnosticism; or at least you should say that it is the point at which agnosticism overlaps with "negative" or "weak" atheism, in which case the two are not, as your post would suggest, mutually exclusive.
Neither theists nor atheists have any definitive proof for their position.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "God". If you mean the guy who created the world 6,000 years ago, then the atheists have evidence that is as definitive as anything is; if you mean an omnibenevolent ruler of the Universe, then the atheists have evidence that is at least highly compelling; if you mean an intelligent being who made the Big Bang go bang then the existence of such a being is plausible; and if by "God" you mean my left leg then the theists have been right all along, though even in that case I wouldn't actually worship it. I'd feel silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 6:07 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 13 of 165 (616483)
05-22-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2011 6:38 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
My post was specifically designed to elicit responses, thanks for being first.
Dr Adequate writes:
I disagree. Math doesn't come into it; and in science the default position is that any given class of objects does not exist --- which in the case of deities constitutes atheism.
So we agree in disagreeing.
Some would argue that mathematics is so pure and so beautiful, it must come from a 'higher being.' I have both read and personally met advocates of this position. Indeed I have had an epiphany of the soul while studying higher mathematics. While this obviously does not prove any existence of a higher intelligence to me, I can understand how such an experience may to others.
As to science and indeed logic itself, it seems to me we have two propositions:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist
Are they not equal propositions?
In science such an attitude is conjoined with a willingness to revise this position if positive evidence is forthcoming; but if that qualification to disbelief is what you mean then I don't think you should call it agnosticism; or at least you should say that it is the point at which agnosticism overlaps with "negative" or "weak" atheism, in which case the two are not, as your post would suggest, mutually exclusive.
I sort of understand your point, however I do consider agnosticism to be the inherent default position until shown to be otherwise by either the concept of beauty or science.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "God". If you mean the guy who created the world 6,000 years ago, then the atheists have evidence that is as definitive as anything is
Obviously wrong, blatantly wrong.
if you mean an omnibenevolent ruler of the Universe, then the atheists have evidence that is at least highly compelling
Largely an artifact of primitive people needing to answer their kids questions but having no decent answers, a situation much improved on today, yet still imperfect.
if you mean an intelligent being who made the Big Bang go bang then the existence of such a being is plausible
By which statement you yourself have argued against strong atheism, there is a difference between plausible and impossible.
and if by "God" you mean my left leg then the theists have been right all along, though even in that case I wouldn't actually worship it. I'd feel silly.
Who wouldn't, glad to see your sense of humor is intact, as that is the best defense against both stupidity and senility.
My argument in this thread is not necessarily for any belief, my argument is against the absolute certainty of strong atheism, which to me states the evidence rules out any possibility of anything remotely what anyone may have referred to as 'God.' (yeah I know, a pretty broad brush).
I still hold the default position should be agnosticism until moved, either by logic or epiphany.
Edited by anglagard, : another one of those creep in mispellings

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 6:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 9:57 PM anglagard has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 14 of 165 (616486)
05-22-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
One of the primary beliefs and behaviors that I have seen in this group is the rejection of the reality of any real basis for religious belief.
The "reality" of any basis for religion?
We know where religious thought comes from, Jon. These threads are full of that evidence.
We know the veracity of the religious texts are highly suspect. Even biblical scholars attest that most of the books of the bible were written over many generations by many different scribes, and they can sometimes identify each author's embellishments.
We know the penchant for humans to exaggerate to extremes with each re-telling of some story until the simple human basis in fact is lost in superstitious supernatural myth.
We know that there are no facts, none, which support any kind of supernatural entity or occurance. We have seen all too often the politics and the human motivation for power that leads religious cults to arise.
The "reality" is so weak that whether there was a Jesus of Nazareth or not is openly disputed, and if there was, given the numbers of massiah-wannabes around during that time, he was most certainly nothing more than a religious zealot with a message and a following but nothing more.
From all the evidence available over the millenia we know that religions (all of them) are made up from long embellished fairy tales ascribed by believers from acculturation, wishfull thinking and with weak critical thinking skills.
These are the facts we have. This is the reality of religious history throughout all of human history. It's all BS, Jon.
And we haven't even begun to list the harm, the attrocities, the evil religion has perpetrated throughout our species' history.
There is nothing wrong, irrational, unreasonable or improper in calling bullshit just what it is. And given the disparity in the weight of the evidence, all versus absolutely none, there is nothing wrong, irrational, unreasonable or improper in slamming the philosophical door on a supposition that has no rational reason to exist.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : more spelin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 165 (616493)
05-22-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
05-22-2011 5:10 PM


Mythology and Belief of "Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism"
Well, I'm not talking about 'typical' atheists. I am specifically saying, let's examine the atheist counterparts of folk like Buz and Dawn.
Then it's too bad that you couldn't present an example of even a single such individual.
The most amazing part about your OP is how reasonable your interlocutors are, and how your supposed "evidence" is just you quoting some portion of their entirely reasonable remarks, making a reply that doesn't substantively address their concerns, and then calling them names.
Detailing precisely how you fall short in replying to your counterparts isn't, of course, on topic on this thread. But the notion that you've uncovered some kind of religious anti-religiosity among people who, say, doubt the historicity of Jesus based on the very true fact that there's no evidence for the historicity of Jesus is risible.
Maybe reflexive, ideological, "7" atheists (to use the Dawkins Scale) exist. But your OP has not even a single example of anything but your inability to respond to arguments and your apparent surprise that there exist people who don't believe in a historical Jesus.
Well, I'm one such individual, and there's nothing religious about it - there's just no evidence at all for Jesus outside of the Bible, which is a work known to be next to useless as a historical document. None at all. Nothing. For the world of 0 AD's largest, most complete bureaucracy to be possessed of such a lacuna is impossible; the only reasonable explanation is that there was no such thing as Jesus.
The funny thing about the historical evidence for Jesus is that everyone simply takes it for granted that there is some, but nobody ever seems to be able to actually say what the evidence is. I think a thread could probably be dedicated to this and other instances of Heisen-evidence - evidence that everyone is certain exists, but which no one actually seems to be able to present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 05-22-2011 5:10 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 2:51 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024