A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
Sorry to come to this debate so late.... but a couple of things.
Your examination of Aetheist/Skeptic thinking is pretty off target and is more or less backwards. Thats generally the case I find when somone who subscribes to faith is examining objective thinking (no offense just an observation) .... which brings me to my points.
Skeptics and in this case Aetheists dont have "belief"/"faith" as such. We may suspect something to be true or false and you can call that a beleif if you want but thats just language semantics.
What science based thinkers or skeptics or aetheists tend to do is hypothesize about a particular topic then seek evidence to support that hypothesis. Or in the case of aethists we dont need to even hypothesise because theists are doing that for us. Theists are the ones asserting that there is a divine creator, they are the ones with the "beliefs". We just look at the evidence to support that hypothesis and find that none exists.... not a shred... not a single peice of hard evidence. Ergo we summise that there is no proof for the existence of a god, ergo none exists.
Secondly your assertion that the cause of the universe cannot be observed observationally simply highlights your lack of personal research on the topic. There are many strongly supporting data sets for the so called big bang theory and super singularities. Just as the evidence to support evolution theory is now basically overwhelming. The ability and education required to understand cosmology is high so I can appreciate that not everyone finds it accessible. But to say that the there is no supporting eveidence for the various theories about the creation of the universe is simply wrong. There is no contradictory position here, simply a lack of research on your part.
So to address your main point, again I say you are missunderstanding how skeptics think. We do not subscribe ourselves to a position and then try to support it. We look at the subscribed positions and the options then attempt to align the available evidence with those positions and base our position on the one that has the best balance of evidence, balance of probability and passes the common sense test. The 3 main areas where faith and religion fails on all counts.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
First: It's not about statistics, it's about why the argument is used, and whether or not it's a fair assessment. The argument was used by Dawkins in order to show that faith isn't really a choice, but rather a result of cultural backgrounds, and there are far too many exceptions to this in order for me to believe it. He uses the argument in order to make it seem as though people who are religious are just following a trend, such is not the case.
You know there are cultures within cultures? Because there is a Christian in Indonesia, simply means there is a Christian culture within Indonesia and probably lived around there. Indonesia has an 8% Christian population. You know where that 8% came from? Immigrants, just follow the breadcrumb trail and you will go all the way back to where Jesus lived and died. The large reason why I became a Christian? That takes balls for you to tell me what the largest reason why I became a Christian is, I'll thank you to not make such baseless assumptions in the future.
You didn't tell me and you don't seem to want to say why and it doesn't help your case. Immigration isn't the reason why there are so many people living in countries where they are not a part of the dominant religion.
How did the minority religion get there? Magic? I thought there was only one magic religion and that must be Christianity, according to you, right? So how can another minor religion magically get into another country with a different major religion without immigration? Only thing I can think of is internet and that doesn't explain how it occured before internet came about.
Again look at the interactive religion map and you will see that it was a progression like a balloon, starting from a small area and gradually becoming bigger. If religion popped into people's minds magically then odds are it wouldn't go in that pattern.
I don't know why you're so dead set on believing that. My neighbors are a perfect example against that belief, they're from Indonesia remember? Indonesia is primarily a Muslim country, but they are Christian...so they left a Muslim country to come to a Christian one.
There is a Christian presence there too and sure enough they happened to become a part of it. I love how you tell me how and why I am a Christian, it's like you know everything about me and my faith. It's almost laughable the way you are arguing this point. Besides, the fact that America is a Christian nation due to the immgiration of some Christians is COMPLETELY irrelevent.
Ok so you admit that it's a fact that Christianity is in America because of immigration. Thank you. That means it can and does happen in other countries.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that a person's religion is based purely on where they were born and brought up.
A Religious person acquires religious ideas and practices through social exposure. The child of a ZenBuddhist will not become an evangelical Christian or a Zulu warrior without the relevant cultural experience. While mere exposure does not cause a particular religious outlook (a person may have been raised a Roman Catholic but leave the church), nevertheless some exposure seems required. A man in a remote and uncharted tribe in Africa will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air. There are just so many examples of why you are wrong about this...I'm an example, Nasica is an example, all of the atheists in this thread are examples..but my favorite example has got to be the artist Akiane, born into an atheist home, but converted her entire family with her gifts.
converted into what? If I converted someone into my belief does it mean my religion is right? Or could it mean I was persuasive?
Tell me Alex, do you believe that with all of the examples in this very forum that there would not be exponentially more out there in the real world? Surely you don't think that the exceptions to this childish argument are confined to only this forum.
Of course Christianity and other religions are spread via immigration out into most of the countries. That's gonna happen after 2000+ years. That doesn't mean social exposure to social constructs and environments is obsolete...it just means there is a chance that someone in Indonesia will be exposed to Christianity and perhaps join it...not a good chance, but it's there. In any case, it all goes back to why the argument is used in the first place. It is used to make it seem as though choice is only a small factor in choosing one's personal faith. It's used to make it seem like religious people are sheep who only follow their sorroundings.
Religion is a social construct therefore surroundings is a big factor. Guess what else are social constructs? Diet, Political ideologies, attire, laws, morals, clubs, art, parenting styles, philosophy...ect. If religious folks are right and homosexuality is environmentally induced then you can add that to the list. If environment can make someone romantically love and do it with their own gender then there's another reason why religion is environmentally induced. I don't think homosexuality is a choice but I fugred I'd add that in there.
That's the bottom line with this. It's a devisive attempt to discredit the personal beliefs of those of us who choose to believe in a being greater than ourselves, nothing more.
I admit I would probably be a Christian if I lived in Texas, or a Muslim in the Middle East. You need to understand some basic sociology and psychology or are those sciences that Christianity is against?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
First: It's not about statistics, it's about why the argument is used, and whether or not it's a fair assessment. The argument was used by Dawkins in order to show that faith isn't really a choice, but rather a result of cultural backgrounds, and there are far too many exceptions to this in order for me to believe it. He uses the argument in order to make it seem as though people who are religious are just following a trend, such is not the case.
You know there are cultures within cultures? Because there is a Christian in Indonesia, simply means there is a Christian culture within Indonesia and probably lived around there. Indonesia has an 8% Christian population. You know where that 8% came from? Immigrants, just follow the breadcrumb trail and you will go all the way back to where Jesus lived and died. You do a great job of just assuming how everyone came to their faith The large reason why I became a Christian? That takes balls for you to tell me what the largest reason why I became a Christian is, I'll thank you to not make such baseless assumptions in the future.
You didn't tell me and you don't seem to want to say why and it doesn't help your case. So now you're accusing me of hiding something? Okay buddy here goes I was not raised in a Christian home. That is to say, I was forced to go to church up until around high school and then I stopped going. At that point I was agnostic and did not subscribe to any religious faith whatsoever. After I graduated high school and began college, I was still agnostic. It wasn't until the summer after my first year of college that I even considered the notion that maybe the Christians might have it right. But I did not consider myself a Christian until a few months prior to my second year of college. I knew that the evolutionists had it all wrong, but I still didn't know about the whole Jesus thing. Eventually I decided to go back to church and start a new life as a Christian. It had nothing to do with my parents wanting me to do so, and it had nothing to do with any kind of cultural upbringing. So how about you stop trying to accuse me of hiding something? This is why I don't generally read the things that you post...because you take this moral high ground with people but it's all based on assumptions that you make for yourself. Very few of those assumptions are ever based on factual evidence, and most of the time they are just based on convenience. Immigration isn't the reason why there are so many people living in countries where they are not a part of the dominant religion.
How did the minority religion get there? Magic? I thought there was only one magic religion and that must be Christianity, according to you, right? So how can another minor religion magically get into another country with a different major religion without immigration? Only thing I can think of is internet and that doesn't explain how it occured before internet came about.
Again look at the interactive religion map and you will see that it was a progression like a balloon, starting from a small area and gradually becoming bigger. If religion popped into people's minds magically then odds are it wouldn't go in that pattern. Once again, you're making all kinds of assumptions about how different groups of people came to their faith. I don't even need to adress the issue though because you have 0 statistical data to back up your claims.
I don't know why you're so dead set on believing that. My neighbors are a perfect example against that belief, they're from Indonesia remember? Indonesia is primarily a Muslim country, but they are Christian...so they left a Muslim country to come to a Christian one.
There is a Christian presence there too and sure enough they happened to become a part of it. I wasn't going to get into this aspect of it...but the Indonesian government only recognizes 6 branches of religion...among those branches, my neighbors branch wasn't recognized. So no, there was not a recognized Christian presence and they were persecuted for what they believed. They didn't HAPPEN to become a part of anything, once again, it's a choice. THe fact that you think they just happened to become a part of it really goes to show that i'm correct when I say that this whole argument is an attempt to take the choice out of faith. I love how you tell me how and why I am a Christian, it's like you know everything about me and my faith. It's almost laughable the way you are arguing this point. Besides, the fact that America is a Christian nation due to the immgiration of some Christians is COMPLETELY irrelevent.
Ok so you admit that it's a fact that Christianity is in America because of immigration. Thank you. That means it can and does happen in other countries. I admit that the first Christians in this country are immigrants...woopidy doo! That doesn't mean a single thing when it comes to the individual choices that people make with their faith.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that a person's religion is based purely on where they were born and brought up.
A Religious person acquires religious ideas and practices through social exposure. The child of a ZenBuddhist will not become an evangelical Christian or a Zulu warrior without the relevant cultural experience. While mere exposure does not cause a particular religious outlook (a person may have been raised a Roman Catholic but leave the church), nevertheless some exposure seems required. A man in a remote and uncharted tribe in Africa will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air. Your argument is that someone needs to be aware of something before they put their faith in it? Congrats captain obvious! There are just so many examples of why you are wrong about this...I'm an example, Nasica is an example, all of the atheists in this thread are examples..but my favorite example has got to be the artist Akiane, born into an atheist home, but converted her entire family with her gifts.
converted into what? If I converted someone into my belief does it mean my religion is right? Or could it mean I was persuasive? Converted them to Christianity...she serves as an example of someone who was BORN into one faith, and chose another...you do a great job of just not getting the point when it's convenient for you.
In any case, it all goes back to why the argument is used in the first place. It is used to make it seem as though choice is only a small factor in choosing one's personal faith. It's used to make it seem like religious people are sheep who only follow their sorroundings.
Religion is a social construct therefore surroundings is a big factor. Guess what else are social constructs? Diet, Political ideologies, attire, laws, morals, clubs, art, parenting styles, philosophy...ect. If religious folks are right and homosexuality is environmentally induced then you can add that to the list. If environment can make someone romantically love and do it with their own gender then there's another reason why religion is environmentally induced. I don't think homosexuality is a choice but I fugred I'd add that in there. That has nothing to do with the paragraph that you wrote it under.
That's the bottom line with this. It's a devisive attempt to discredit the personal beliefs of those of us who choose to believe in a being greater than ourselves, nothing more.
I admit I would probably be a Christian if I lived in Texas, or a Muslim in the Middle East. You need to understand some basic sociology and psychology or are those sciences that Christianity is against? That has nothing to do with the paragraph that you wrote it under. I'll just assume that you wrote two things that were completely irrelevent because you know that I am right, and that this whole argument is based around trying to discredit the choice that people make in their faith.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
First: It's not about statistics, it's about why the argument is used, and whether or not it's a fair assessment. The argument was used by Dawkins in order to show that faith isn't really a choice, but rather a result of cultural backgrounds, and there are far too many exceptions to this in order for me to believe it. He uses the argument in order to make it seem as though people who are religious are just following a trend, such is not the case.
You know there are cultures within cultures? Because there is a Christian in Indonesia, simply means there is a Christian culture within Indonesia and probably lived around there. Indonesia has an 8% Christian population. You know where that 8% came from? Immigrants, just follow the breadcrumb trail and you will go all the way back to where Jesus lived and died. You do a great job of just assuming how everyone came to their faith
Cultural Exposure. The large reason why I became a Christian? That takes balls for you to tell me what the largest reason why I became a Christian is, I'll thank you to not make such baseless assumptions in the future.
You didn't tell me and you don't seem to want to say why and it doesn't help your case. So now you're accusing me of hiding something? Okay buddy here goes I was not raised in a Christian home. That is to say, I was forced to go to church up until around high school and then I stopped going. At that point I was agnostic and did not subscribe to any religious faith whatsoever. After I graduated high school and began college, I was still agnostic. It wasn't until the summer after my first year of college that I even considered the notion that maybe the Christians might have it right. But I did not consider myself a Christian until a few months prior to my second year of college. I knew that the evolutionists had it all wrong, but I still didn't know about the whole Jesus thing. Eventually I decided to go back to church and start a new life as a Christian. It had nothing to do with my parents wanting me to do so, and it had nothing to do with any kind of cultural upbringing. So how about you stop trying to accuse me of hiding something? This is why I don't generally read the things that you post...because you take this moral high ground with people but it's all based on assumptions that you make for yourself. Very few of those assumptions are ever based on factual evidence, and most of the time they are just based on convenience.
Looks like a cultural upbringing to me. In other words you grew up in a culture that was biased towards Christianity (just so happened to be in the U.S); parents don't need to be in the picture for it to happen. You have a heavy Christian background whether you accepted it at the time or not. You were highly exposed to it.
What if you forced to go to Mosque up until high school? According to your life, the next step in the pattern would be for to consider the notion that maybe the Muslims had it right and so on and so forth.
Just because you thought evolutionists were wrong doesn't mean Christianity is the logical or only alternative btw. Immigration isn't the reason why there are so many people living in countries where they are not a part of the dominant religion.
How did the minority religion get there? Magic? I thought there was only one magic religion and that must be Christianity, according to you, right? So how can another minor religion magically get into another country with a different major religion without immigration? Only thing I can think of is internet and that doesn't explain how it occured before internet came about.
Again look at the interactive religion map and you will see that it was a progression like a balloon, starting from a small area and gradually becoming bigger. If religion popped into people's minds magically then odds are it wouldn't go in that pattern. Once again, you're making all kinds of assumptions about how different groups of people came to their faith. I don't even need to adress the issue though because you have 0 statistical data to back up your claims.
Ok so you're saying i'm wrong and people magically become Christians out of the blue?
I don't know why you're so dead set on believing that. My neighbors are a perfect example against that belief, they're from Indonesia remember? Indonesia is primarily a Muslim country, but they are Christian...so they left a Muslim country to come to a Christian one.
There is a Christian presence there too and sure enough they happened to become a part of it. I wasn't going to get into this aspect of it...but the Indonesian government only recognizes 6 branches of religion...among those branches, my neighbors branch wasn't recognized. So no, there was not a recognized Christian presence and they were persecuted for what they believed. They didn't HAPPEN to become a part of anything, once again, it's a choice. THe fact that you think they just happened to become a part of it really goes to show that i'm correct when I say that this whole argument is an attempt to take the choice out of faith.
I don't care if the government doesn't recognize the 8% of Christians there. The fact is they exist. I love how you tell me how and why I am a Christian, it's like you know everything about me and my faith. It's almost laughable the way you are arguing this point. Besides, the fact that America is a Christian nation due to the immgiration of some Christians is COMPLETELY irrelevent.
Ok so you admit that it's a fact that Christianity is in America because of immigration. Thank you. That means it can and does happen in other countries. I admit that the first Christians in this country are immigrants...woopidy doo! That doesn't mean a single thing when it comes to the individual choices that people make with their faith.
Individual choices are influenced by their cultural environment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that a person's religion is based purely on where they were born and brought up.
A Religious person acquires religious ideas and practices through social exposure. The child of a ZenBuddhist will not become an evangelical Christian or a Zulu warrior without the relevant cultural experience. While mere exposure does not cause a particular religious outlook (a person may have been raised a Roman Catholic but leave the church), nevertheless some exposure seems required. A man in a remote and uncharted tribe in Africa will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air. Your argument is that someone needs to be aware of something before they put their faith in it? Congrats captain obvious!
You just said it had absolutely nothing to do with where they were born or brought up. Well i'll concede that you said "purely" but there you just admitted that those factors do have something to do with religious beliefs. There are just so many examples of why you are wrong about this...I'm an example, Nasica is an example, all of the atheists in this thread are examples..but my favorite example has got to be the artist Akiane, born into an atheist home, but converted her entire family with her gifts.
converted into what? If I converted someone into my belief does it mean my religion is right? Or could it mean I was persuasive? Converted them to Christianity...she serves as an example of someone who was BORN into one faith, and chose another...you do a great job of just not getting the point when it's convenient for you.
She obviously had an equal or greater cultural exposure to Christianity compared to the atheism in her home. Atheism also isn't run on fear, Christianity is. Fear is a big motivator. It's all about getting "saved", right? Conversion doesn't make my argument obsolete, it just shows that people are susceptible to beliefs regardless of where they get them, it means cultural environment can factor in much greater. In any case, it all goes back to why the argument is used in the first place. It is used to make it seem as though choice is only a small factor in choosing one's personal faith. It's used to make it seem like religious people are sheep who only follow their sorroundings.
Religion is a social construct therefore surroundings is a big factor. Guess what else are social constructs? Diet, Political ideologies, attire, laws, morals, clubs, art, parenting styles, philosophy...ect. If religious folks are right and homosexuality is environmentally induced then you can add that to the list. If environment can make someone romantically love and do it with their own gender then there's another reason why religion is environmentally induced. I don't think homosexuality is a choice but I fugred I'd add that in there. That has nothing to do with the paragraph that you wrote it under.
I am saying that your religion is a social construct like a bunch of other things. Do you see a parallel between the social construct of political ideologies and religion?
That's the bottom line with this. It's a devisive attempt to discredit the personal beliefs of those of us who choose to believe in a being greater than ourselves, nothing more.
I admit I would probably be a Christian if I lived in Texas, or a Muslim in the Middle East. You need to understand some basic sociology and psychology or are those sciences that Christianity is against? That has nothing to do with the paragraph that you wrote it under.
Got one thing right. I'll just assume that you wrote two things that were completely irrelevent because you know that I am right, and that this whole argument is based around trying to discredit the choice that people make in their faith.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Small wonder I find christianity so hard to get into when we had a recent debate about hell and there seemed to be pretty universal agreement that hell was in fact in no way related to lakes of fire etc... and then this.... Im confused.... and it would appear most christians are too.
An Dreanor... man that link debunking Dawkins.... If I need to explain to you why a few lines of opinion do not in any way equal a book full of references to evidence then...... Im wasting my fingers typing man.... do yourself a huge favour.... read the book and make your own judgement. I read the bible, I gave faith a fair go, please do the same instead of relying on such poorly constructed arguments as are found on that website.... its actually beneath someone of your intelligence.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Small wonder I find christianity so hard to get into when we had a recent debate about hell and there seemed to be pretty universal agreement that hell was in fact in no way related to lakes of fire etc... and then this.... Im confused.... and it would appear most christians are too.
An Dreanor... man that link debunking Dawkins.... If I need to explain to you why a few lines of opinion do not in any way equal a book full of references to evidence then...... Im wasting my fingers typing man.... do yourself a huge favour.... read the book and make your own judgement. I read the bible, I gave faith a fair go, please do the same instead of relying on such poorly constructed arguments as are found on that website.... its actually beneath someone of your intelligence.
Alex...I'm done...thank you for reminding me why I don't normally debate you. You constantly seem to intentionally miss the point in favor of your own factless assumptions.
Every page of that site has its references thoroughly sited...and the arguments aren't constructed based on opinion, their constructed as a point by point refutation of Dawkins' arguments and why his logic is flawed. The first page alone, aside from Biblical citations that it makes, has the following sources cited:
Alex...I'm done...thank you for reminding me why I don't normally debate you. You constantly seem to intentionally miss the point in favor of your own factless assumptions.
"Religion and Geography" goes over what Richard Dawkins was saying.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
That list of links just further illustrates the complete misuse of the word evidence in most of these debates....
Sorry I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one because the reference to further scripture based reading as "evidence" is just not worth debating. As for high school.... what your force fed by the state for a few years hardly constitutes a personal commitment to a balanced education.
You know this is why believers see Dawkins as "arrogant" because I firmly suspect that deep deep in the heart of every person of faith lies a nagging doubt. People like Dawkins pluck the strings of that doubt like a cheap banjo and it hurts people deep inside.
On the other hand very few aetheists including myself see the top echelons of religious people as arrogant. In fact I cant think of a single one I find arrogant. Thats not because they are such nice people because Billy Graham and his cohorts are doing thier best to be arrogant. But we just see them as sadly delusional because we know they are standing on the deck of a ship with so many holes in it, only a delusional person wouldnt notice the water lapping at thier ankles.
So I think the tag of arrogant says a lot more about the accuser than the acused. Its the only response to the weight of concrete fact staring you in the face. Nothing upsets people more than facts and evidence. Which is why I find scripture so amusing and not in the least bit challenging or worthy of study. Id rather read LOTR again, at least its a decent story.
Which leads me back to the original topic...
If you want to talk about a supposed juxstaposition of methodology then you need only look at so called "theology". Why oh why would you need to study theological texts for years on end if you already accept them as being the absolute truth. Surely if your so 110% convinced of their infalibility, you wouldnt even need to read them in the first place. Now there is an amusing paradox.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Your two factors may have their role, but they are certainly not the only factors. If they were, then how did any religion ever get off the ground? Looks like I need to add another arrogant speculation to my list (see post earlier in this thread)... "I'm better than religious people, because I don't bow to peer pressure like they all do"
Hahaha I was actually going to include a conclusion to the contrary of your post, but decided I wouldn't because it seemed futile... Seems I've been proven wrong...
And at this point I'd like to point out by the way that I'm not an atheist... Nor agnostic in any real sense... I'm pretty much a theist (most of the time )...
I don't mean to claim I have all the answers, particularly in that one post (my first paragraph above your quote was a simplified version of what AlexAmore said earlier, although I hadn't read his post at that time.) And obviously those two factors are only considering the role of social influence in religious conversion. They're ignoring awe and wonder, the pariahtal lobe, personal experience, survival instincts and anything else to do with the human psychee really. Everything that makes up who/what we are comes into what we accept and what we denounce with relation to the spiritual/religious. I merely cited social influence because I felt the need to explain to Draenor how his pointing at people (including the atheists) and saying "look, heritage doesn't have an impact" was silly...
It wasn't obvious from your post that you were only considering the role of social influence. My apologies. Aiming that statement at you is clearly unjust, and your description of what makes up a religious conversion shows far more understanding than the often over-simplistic assumptions I often hear from atheists.
If Draenor is saying heritage doesn't have an impact, and Alex is saying that heritage and immigration are the only factors, then I would say that they are clearly both wrong. I'm not sure that either of them are actually saying those things though, even though each appears to be arguing against the other for believing that that is what they are saying.
Its a fairly simple matter, where observational evidence fails, theories based upon the bits that can be observed are used to cover that which cannot be observed. A classic example lies with the big bang theory (which does have its conceptual problems). No one ever seen that obviously. However, we can see that every single observable piece of matter in the universe is expanding outward in a spherical pattern from a central point, and is also slowly cooling down. It is not too difficult to assume based on these observations that mass originated and/or had been gathered at that central point and was then flung outward by some force.
The key difference is, more accurate theories based on new, or old, evidence are constantly coming out. Hopefully leading us closer and closer to the absolute truth. For exampe, the big bang has yet to be proven wrong, but a number of interesting alternate theories have popped up which may, or may not, fit observational evidence more closely. The bible on the other hand never changes, at least not anymore, and new twists on the same old evidence can only take one so far.
ACK, no, this is not the big bang model.
Sorry, i know its slightly off-topic,but i have to correct you here.
Everything is not moving away from a central point, there is no central point. Space is a surface, so saying there is a central point, is like asking where the centralpoint is on the surface of the earth.
Everything is moving away from everything else.
Imagine drawing dots on a deflated baloon, then blowing the baloon up
This is what is going on.
I meant the central physical spot furthest away from all points on the surface of the balloon without being on the outside.
Razorback, I'm afriad that piechart is not at all up to date, even if its reffering to US religious distribution. Christians are still in the majority of course, but with somewhere around 50-60% of the population in the US, and only about 35-40% in the world. Islam is the runnerup in both scenarios.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Alex...I'm done...thank you for reminding me why I don't normally debate you. You constantly seem to intentionally miss the point in favor of your own factless assumptions.
"Religion and Geography" goes over what Richard Dawkins was saying.
Once again, congrats on pushing and pushing on an issue that has NOTHING TO DO WITH my complaint about this whole argument. You are arguing with yourself here...I've never debated that geography has a great effect on a person's religion...I think you are intentionally missing my problem with the argument because you just like to argue with me.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Alex...I'm done...thank you for reminding me why I don't normally debate you. You constantly seem to intentionally miss the point in favor of your own factless assumptions.
"Religion and Geography" goes over what Richard Dawkins was saying.
Once again, congrats on pushing and pushing on an issue that has NOTHING TO DO WITH my complaint about this whole argument. You are arguing with yourself here...I've never debated that geography has a great effect on a person's religion...I think you are intentionally missing my problem with the argument because you just like to argue with me. Draenor needs a "HUG" today!!
That list of links just further illustrates the complete misuse of the word evidence in most of these debates.... Not really...it's just the first page of citations, I could keep posting all of the citations if you really want me to. Since the first chapter of the book consisted of Dawkins' opinions, why would they waste their time? You can argue with the man's opinions if you want, but it goes without saying that I disagree with him. Sorry I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one because the reference to further scripture based reading as "evidence" is just not worth debating. As for high school.... what your force fed by the state for a few years hardly constitutes a personal commitment to a balanced education. My education regarding evolutionists beliefs goes far above and beyond what I learned in school. You of all people should know that I read everything that evolutionists post in defense of their beliefs...and I could argue the same thing to you, that your reading of the BIble is hardly enough to make an informed decision about your faith, since there is much more to Christianity and a belief in God than just reading the Bible. Your argument applies to only you, because it's a matter of your own opinion as to how much reading a person should do before they officially become "informed" You know this is why believers see Dawkins as "arrogant" because I firmly suspect that deep deep in the heart of every person of faith lies a nagging doubt. People like Dawkins pluck the strings of that doubt like a cheap banjo and it hurts people deep inside. That's a cute assumption, but no, I think Dawkins is arrogant because of stuff like this "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane, or wicked but I'd rather not consider that" Yeah Dawkins...I'm so damn wicked!!! On the other hand very few aetheists including myself see the top echelons of religious people as arrogant. In fact I cant think of a single one I find arrogant. Thats not because they are such nice people because Billy Graham and his cohorts are doing thier best to be arrogant. But we just see them as sadly delusional because we know they are standing on the deck of a ship with so many holes in it, only a delusional person wouldnt notice the water lapping at thier ankles. That's cool, but Dawkins is not among those atheists. So I think the tag of arrogant says a lot more about the accuser than the acused. Its the only response to the weight of concrete fact staring you in the face. Nothing upsets people more than facts and evidence. Which is why I find scripture so amusing and not in the least bit challenging or worthy of study. Id rather read LOTR again, at least its a decent story. It has nothing to do with any concrete fact that Dawkins has put before me. I've never read anything written by him that was factual and beyond contestation. When he writes about the origin of species and life I want to laugh in his face. Dawkins presents very little factual data, how do I know this without reading his books? I frequent his website. Your posting that you don't think that scripture is worthy of study typifies why people of faith call some atheists arrogant though. To believe that your faith is the only one worthy of study, and all others are simply "uninteresting" as Dawkins would put it...that's quite arrogant. Which leads me back to the original topic... If you want to talk about a supposed juxstaposition of methodology then you need only look at so called "theology". Why oh why would you need to study theological texts for years on end if you already accept them as being the absolute truth. Surely if your so 110% convinced of their infalibility, you wouldnt even need to read them in the first place. Now there is an amusing paradox. Because there is always more to learn, it's not a paradox, it's the same as any other field of study.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Its a fairly simple matter, where observational evidence fails, theories based upon the bits that can be observed are used to cover that which cannot be observed. A classic example lies with the big bang theory (which does have its conceptual problems). No one ever seen that obviously. However, we can see that every single observable piece of matter in the universe is expanding outward in a spherical pattern from a central point, and is also slowly cooling down. It is not too difficult to assume based on these observations that mass originated and/or had been gathered at that central point and was then flung outward by some force.
The key difference is, more accurate theories based on new, or old, evidence are constantly coming out. Hopefully leading us closer and closer to the absolute truth. For exampe, the big bang has yet to be proven wrong, but a number of interesting alternate theories have popped up which may, or may not, fit observational evidence more closely. The bible on the other hand never changes, at least not anymore, and new twists on the same old evidence can only take one so far.
ACK, no, this is not the big bang model.
Sorry, i know its slightly off-topic,but i have to correct you here.
Everything is not moving away from a central point, there is no central point. Space is a surface, so saying there is a central point, is like asking where the centralpoint is on the surface of the earth.
Everything is moving away from everything else.
Imagine drawing dots on a deflated baloon, then blowing the baloon up
This is what is going on.
I meant the central physical spot furthest away from all points on the surface of the balloon without being on the outside.
Razorback, I'm afriad that piechart is not at all up to date, even if its reffering to US religious distribution. Christians are still in the majority of course, but with somewhere around 50-60% of the population in the US, and only about 35-40% in the world. Islam is the runnerup in both scenarios.
Aelfinn, there is no "center" in the Universe. The orgin of the(Big Bang) is unknown due to this. It is suspected that a Supernova(or multiples) was the foundations of what became the big bang. That what we see as the Big bang is nothing more than a very large Supernova. Now we are talking chaos theory. Which mainly says that the universe is not tearing or going away from each other. but rather from our view it looks that way.(Observer). That what it is really doing is just transferring one set of matter to another. Thus the new formation of stars and galaxy's from the leftover mass and gases of supernovas. Then we get into my favorite which is the "Everything" theory. Which in my personal view is the top dog of science right now. For all other theory is nothing more than a part of whats known as the Everything theory.
Just had to add this from a "Ask the Astronomer a question". Enjoy!
Where in the universe did the Big Bang happen?
The Big Bang did not happen inside our universe, at least that's what our best understanding of physics seems to be telling us during the last 70 years!
I have tried to answer this particular cosmology question several ways in this Q/A archive. For some related answers you might want to have a look at my archive of questions about the Big Bang and the related expanding universe questions.
The fact of the matter is that we do not really understand how the universe came about. We cannot revisit that time, so obviously any scientific descriptions we form have to be based on how the rest of the universe operates and our detailed understanding of the constitution of matter and the laws governing its interaction. The hardest features of the universe for us to intuitively understand are the relativistic theories which seem to govern how matter, energy and space-time operate under extreme conditions of temperature, density and energy.
The issues of where the Big Bang occurred and how it happened seems to be locked up in these unfamiliar and very subtle features of the physical world. It is impossible for a non-mathematician, using the best crafted essays, to completely understand what it has taken decades of mathematical/logical abstraction and intense experimental analysis to create.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart uhh huh, as Atheists deduce that Antropic principle is a certainty..lolololol Tell more please.... Please go on.. And you are sounding quite religious with"Learn the Difference and Learn the Truth". Damn that sounds so familiar.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart uhh huh, as Atheists deduce that Antropic principle is a certainty..lolololol Tell more please.... Please go on.. And you are sounding quite religious with"Learn the Difference and Learn the Truth". Damn that sounds so familiar. care to elaborate? there are no certainties in atheism... talk about absolutism!
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart uhh huh, as Atheists deduce that Antropic principle is a certainty..lolololol Tell more please.... Please go on.. And you are sounding quite religious with"Learn the Difference and Learn the Truth". Damn that sounds so familiar. care to elaborate? there are no certainties in atheism... talk about absolutism!
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds. uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(bzr-vshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of observing.
b. The fact of being observed.
2.
a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.
Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
If you are deducing or inducing given the evidence supplied, aren't your deductions supported by observational evidence?
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
If you are deducing or inducing given the evidence supplied, aren't your deductions supported by observational evidence? Very good Egg. Very good Egg !! You are catching on. My post had very little to do with God. Dont know why Atheists want to keep bringing that subject up. From my observation its amusing. It was only used as a example of deductive reasoning. What the post did have to do with is logic. Even in science things can not be rationalized nor given a "logic" answer for a base. Like I said Atheism belief is flawed. The same as any religion. What, they expect to be perfect?
I could see it, if they did not have to support the ideology without religion bashing. Makes me wonder if a true atheist is really secure with himself.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart uhh huh, as Atheists deduce that Antropic principle is a certainty..lolololol Tell more please.... Please go on.. And you are sounding quite religious with"Learn the Difference and Learn the Truth". Damn that sounds so familiar.care to elaborate? there are no certainties in atheism... talk about absolutism!
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds.uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(bzr-vshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of observing.
b. The fact of being observed.
2.
a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.
Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
Except that as an atheist I don't need to observe anything to know that there is no god. It's something I FEEL.
That in itself makes your statement wrong. I didn't become an atheist through observation, and don't remain one because of it.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
If you are deducing or inducing given the evidence supplied, aren't your deductions supported by observational evidence?Very good Egg. Very good Egg !! You are catching on. My post had very little to do with God. Dont know why Atheists want to keep bringing that subject up. From my observation its amusing. It was only used as a example of deductive reasoning. What the post did have to do with is logic. Even in science things can not be rationalized nor given a "logic" answer for a base. Like I said Atheism belief is flawed. The same as any religion. What, they expect to be perfect?
I could see it, if they did not have to support the ideology without religion bashing. Makes me wonder if a true atheist is really secure with himself.
If I had to guess, I would say that becuase atheism has to do with the disbelief of a god, that that is why the subject comes up.
I am also very secure in myself, and I don't bash religion.
You can't use scientific method to argue your point that atheism isn't logical. Science and atheism have nothing to do with each other.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated.
However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart uhh huh, as Atheists deduce that Antropic principle is a certainty..lolololol Tell more please.... Please go on.. And you are sounding quite religious with"Learn the Difference and Learn the Truth". Damn that sounds so familiar. care to elaborate? there are no certainties in atheism... talk about absolutism!
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds. uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(bzr-vshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of observing.
b. The fact of being observed.
2.
a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.
Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
the way i've understood it is that we exist...it's an axiom.
an example might be based on the fact you and i can communicate. isn't that evidence that we exist?
if we are in agreement on this then the question becomes, what caused us to exist.
at that point, the most honest assessment is "i don't know".
if you're argument against strong atheism is ...Hah, look, they don't know what caused us, they can't be a strong atheist.
then i agree on that point alone. one can only be a strong atheist against a god that's defined. and as far as any definition i've heard of "god", there doesn't exist enough evidence to prove its existence.
that's all i'm saying.
(btw...if you are wanting to pose as a non theist, you might want to uncapitalize the "g" in god)
Comments
Sorry to come to this debate so late.... but a couple of things.
Your examination of Aetheist/Skeptic thinking is pretty off target and is more or less backwards. Thats generally the case I find when somone who subscribes to faith is examining objective thinking (no offense just an observation) .... which brings me to my points.
Skeptics and in this case Aetheists dont have "belief"/"faith" as such. We may suspect something to be true or false and you can call that a beleif if you want but thats just language semantics.
What science based thinkers or skeptics or aetheists tend to do is hypothesize about a particular topic then seek evidence to support that hypothesis. Or in the case of aethists we dont need to even hypothesise because theists are doing that for us. Theists are the ones asserting that there is a divine creator, they are the ones with the "beliefs". We just look at the evidence to support that hypothesis and find that none exists.... not a shred... not a single peice of hard evidence. Ergo we summise that there is no proof for the existence of a god, ergo none exists.
Secondly your assertion that the cause of the universe cannot be observed observationally simply highlights your lack of personal research on the topic. There are many strongly supporting data sets for the so called big bang theory and super singularities. Just as the evidence to support evolution theory is now basically overwhelming. The ability and education required to understand cosmology is high so I can appreciate that not everyone finds it accessible. But to say that the there is no supporting eveidence for the various theories about the creation of the universe is simply wrong. There is no contradictory position here, simply a lack of research on your part.
So to address your main point, again I say you are missunderstanding how skeptics think. We do not subscribe ourselves to a position and then try to support it. We look at the subscribed positions and the options then attempt to align the available evidence with those positions and base our position on the one that has the best balance of evidence, balance of probability and passes the common sense test. The 3 main areas where faith and religion fails on all counts.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Small wonder I find christianity so hard to get into when we had a recent debate about hell and there seemed to be pretty universal agreement that hell was in fact in no way related to lakes of fire etc... and then this.... Im confused.... and it would appear most christians are too.
An Dreanor... man that link debunking Dawkins.... If I need to explain to you why a few lines of opinion do not in any way equal a book full of references to evidence then...... Im wasting my fingers typing man.... do yourself a huge favour.... read the book and make your own judgement. I read the bible, I gave faith a fair go, please do the same instead of relying on such poorly constructed arguments as are found on that website.... its actually beneath someone of your intelligence.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Small wonder I find christianity so hard to get into when we had a recent debate about hell and there seemed to be pretty universal agreement that hell was in fact in no way related to lakes of fire etc... and then this.... Im confused.... and it would appear most christians are too.
An Dreanor... man that link debunking Dawkins.... If I need to explain to you why a few lines of opinion do not in any way equal a book full of references to evidence then...... Im wasting my fingers typing man.... do yourself a huge favour.... read the book and make your own judgement. I read the bible, I gave faith a fair go, please do the same instead of relying on such poorly constructed arguments as are found on that website.... its actually beneath someone of your intelligence.
Alex...I'm done...thank you for reminding me why I don't normally debate you. You constantly seem to intentionally miss the point in favor of your own factless assumptions.
Every page of that site has its references thoroughly sited...and the arguments aren't constructed based on opinion, their constructed as a point by point refutation of Dawkins' arguments and why his logic is flawed. The first page alone, aside from Biblical citations that it makes, has the following sources cited:
See Aberrant "Christian" Theology for many examples, including- Are the Standard Works of the LDS Church Inspired Scripture?
- Archeological/Anthropological Problems in the Book of Mormon
- DNA Evidence and Molecular Genetics Disprove the Book of Mormon
- False Prophecies of the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania)
- Does the Bible and Science Support Reincarnation?
Haney, C., W. C. Banks, and P. G. Zimbardo. 1973. Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology 1: 69-97.Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal
Stephanie Simon. Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies. Los Angeles Times, Apr 10, 2006, p. A1.
Nixon v. Northern Local School District Board of Education, 2005 WL 2000706 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2005. Full opinion The Opinion in Nixon v. Northern Local School District Board of Education
And that's just the first freaking page.
I too gave your side of the issue a fair go..I gave it my high school career as well as a year of college...I've decided that you're wrong
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
That list of links just further illustrates the complete misuse of the word evidence in most of these debates....
Sorry I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one because the reference to further scripture based reading as "evidence" is just not worth debating. As for high school.... what your force fed by the state for a few years hardly constitutes a personal commitment to a balanced education.
You know this is why believers see Dawkins as "arrogant" because I firmly suspect that deep deep in the heart of every person of faith lies a nagging doubt. People like Dawkins pluck the strings of that doubt like a cheap banjo and it hurts people deep inside.
On the other hand very few aetheists including myself see the top echelons of religious people as arrogant. In fact I cant think of a single one I find arrogant. Thats not because they are such nice people because Billy Graham and his cohorts are doing thier best to be arrogant. But we just see them as sadly delusional because we know they are standing on the deck of a ship with so many holes in it, only a delusional person wouldnt notice the water lapping at thier ankles.
So I think the tag of arrogant says a lot more about the accuser than the acused. Its the only response to the weight of concrete fact staring you in the face. Nothing upsets people more than facts and evidence. Which is why I find scripture so amusing and not in the least bit challenging or worthy of study. Id rather read LOTR again, at least its a decent story.
Which leads me back to the original topic...
If you want to talk about a supposed juxstaposition of methodology then you need only look at so called "theology". Why oh why would you need to study theological texts for years on end if you already accept them as being the absolute truth. Surely if your so 110% convinced of their infalibility, you wouldnt even need to read them in the first place. Now there is an amusing paradox.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Hahaha I was actually going to include a conclusion to the contrary of your post, but decided I wouldn't because it seemed futile... Seems I've been proven wrong...
And at this point I'd like to point out by the way that I'm not an atheist... Nor agnostic in any real sense... I'm pretty much a theist (most of the time
)...
I don't mean to claim I have all the answers, particularly in that one post (my first paragraph above your quote was a simplified version of what AlexAmore said earlier, although I hadn't read his post at that time.) And obviously those two factors are only considering the role of social influence in religious conversion. They're ignoring awe and wonder, the pariahtal lobe, personal experience, survival instincts and anything else to do with the human psychee really. Everything that makes up who/what we are comes into what we accept and what we denounce with relation to the spiritual/religious. I merely cited social influence because I felt the need to explain to Draenor how his pointing at people (including the atheists) and saying "look, heritage doesn't have an impact" was silly...
It wasn't obvious from your post that you were only considering the role of social influence. My apologies. Aiming that statement at you is clearly unjust, and your description of what makes up a religious conversion shows far more understanding than the often over-simplistic assumptions I often hear from atheists.
If Draenor is saying heritage doesn't have an impact, and Alex is saying that heritage and immigration are the only factors, then I would say that they are clearly both wrong. I'm not sure that either of them are actually saying those things though, even though each appears to be arguing against the other for believing that that is what they are saying.
ACK, no, this is not the big bang model.
Sorry, i know its slightly off-topic,but i have to correct you here.
Everything is not moving away from a central point, there is no central point. Space is a surface, so saying there is a central point, is like asking where the centralpoint is on the surface of the earth.
Everything is moving away from everything else.
Imagine drawing dots on a deflated baloon, then blowing the baloon up
This is what is going on.
I meant the central physical spot furthest away from all points on the surface of the balloon without being on the outside.
Razorback, I'm afriad that piechart is not at all up to date, even if its reffering to US religious distribution. Christians are still in the majority of course, but with somewhere around 50-60% of the population in the US, and only about 35-40% in the world. Islam is the runnerup in both scenarios.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Once again, congrats on pushing and pushing on an issue that has NOTHING TO DO WITH my complaint about this whole argument. You are arguing with yourself here...I've never debated that geography has a great effect on a person's religion...I think you are intentionally missing my problem with the argument because you just like to argue with me.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Once again, congrats on pushing and pushing on an issue that has NOTHING TO DO WITH my complaint about this whole argument. You are arguing with yourself here...I've never debated that geography has a great effect on a person's religion...I think you are intentionally missing my problem with the argument because you just like to argue with me. Draenor needs a "HUG" today!!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
ACK, no, this is not the big bang model.
Sorry, i know its slightly off-topic,but i have to correct you here.
Everything is not moving away from a central point, there is no central point. Space is a surface, so saying there is a central point, is like asking where the centralpoint is on the surface of the earth.
Everything is moving away from everything else.
Imagine drawing dots on a deflated baloon, then blowing the baloon up
This is what is going on.
I meant the central physical spot furthest away from all points on the surface of the balloon without being on the outside.
Razorback, I'm afriad that piechart is not at all up to date, even if its reffering to US religious distribution. Christians are still in the majority of course, but with somewhere around 50-60% of the population in the US, and only about 35-40% in the world. Islam is the runnerup in both scenarios.
Aelfinn, there is no "center" in the Universe. The orgin of the(Big Bang) is unknown due to this. It is suspected that a Supernova(or multiples) was the foundations of what became the big bang. That what we see as the Big bang is nothing more than a very large Supernova. Now we are talking chaos theory. Which mainly says that the universe is not tearing or going away from each other. but rather from our view it looks that way.(Observer). That what it is really doing is just transferring one set of matter to another. Thus the new formation of stars and galaxy's from the leftover mass and gases of supernovas. Then we get into my favorite which is the "Everything" theory. Which in my personal view is the top dog of science right now. For all other theory is nothing more than a part of whats known as the Everything theory.Just had to add this from a "Ask the Astronomer a question". Enjoy!
Where in the universe did the Big Bang happen?
The Big Bang did not happen inside our universe, at least that's what our best understanding of physics seems to be telling us during the last 70 years!
I have tried to answer this particular cosmology question several ways in this Q/A archive. For some related answers you might want to have a look at my archive of questions about the Big Bang and the related expanding universe questions.
The fact of the matter is that we do not really understand how the universe came about. We cannot revisit that time, so obviously any scientific descriptions we form have to be based on how the rest of the universe operates and our detailed understanding of the constitution of matter and the laws governing its interaction. The hardest features of the universe for us to intuitively understand are the relativistic theories which seem to govern how matter, energy and space-time operate under extreme conditions of temperature, density and energy.
The issues of where the Big Bang occurred and how it happened seems to be locked up in these unfamiliar and very subtle features of the physical world. It is impossible for a non-mathematician, using the best crafted essays, to completely understand what it has taken decades of mathematical/logical abstraction and intense experimental analysis to create.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
==========================
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds.
==========================
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds. uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
- A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
- Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
- Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
I could see it, if they did not have to support the ideology without religion bashing. Makes me wonder if a true atheist is really secure with himself.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds.uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
- A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
- Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
- Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
Except that as an atheist I don't need to observe anything to know that there is no god. It's something I FEEL.
That in itself makes your statement wrong. I didn't become an atheist through observation, and don't remain one because of it.
Wish Darkfall would release.
I could see it, if they did not have to support the ideology without religion bashing. Makes me wonder if a true atheist is really secure with himself.
If I had to guess, I would say that becuase atheism has to do with the disbelief of a god, that that is why the subject comes up.
I am also very secure in myself, and I don't bash religion.
You can't use scientific method to argue your point that atheism isn't logical. Science and atheism have nothing to do with each other.
It's a belief.
Wish Darkfall would release.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds. uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
- A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
- Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
- Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
the way i've understood it is that we exist...it's an axiom.
an example might be based on the fact you and i can communicate. isn't that evidence that we exist?
if we are in agreement on this then the question becomes, what caused us to exist.
at that point, the most honest assessment is "i don't know".
if you're argument against strong atheism is ...Hah, look, they don't know what caused us, they can't be a strong atheist.
then i agree on that point alone. one can only be a strong atheist against a god that's defined. and as far as any definition i've heard of "god", there doesn't exist enough evidence to prove its existence.
that's all i'm saying.
(btw...if you are wanting to pose as a non theist, you might want to uncapitalize the "g" in god)
/just saying
==========================
