05-05-2006, 01:40 PM
|
#16
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
Thanks for your posts, but nothing written herein gives me any pause. A large percentage of people are weak to believe themselves superior to their fellow beings. It is a human failing expressed across the board, in every population and culture.
Here we are, almost microbes on the larger scale of the universe. We are scurrying about on a speck of dust we call Earth, oblivious to the VAST majority of knowledge in the universe, and yet atheists feel themselves able to declare the non-existence of something. It is as illogical as delaring disbelief in the existence of North and South America in 1200s Europe. The logical position for the existence of God is, respectfully, "Who knows".
With regard to claims that some here are making, that they can know what believers know, I find such claims similar to claims made by people that they know what a great artist sees, or what music a great musician imagines. It is no great leap for me to believe that some may be much more sensitive spiritually than Iam, or you folks are.
Humility apparently being in limited supply here, I expect little serious analysis of these issues.
|
You know, this is just so much bullshit. First, where is the association between collective human knowledge and non-existence? Just because your version of God is the most popular does not make it the One True Faith! And to claim that God exists, but he has yet to be discovered is more bullshit. You've had 2000 years of rein, yet there is not a single shred of evidence that God exists. This is an old tale, told orally, then written down, and handed down then reinforced generation after generation through intimidation, manipulation, and disingeniousness.
I AM NOT claiming the "non-existence" of an afterlife, a supernatural component to nature, or even the potential for the existence of a benevolent deity. I AM claiming non-existence of the popularized Gods of the Big Three.
You also assume that atheists are inexperienced with religion - how else am I to translate your jab to humility. Do you really believe that?
Let me also bring up the comment, "We are scurrying about on a speck of dust we call Earth, oblivious to the VAST majority of knowledge in the universe" - does the volume of the universe correlate to the knowledge contained within? If you are talking about Beckenstein's theory of information stored in black holes, then yes, there is a direct correlation between surface area and knowledge. But I don't think you're traversing that path. Again, I can only assume the intended meaning of your words, but honestly, if you think that equivalence is not a binding principle of the universe, you should pick up a modern book on physics.
Finally, I would like to commend you on maintaining strict adherence to the typical posting methodology of most Christians here:
1) Make a statement placing atheists in a morally or ethically untenable position: "Thanks for your posts, but nothing written herein gives me any pause. A large percentage of people are weak to believe themselves superior to their fellow beings. "
2) Claim that expressing belief in 'non-existence' is a declarative position and ignoring the fact that thousands of Gods are non-existent; you just choose to leave yours alone off the list. "and yet atheists feel themselves able to declare the non-existence of something."
3) Claim that not believing in an invisible man in the sky who watches over every moment of time in every planck-scale corner of space is illogical. "It is as illogical as delaring disbelief in the existence of North and South America in 1200s Europe."
4) Provide a foundation for overgeneralization, then use the foundation to bolster your own position. "I find such claims similar to claims made by people that they know what a great artist sees, or what music a great musician imagines. It is no great leap for me to believe that some may be much more sensitive spiritually than Iam, or you folks are. "
5) Assume that because we don't agree with you, that our opinions are hollow and vapid, and you don't want to even hear them, and those that are posted, you will view with a jaundiced eye. "Humility apparently being in limited supply here, I expect little serious analysis of these issues."
Why don't you exclaim your atheism, Francis? Afterall, I only believe in one less god than you do.
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 01:44 PM
|
#17
|
Guest
|
When I see one human ridiculing the beliefs of others, I see scientists ridiculing the Wright Brothers for attempting to fly heavier than air craft. I see biologists ridiculing the Australian scientist for presuming to propose that ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Those ridiculing the beliefs of others are in embarassing historical company.
I am sorry fellows, but, as for personal insults, I am firmly taking the advice of my mother. She said
"Francis, a personal attack is the sign of a failed argument"
I like debate, but as for the insults, be advised that I will be applying my mother's good wisdom and drawing the predictable conclusion about the insulter.
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 01:52 PM
|
#18
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
When I see one human ridiculing the beliefs of others, I see scientists ridiculing the Wright Brothers for attempting to fly heavier than air craft. I see biologists ridiculing the Australian scientist for presuming to propose that ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Those ridiculing the beliefs of others are in embarassing historical company.
I am sorry fellows, but, as for personal insults, I am firmly taking the advice of my mother. She said
"Francis, a personal attack is the sign of a failed argument"
I like debate, but as for the insults, be advised that I will be applying my mother's good wisdom and drawing the predictable conclusion about the insulter.
|
I like how you dodge any mention of, oh let's say:
A baptist preacher ridiculing a homosexual.
A protestant ridiculing a catholic,
A christian ridiculing a more liberal christian,
A christian telling someone of another belief that they are going to hell,
A christian teaching their children they need to ridicule people who believe different from them.
Besides, I doubt most scientists will blatantly insult another's work, unless of course that work is just so ridiculous to begin with any insults would be unnecessary. (and I bet those that do ridicule are christian, willing to bet a dollar to a dime)
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:01 PM
|
#19
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
It's more likely that the logical position on god is "who cares".
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:04 PM
|
#20
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
When I see one human ridiculing the beliefs of others, I see scientists ridiculing the Wright Brothers for attempting to fly heavier than air craft. I see biologists ridiculing the Australian scientist for presuming to propose that ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Those ridiculing the beliefs of others are in embarassing historical company.
I am sorry fellows, but, as for personal insults, I am firmly taking the advice of my mother. She said
"Francis, a personal attack is the sign of a failed argument"
I like debate, but as for the insults, be advised that I will be applying my mother's good wisdom and drawing the predictable conclusion about the insulter.
|
Show me the personal attack. I don't see where I attacked you, personally. I attacked your ideas, your beliefs, but not Francis. Are you dodging the arguments by claiming that our have failed?
If you actually took the time to read some of the posts here where we discuss science, you would see your opening statement is not very truthful, when applied to us.
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:07 PM
|
#21
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
When I see one human ridiculing the beliefs of others, I see scientists ridiculing the Wright Brothers for attempting to fly heavier than air craft. I see biologists ridiculing the Australian scientist for presuming to propose that ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Those ridiculing the beliefs of others are in embarassing historical company.
I am sorry fellows, but, as for personal insults, I am firmly taking the advice of my mother. She said
"Francis, a personal attack is the sign of a failed argument"
I like debate, but as for the insults, be advised that I will be applying my mother's good wisdom and drawing the predictable conclusion about the insulter.
|
do you do anal?
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:16 PM
|
#22
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
I am sorry fellows, but, as for personal insults, I am firmly taking the advice of my mother. She said
"Francis, a personal attack is the sign of a failed argument"
|
Yeah, but this doesn't apply when arguing with a fucking moron. Particularly, the type of fucking moron who is completely clueless about the fact that they are a fucking moron.
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:32 PM
|
#23
|
Guest
|
It is 'Limbaughesque', isn't it, to declare based upon what a person said, what he actually meant? Here's a radical notion: What I meant is what I wrote, and I specifically disclaim any agreement with what responders claim it means or what responders claim is a necessary consequence of what I wrote.
Is this a self-congratulation society, or are you folks open to real debate? Does this debate include
analyzing how superiority thinking can lead to logical error?
Had I been around prior to the microscope, I apparently would have been one of those stating that bacteria
might exist, but it hadn't been proved or disproved yet. Would others here have been in the crowd that ridiculed the existence of what they could not see?
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:49 PM
|
#24
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
Had I been around prior to the microscope, I apparently would have been one of those stating that bacteria
might exist, but it hadn't been proved or disproved yet. Would others here have been in the crowd that ridiculed the existence of what they could not see?
|
A flawed analogy (a microbial model would have fit well with empirical evidence at the time). Do you believe that somewhere in the universe there is a square that is also a circle? If no, why?
"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:53 PM
|
#25
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
It is 'Limbaughesque', isn't it, to declare based upon what a person said, what he actually meant? Here's a radical notion: What I meant is what I wrote, and I specifically disclaim any agreement with what responders claim it means or what responders claim is a necessary consequence of what I wrote.
Is this a self-congratulation society, or are you folks open to real debate? Does this debate include
analyzing how superiority thinking can lead to logical error?
Had I been around prior to the microscope, I apparently would have been one of those stating that bacteria
might exist, but it hadn't been proved or disproved yet. Would others here have been in the crowd that ridiculed the existence of what they could not see?
|
Dude, bring it on! You're tossing sentences around without saying anything. We have many master debaters here.. just pick your topic and post your challenge.
Here, we'll start with this: How are you different from any atheist, when you don't believe in thousands of Gods that millions of people believe are genuine?
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 02:55 PM
|
#26
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
|
Quote:
Victus wrote
Quote:
Francis wrote
Had I been around prior to the microscope, I apparently would have been one of those stating that bacteria
might exist, but it hadn't been proved or disproved yet. Would others here have been in the crowd that ridiculed the existence of what they could not see?
|
A flawed analogy (a microbial model would have fit well with empirical evidence at the time). Do you believe that somewhere in the universe there is a square that is also a circle? If no, why?
|
I think he's setting up a strawman, Victus. Anyone who takes the time to read just a small percentage of the posts here will realize that Francis' claims are empty.
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 03:01 PM
|
#27
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
I think he's setting up a strawman, Victus. Anyone who takes the time to read just a small percentage of the posts here will realize that Francis' claims are empty.
|
Although his claims are empty he himself is full (of shit).
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 03:02 PM
|
#28
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
|
Quote:
Francis wrote
Thanks for your posts
|
You're welcome.
Quote:
Francis wrote
...but nothing written herein gives me any pause.
|
Oh. Well nevermind then.
Quote:
Francis wrote
A large percentage of people are weak to believe themselves superior to their fellow beings.
|
That's a strange thing to say, considering that in general, every theist considers "themselves superior to their fellow beings" because each believes that they have a monopoly on universal truth. By your own argument, you're saying that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Wiccans are weak?
Further, atheists do not "believes themselves superior"; we merely hold the most reasonable position. When Religious Person A makes supernatural claim X, and Atheist B requests evidence, and Religious Person A cannot produce any reliable evidence for which there is no natural explanation, then Atheist B is reasonable in asserting that Religious Person A's supernatural claim X is unsubstantiated and thus currently unworthy of serious consideration. Just because Religious Person A really, really believes that supernatural claim X is true does not make it so, and Atheist B is completely justified in rejecting the claim on the grounds that it lacks supporting evidence. This makes the atheist position more reasonable.
Quote:
Francis wrote
It is a human failing expressed across the board, in every population and culture.
|
On what sources do you base that assertion?
Quote:
Francis wrote
Here we are, almost microbes on the larger scale of the universe. We are scurrying about on a speck of dust we call Earth, oblivious to the VAST majority of knowledge in the universe, and yet atheists feel themselves able to declare the non-existence of something.
|
I know that I already clarified this point, but I see that I must do so again:
"Atheism" does not "declare the non-existence of" anything. Some atheists -- that is, Positive Atheists -- declare the outright non-existence of supernatural entities on logical, philosophical, and evidenciary bases.
Skeptical Atheism, on the other hand, declares that religious claims as to the existence of supernatural entities are unsupported by reliable evidence, and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. I assert that no religion is correct, because not one has been able to demonstrate through reliable evidence that it is correct. As such, I reject all unsubstantiated supernatural claims made by religion.
Quote:
Francis wrote
It is as illogical as delaring disbelief in the existence of North and South America in 1200s Europe.
|
No; it's as illogical as declaring disbelief in the existence of those land masses today.
In 1200s Europe, there was no evidence that those land masses existed, and so no one was making the claims that they did. Even if someone did make such a claim, they could not support it with any kind of reliable evidence, which means that anyone who said "I do not accept your claim because you have not demonstrated it to be true" would have been making a reasonable assertion.
You can only make your assertion because, today, you know that North and South America exist. If I told you today, however, that a land mass known as Grodania exists on the earth, you would reasonably ask me for evidence to support my claim. If I could not produce such evidence, you would reasonably reject my claim as unsubstantiated. If an expedition in 2800 found a land mass and named it Grodania, then I would have been right despite my lack of evidence, but your rejection of my claim would not have been illogical.
Quote:
Francis wrote
The logical position for the existence of God is, respectfully, "Who knows".
|
Most certainly not. The logical position for the existence of a supernatural entity is "we have no reliable evidence to support the claim." Where we go from there depends upon the individual. I, for instance, would say, "until such evidence arises, we would do well to behave as if no supernatural entities exist and focus our energies on improving the environment and the human condition." And if such evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity does someday arise, I will certainly consider it; if it is reliable, I would be illogical to reject it.
Quote:
Francis wrote
With regard to claims that some here are making, that they can know what believers know...
|
You are confusing "know" with "believe." Believers "believe" things; that is, they accept claims without sufficient reliable evidence. Atheists know things; that is, they accept only claims that carry sufficient reliable evidence. The things that I think you're trying to claim believers "know" are actually the things that believers "believe." To wit: believers only "believe" that a god exists, because there is insufficent evidence to support the claim. For that reason, atheists do not "know" that any gods exist, and because there is a profound lack of evidence, they choose not to "believe."
Quote:
Francis wrote
I find such claims similar to claims made by people that they know what a great artist sees, or what music a great musician imagines.
|
The difference being, of course, that no artist or musician is, purely in the expression of their art, making claims as to the existence or will of a supernatural being (ignoring, for the moment, art of a religious nature).
Aside from that, this analogy is utterly irrelevant and meaningless.
Quote:
Francis wrote
It is no great leap for me to believe that some may be much more sensitive spiritually than I am, or you folks are.
|
Here you are confusing "spirituality" with "correctness." Just because someone really, really believes something does not make that belief in any meaningful or materially true. This is where the issue of reliable evidence becomes important. Atheists view such "spirituality" as a flaw, because it is the acceptance of a doctrine of claims that cannot be supported by sufficient evidence. Atheists, obviously, do not wish to be "spiritual."
Quote:
Francis wrote
Humility apparently being in limited supply here...
|
I have no need to be humble; I merely need to address the topic in an honest and insightful manner.
Quote:
Francis wrote
...I expect little serious analysis of these issues.
|
I suppose, then, that I have dramatically exceeded your expectations, as I have demonstrated some very serious analysis of these issues.
Quote:
Victus wrote
Your lack of responsiveness to the replies of, let's pick a good one, anthonyjfuchs...
|
Muchas gracias Vic; you are too kind.
a‧the‧ist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 03:02 PM
|
#29
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
|
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
I think he's setting up a strawman, Victus. Anyone who takes the time to read just a small percentage of the posts here will realize that Francis' claims are empty.
|
Nature deplores a vacum!
At least this one has the grammatical skills needed for posting. Let's face it, we've been dealing with people who communicate with emoticons as of late.
"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
05-05-2006, 03:06 PM
|
#30
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
|
Quote:
Victus wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
I think he's setting up a strawman, Victus. Anyone who takes the time to read just a small percentage of the posts here will realize that Francis' claims are empty.
|
Nature deplores a vacum!
At least this one has the grammatical skills needed for posting. Let's face it, we've been dealing with people who communicate with emoticons as of late.
|
I'm ready to hire theists like Quaker and Steve G to teach other theists how to get along with people who aren't like you.
We'd have to consider mandatory attendance... I doubt they'd go on their own.
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 PM.
|