Religion

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

The counterpoint to that, which I think is what Ghostanime was pointing out, is that having a PhD doesn't mean you WON'T filter information through your personal bias. People are prone to continue believing things long after they're proven false, and any person who enters into a discussion with initial biases is likely to see only the answer that confirms what they thought going in.

 

Just like how we wouldn't use an article from athiest.org even if it's supposed to be from a intellectual mind.

[Optimist Prime 197]

Your first reply to me did come out as if I'm too young to understand the nature of gods which thus leads many people to think of it as condescending (even if you did not intend for that).

 

But what experiences am I expected to have if I haven't had them at the age of 20 already? Am I going to be saved in the nick of time? Is my mother going to die? What experience is there left for me?

 

 

I know they're at least qualified educationally, but none of it is peer-reviewed (or seems to be).

 

Also, his degrees aren't really anything that would indicate he knew a significant amount of science. Just throwing that out there.

 

But if there's a particular argument you think he mentions that is significant, you can paste it here.

 

I'm reading some of his work and I'm really not impressed.

 

But Russell realized that the inference from apparent lack of evidence for God to atheism is fallacious. That’s why in his famous debate in 1948 with Frederick Copleston he preferred the label “agnostic” instead of “atheist.” Yet today, many call themselves “atheists” when really they are agnostics.

 

I honestly wonder if he's done his research on both word origins and latin meanings?

 

It can be questioned that God satisfies the Evidence Expectation Criterion if you think for a moment about the fleeting nature of evidence. Only in the last 20 years or so have we discovered the incredible and incalculable fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life

 

Oh brother. The fine tuning of the universe... such as all that wasted space if we really *ARE* the only beings? The fine-tuning of dolphins with mammal limbs and us with wisdom teeth? Perfect creation right thurr.

 

Of course, the guy is smart and all but.. I just simply disagree with him. This site will satisfy Christian believers, but fait based sites just never work for non believers. It truly does sound like apologetics in intelligent language.

 

well the question and answer wouldnt be peer reviewed, since its all on the website. any articles that are published should be, though. hes had many debates with some of the bigger names of atheism, and continues to do so (his debates are on the website as well). i never gave a scientific argument, so i dont know why it would matter that he isnt accredited in it, since its not what i linked the site for.

 

i dont know what your big problem with the terminology is. modern definitions would label atheists as those denying the existence of God and agnostics as those who claim God's existence as unknowable. its true that you cant inference a lack of being from a lack of evidence. you would need evidence to the contrary. thats the process of science. its why we have theories and laws.

 

if you want a more "sciencey" argument, heres the plantinga one i mentioned...

 

http://www.hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Just like how we wouldn't use an article from athiest.org even if it's supposed to be from a intellectual mind.

 

 

Exactly.

[Optimist Prime 197]

Just like how we wouldn't use an article from athiest.org even if it's supposed to be from a intellectual mind.

 

not sure why not. we all have biases, and so long as we recognize them we should be able to hear out each side of the argument. i listen to atheist talks all the time. i debate issues with atheist friends. the truth is, the only way someone will truly invest in an issue is by caring strongly about it. and in this particular instance, the majority of those happen to be either theists or atheists.

[GhostAnime 50]

You asked for scholars, "scientists", I gave you 2. Einstein believed that the universe was in fact created by a God. I'm not to familiar with every detail but I remembered reading a biography with him stating that.

Again, I was referring to groups and sites that were peer-reviewed, not a random scientist in the 17th century.

 

Again, Einstein believed nature was "God", he did not believe in a monotheistic traditional personal god. Simply because you heard the word 'god' doesn't mean he believes in an afterlife. There is a lot more to theism than Christianity.

 

I understand you wanting "proof". I did too. Maybe you'll get it as you continue to search. Just don't quite searching. Praying does help. I'm not saying only do that but try it. Whats the penalty?

Wasting my itme. Which I have. Praying has not worked for me. .. That's about it.

 

i dont know what your big problem with the terminology is. modern definitions would label atheists as those denying the existence of God

Depends on the dictionary. "disbelief" isn't the same as "rejection".

 

It also depends on what you define God as. I am Atheistic towards the Judeo-Christian God, but have more of an agnostic atheist mindset for supernatural beings who could exist but don't care about us.

 

People who judge Atheists all under one umbrella just create a huge strawman and have no idea what it is other than the first three words in dictionary.com and ignoring the actual REAL root (ie, a + theism "without gods").

 

Agnostic is actually a word that doesn't even focus on belief. It focuses on knowledge.. which is entirely different. You could be an agnostic anything.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean I condone actual strong atheists who do reject any supernatural being whatsoever, but there aren't really a lot of them and most atheists are really just in disbelief to the point where they can walk outside and believe they won't fall off a cliff. Close to 100%, but confident enough.

 

Tried reading the link. It's kinda losing me. It's talking more about Darwin and Dawkins than it does about the actual process of Evolution. Is there some sort of point to mentioning Darwin anyway? I will never understand creationists who act like Darwin is some official authority figure and anything he says goes about Evolution. Theories change all the time. Simply because he was the first one to publish it (note how I said publish, not discover), does not mean anything he said in the 19th century has any bearing on what we know today.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

not sure why not. we all have biases, and so long as we recognize them we should be able to hear out each side of the argument. i listen to atheist talks all the time. i debate issues with atheist friends. the truth is, the only way someone will truly invest in an issue is by caring strongly about it. and in this particular instance, the majority of those happen to be either theists or atheists.

 

I went through a lot of debate classes. Those types of sources wouldn't work in an intellectual debate (im pretty much considering this as one). Its intellectually dishonest and a huge problem in the media right now.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Again, I was referring to groups and sites that were peer-reviewed, not a random scientist in the 17th century.

 

Again, Einstein believed nature was "God", he did not believe in a monotheistic traditional personal god. Simply because you heard the word 'god' doesn't mean he believes in an afterlife. There is a lot more to theism than Christianity.

 

 

Wasting my itme. Which I have. Praying has not worked for me. .. That's about it.

 

 

Depends on the dictionary. "disbelief" isn't the same as "rejection".

 

It also depends on what you define God as. I am Atheistic towards the Judeo-Christian God, but have more of an agnostic atheist mindset for supernatural beings who could exist but don't care about us.

 

People who judge Atheists all under one umbrella just create a huge strawman and have no idea what it is other than the first three words in dictionary.com and ignoring the actual REAL root (ie, a + theism "without gods")

 

Of course, that doesn't mean I condone actual strong atheists who do reject any supernatural being whatsoever, but there aren't really a lot of them and most atheists are really just in disbelief to the point where they can walk outside and believe they won't fall off a cliff. Close to 100%, but confident enough.

 

Tried reading to link. It's kinda losing me. It's talking more about Darwin and Dawkins than it does about the actual process of Evolution. Is there some sort of point to mentioning Darwin anyway? I will never understand creationists who act like Darwin is some official authority figure and anything he says goes about Evolution. Theories change all the time. Simply because he was the first one to publis it (note how I said publish, not discover), does not mean anything he said in the 19th century has no bearing on what we know today.

 

Atheists kinda get a rough deal because of the smug D-bags who run around and act like they're better than everyone.

 

There's a need for alternate terminology. hence the reason i'm a secular humanist.

[GhostAnime 50]

I went through a lot of debate classes. Those types of sources wouldn't work in an intellectual debate (im pretty much considering this as one). Its intellectually dishonest and a huge problem in the media right now.

Agreed. There's no need to send random links on a debate about something as incoherent as a supernatural being. This debate requires more mind work than actual research. Only time anybody should ever use sources are on empirical things ie; things that have existed, been clearly observed and tested. It has been proven scientifically that whenever you ask a religious person about god, the part of the brain that gives their personal feelings on something lights up, which means they're simply telling you their opinion.

 

Oh and yeah, stereotypes about Atheists do get annoying.

 

Which is why I just say 'nonbelievers' or 'secularlists". We all still live the same lives, argue the same points, and may different in small areas.. but overall words are never really going to tell you that much about what a person thinks and feels, so it's best to ask them before judging.

[Optimist Prime 197]

Depends on the dictionary. "disbelief" isn't the same as "rejection".

 

It also depends on what you define God as. I am Atheistic towards the Judeo-Christian God, but have more of an agnostic atheist mindset for supernatural beings who could exist but don't care about us.

 

People who judge Atheists all under one umbrella just create a huge strawman and have no idea what it is other than the first three words in dictionary.com and ignoring the actual REAL root (ie, a + theism "without gods")

 

Of course, that doesn't mean I condone actual strong atheists who do reject any supernatural being whatsoever, but there aren't really a lot of them and most atheists are really just in disbelief to the point where they can walk outside and believe they won't fall off a cliff. Close to 100%, but confident enough.

 

"without gods" means absence of gods. so yes, technically it does mean denial. unless we want to the phrase anti-theist to mean extreme atheism. agnostic, "without knowledge", aka unknowing. these are the basic definitions of the words. if you claim to be an atheist you are taking a stance on the absence of a deity.

 

and i would appreciate not being put under an umbrella just because i have a working definition of the word atheist, which you agree upon, but just disagree on some of its wider uses.

 

lets face it, we all have stereotypes and id be surprised if the majority of people on this board dont think of christians as people who accept what their pastor tells them on blind faith without thinking.

[GhostAnime 50]

"without gods" means absence of gods. so yes, technically it does mean denial. unless we want to the phrase anti-theist to mean extreme atheism. agnostic, "without knowledge", aka unknowing. these are the basic definitions of the words. if you claim to be an atheist you are taking a stance on the absence of a deity.

 

and i would appreciate not being put under an umbrella just because i have a working definition of the word atheist, which you agree upon, but just disagree on some of its wider uses.

 

lets face it, we all have stereotypes and id be surprised if the majority of people on this board dont think of christians as people who accept what their pastor tells them on blind faith without thinking.

no it doesn't. absence of gods simply mean you have no belief in gods. that doesn't mean you believe no gods exist. those are two different stances.

 

if absence of belief is a belief, then.not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I went through a lot of debate classes. Those types of sources wouldn't work in an intellectual debate (im pretty much considering this as one). Its intellectually dishonest and a huge problem in the media right now.

 

i guess i just feel like we have a right to appeal to a higher authority on the subject, since, lets face it, none of us really have the credentials in these fields. i feel like weve ventured very far from the subject of the thread though, and i got sick over this weekend and probably shouldnt be spending so much time on here. ive enjoyed talking with yall and ill try to get back tomorrow and talk some more if theres anything new. ill let you know if i hear of any cool studies.

 

btw, have any of you read up on stephen hawkings new argument for the creation of the universe? havent had the time to look over it at all, wondering if you have any thoughts.

[Optimist Prime 197]

no it doesn't. absence of gods simply mean you have no belief in gods. that doesn't mean you believe no gods exist. those are two different stances.

 

if absence of belief is a belief, then.not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

last post for me today.

 

i get your point, and i understand better what you mean now.

 

the first thing i would say is that in todays society, thats just not what atheist means. it has been changed to go further and mean anti-theist. the proper term for what you are speaking of in todays world is non-theist. much like awful has come to mean bad, when the original term was offal, leftovers from a butchers shop. aweful means full of awe.

 

i guess what it hinges on is whether you take the prefix to align with the root, "the", from theos or with the whole of the term "theism", belief in god. is it a- theism or athe-ism. i guess thats where our points differ.