| Welcome to The Snipers Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, and introducing yourself to our entire community. Registration is simple and fast! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Question for Atheists | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:54 pm (1,924 Views) | |
| Tonic | Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:40 pm Post #61 |
|
The Mambo King
|
That's probably because your "point" isn't very good. As usual, you're assuming you're right and you can't be wrong, and that it's me who has to "get" what you are saying. Must be nice to live in a box. Agnosticism...lol
lol @ this. I can't find evidence to back up my rash subjective claim, so I'll get frustrated and assume you "don't get out much". Edited by Tonic, Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:42 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| Princess | Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:00 pm Post #62 |
|
Banned
|
Can this just be closed? Since you two are the only ones discussing anything anymore, and I think both of you have made your cases 100 times over. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:15 pm Post #63 |
|
The Mambo King
|
I'm pretty sure nobody is forcing you to read this thread, so why would you care if it's open? There aren't any other active threads under serious anyway. |
![]() |
|
| Princess | Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:22 am Post #64 |
|
Banned
|
You're both accusing each other of talking in circles, and neither is going to concede defeat to the other. So I thought I'd save the trouble and request an end myself. But suit yourself. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:48 am Post #65 |
|
The Mambo King
|
You must be used to people agreeing with you. Welcome to the real world. You haven't responded to any of my points. You're arguing against an imaginary debater and you're responding to your own imaginary points. Once I challenge you on an issue, you backstep to your original monotonous diatribe. Tonic: ""What exactly does agnosticism advocate?" FaZ-: "Agnosticism encourages open-mindedness and research, leading (theoretically) to a more knowledgeable and well-informed society." Tonic: "Exactly what research directly results from agnosticism. I'd be interested to hear." FaZ-: ... ____________ FaZ: Your struggle is a blind one and will never lead anywhere or convert anyone. Tonic: "Excuse me? Who are atheist's trying to convert? Atheism is not a religion to convert to. I've yet to meet the equivalent of Jehovah's witness for Atheism." FaZ-: "I can't find anything to back up my loaded assumption. Why can't you just SEE what I SEE!" Tonic: -.- ____________ I wouldn't have taken this as a victory but your laughable frustration and defensiveness, as if you're some undisputable authority that cannot be wrong. Edited by Tonic, Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:49 am.
|
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:36 am Post #66 |
|
Level 39
|
Are you deliberately misunderstanding?
First of all, I don't see "directly" or "results" anywhere, but good try with the semantics. Following that, any research into the unknown is research encouraged by agnosticism. As I said before and you ignored, stop thinking of agnosticism as a religious view. See the circular argument yet?
If you don't believe strongly enough in your point of view to want to convert someone to it, you shouldn't espouse it. They are essentially one and the same. My "personal conjecture" is that most atheists do, and since you consider that to be a "loaded assumption" and a "rash subjective claim," there's zero point in continuing such a discussion. |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:28 pm Post #67 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Well that's just vague enough to be true! Agnosticism "encourages" research into the "unknown". Theism encourages research that interprets biblical text and uses these interpretations to explain natural phenomena. Theism also encourages research that pokes holes into scientific theories and then then inserts their faith into these holes. Atheism encourages research that into explanations of natural phenomena sans a supernatural creator, which pretty much includes most of the research being conducted today. What you're doing is assigning the possiblity that God exists greater believability than theories about other things that possibly exist. You assume atheists think this way as well, but what you don't understand is that to atheists, God and magical leprechauns have equal possibilities of existing. One is not more possible than the other. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in either of these entities. If you want to give God a greater possibility of existing than magical unicorns, then you have to provide a reason for this view. You don't, and assume that one has precedence over ther other.
Nice bait n' switch there buddy. This is an entirely different argument altogether. Now the argument is that a viewpoint isn't worthy unless you feel it necessary to convert people to it. I disagree here, but that's not what this discussion was about. If I'm using circular arguments, then you're not even addressing the argument. In short: Why do you believe that the possibility that God exists is greater than other possible supernatural entities? |
![]() |
|
| Trophy | Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:26 pm Post #68 |
|
Level 6
|
1. Tonic's argument about research has no UNIQUENESS (cookie if someone can tell me what it means). Just because agnostics will "research the unknown" does not mean they will NOT have the discoveries we have today. 2. Why is the argument about assigning God a higher chance of existing true? It's not. Agnosticism is the denial of god without proof. You can supply that with anything. If you prove unicorns exist I will believe it. The only semblance of the argument being true is that they have made a word for denial of god, but not of denial of magical unicorns. And that's only because religion was (and maybe is) hella important back in the day (AP euro can be summed up with religious wars). I adopt non-belief (haha get it? a = non, theism = belief?). Why do I need to have an opinion on religion? Solves all your problems right there. It defaults to atheism, but not explicitly so it saves you the argument. |
![]() |
|
| FaZ- | Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:30 pm Post #69 |
|
Level 39
|
I doubt intelligent theists would very much agree with your interpretation, they'd probably say the converse is more true. If you want to rule out the possibility of God being responsible, that's fine, you're simply focusing your research into the opposite area that most theists do. I evaluate interpretations on their own merit, not their source, so I don't particularly care what research people want to do. Any done scientifically is valid for examination, the former part of which is admittedly often ignored by religious theorists.
False. For the third (fourth?) time, stop thinking about agnosticism as a religious view. I am assigning the possibility that God exists a greater IMPORTANCE than theories about other things that exist, because I would like to see society be more well-informed. If 50% of Americans started believing that the Abominable Snowman lived at the center of the earth or that creating a moon base is impossible, to me that would put it on an equal level of importance.
Also false. I said that a viewpoint isn't worth espousing unless you feel it necessary to convert people to it. Big difference. You can think whatever you like, but if you're going to champion it you must have reasoning to convert. Yes, it's a different discussion, but it's one that I've been addressing in all of my last posts, that atheism inhibits intellectual growth. My "personal conjecture" is that most atheists do epouse their beliefs while only making an argument from ignorance, and since you consider that to be a "loaded assumption" and a "rash subjective claim," there's zero point in continuing such a discussion. Considering I just literally copied and pasted that from my last post, and it still fits perfectly, I think it's safe to say this is also a circular argument, eh? Edited by FaZ-, Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:32 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:51 pm Post #70 |
|
The Mambo King
|
So until unicorns are proven, do you think that people who disbelieve in unicorns are being ignorant since they aren't agnostic on the issue? Are you agnostic on the issue of unicorns?
Ask FaZ if that's what agnosticism is.
This is the way any research is conducted scientifically. If a hypothesis is formulated, then the research conducted to find evidence supporting this hypothesis precludes God as an explanation from the get go, even research conducted by theistic scientists.
I'm not. You insist that I am in order to argue this imaginary point. My view is that agnosticism is not a stance at all.
Creating a moon base doesn't work, since like I stated before that "impossible" and "doesn't exist" are not interchangeable. Being agnostic about God is not the same as being agnostic about technology which doesn't exist today but might exist in the future. Actually, I don't see how it is possible to be agnostic on the issue of a lunar base. Agnosticism would advocate that it's ultimately impossible to determine whether we will or will not be able to establish a lunar base. Well, as of now, it is impossible to create a lunar base. So, it's not ultimately impossible to know. It would not be the same to say that as of now, it is impossible that God exists. This is a false analogy, and I demonstrated this before. As for your comment, you're saying that the prevalence of a view in society determines whether or not you will be agnostic on that issue. If enough people start believing in the Abominable snowman lived at the center of the earth, then it would be on an equal level of importance? To do what exactly? Important enough so that you can be agnostic on the issue? When 50% of Americans believe that the Abominable snowman exists, then at that point you will consider the issue ultimately impossible to prove or disprove.That would be agnosticism. How exactly is that beneficial to society?
Now you're the one treating atheism as a religious view. If I disbelieve in something, then it's unnecessary to think you have to convert people, just as I don't find it necessary to convert people to be atheistic about unicorns or leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster. All are non-issues to atheists. Do you try and convert people to disbelieve in Dracula? What atheists believe in is that our natural world is governed by natural laws and every natural phenomena has an explanation that rests in the natural world. That's something that I believe and that atheists believe, and that's the view that atheists try to convey to people. Edited by Tonic, Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:52 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| SOLAR | Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:44 am Post #71 |
|
Level 9
|
The ultimate knockdown argument for god, also serves as a concise response to the only argument for god that is worth thinking about. The argument theists make : How can the universe exist without a creator? And the obvious reply is : How can an even more sophisticated entity such as god exist without a creator? No religious people can ever provide a good response to the question, "why does god have the authority to rule the universe? Why does god have the power which he is said to have?" God was given all the power in the universe for NOTHING! He didn't earn it. The spoiled child was given an infinite amount of power. Creating humans doesn't even make up for INFINITE power. Maybe if he had limited powers, and it wasted some of his time or resources, then I'd thank him for it and worship him. Fortunately for the 90% of people in the world who don't agree with each other, they will not all be sent to hell because there is no evidence to believe that god exists =) |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:49 pm Post #72 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Actually, there are a number of replies to your point. A theist would say that you're assuming that causation infinitely regresses, but since God lies outside this regress in causation, than he does not necessarily need to have been created. Also, you're assuming that God is complex. Many Theists will argue that God is not complex, but infinitely simple. Your third point is even worse. You're assuming God was given this power, or God needed to deserve the power to rule the Universe. This is why I tend to steer clear of arguing about God in this kind of abstract, metaphysical way. You really can't argue with Theists and expect a fruitful outcome, since they don't share the same basic assumptions out the natural world as naturalists do. Edited by Tonic, Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:53 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| SOLAR | Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:16 am Post #73 |
|
Level 9
|
You (or the theist) have missed the point I've made completely. I am saying, that if God can exist "outside this regress in causation" (whatever that means) then the universe too could in itself also have always existed "outside the regress in causation". God either exists with reason, (meaningful) or without reason (randomness). Randomness would remove the validity behind any idea of a "purpose." If God exists for a reason, (a cause,) then something about the universe or reality exists independent (separate) from God. there is either an infinite regress in cause and effect, or there is something intrinsic about reality that we have yet to discover. Perhaps we are not so far away from this discovery, however, religion only distracts us from figuring out how reality works. Edited by SOLAR, Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:22 am.
|
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:28 am Post #74 |
|
The Mambo King
|
Regress in causation would be the causative agent of something also having a causative agent, and so forth ad infinity. Anyway, in that case your God is the Universe itself. |
![]() |
|
| SOLAR | Wed Nov 4, 2009 4:21 pm Post #75 |
|
Level 9
|
If your definition of God is something that has existed since the beginning of time, then I agree that the universe, or whatever exists beyond the universe may be considered "God" in that context. But, I do not believe in a God that listens to prayers, requires people to worship them, judges people, or uses magic to interfere with people's lives.
Edited by SOLAR, Wed Nov 4, 2009 4:22 pm.
|
![]() |
|
| TkO-Sedai | Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:10 pm Post #76 |
|
Level 2
|
Just to clarify, an atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in using faith to justify their belief system |
![]() |
|
| TkO-Sedai | Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:14 pm Post #77 |
|
Level 2
|
Addendum - the standard philosophical definition of an atheist is someone who rejects the concept of God. God in this case refers to an entity(s) that exists and operates beyond the realm of human intellect and understanding (sic). This is a very liberal definition, but thn again I am making the liberal assumption that not many of you have graduate degrees in philosophy |
![]() |
|
| SOLAR | Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:04 am Post #78 |
|
Level 9
|
I couldn't agree more with Sedai's first statement. The problem isn't "God" it's using "faith" to come to conclusions about things. The second statement with the definition is a problem though, because atheists don't "reject" god. They just aren't convinced he exists at all. |
![]() |
|
| TkO-Sedai | Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:41 pm Post #79 |
|
Level 2
|
Atheists do reject God completely. Agnostics are not convinced of God's existence |
![]() |
|
| Tonic | Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:09 pm Post #80 |
|
The Mambo King
|
No. Atheists don't accept God as an explanation for natural phenomena, since it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Agnostics hold that the question of whether God does or does not exist is impossible to know with any certainty. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic » |






3:06 PM Jul 11