Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Question for Atheists
Topic Started: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:54 pm (1,923 Views)
TkO-Sedai
Level 2
Atheists do reject the concept of God completely. There's no such thing as "atheism-lite". The only soft stance on atheism are those atheists who are not militantly so.

Agnostics are uncertain of the concept of God, but are not completely uncertain. Complete uncertainty is a paradox, get it? >< it's entirel possible or an agnostic to move towards agnostic theism/deism or agnostic atheism. This is really basic stuff, c'mon. I'm waitin for somebody to make this more interesting
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
TkO-Sedai
Level 2
Addendum - atheists reject the concept of god, not because god can't provide a satisfactory explanation for "natural phenomenon", but because they feel that the concept of god does not exist in the first place. It's entirely possible to believe in a god that does not control the occurance of natural phenomenon ie some forms of Buddhism, or to be doubtful of several possible explanations of god's role in the universe but still think it slightly possible that a god may exist somewhere and that this god can control everything or almost nothing at all. The point basically is that the existence of god, questioning god's existence, or identifying with the concept of god does not necessarily relate in any way at all to that god's role in the universe. They are two seperste l, albeit closely related questions. Althiugh it obviously makes sense for the one to follow the other, but this is really just nitpicking. Run on sentence ftw
Edited by TkO-Sedai, Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:46 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
If you're waiting for somebody to make it interesting then you'd better take the initiative.

Your arbitrary definition of atheism sounds exactly like the answer theist would give if asked to define atheism.

God is seen as a nonissue to atheists just like the existence of any mythical creature you care to name. God is an unfalsifiable theory and does not lend itself to any sort of empirical evaluation so therefore it is not treated as a existing entity. Atheists do not say that God absolutely does not exist (that would be an exercise in futility trying to disprove God), but that there is nothing indicating that he does.

As for agnostics, they are certain that the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural entity such as God lies outside of the realm of human understanding. Being completely uncertain and asserting that something cannot be known with absolute certainty are not equivalent.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
TkO-Sedai
Level 2
Tonic you clearly don't know the first thing about theoretical physics, philosophy, philosophy of biology, or noetical physics. Because each one of those fields believes that God can be measured empirically. God is of central importance to atheists because god is precisely the concept they are trying to disprove. My definition isn't arbitrary. It's the one most popularly accepted by scholars. Get a fucking education before running your mouth about things you don't know. I'm dumbing everything down and your still fucking it up. I'm not interested in taking the initiative as I have beaten this subject to deathbseveral times over. I've even published on a peripheral subject. I'm just tryin to provide a little guidance to the discussion.

Oh, I just read the second part of your reply. Surprise surprise, it's also wrong. Agnostics don't believe anything of the sort. An understanding of god may be fully within the realm of human understanding, but that's entirely irrelevant to agnostic schools of thought. It's irrelevant because agnostics, just like theists, are divided on that question. What is relevant is what our calculations, our astronomical measurements, and our rational or irrational arguments tell us about the nature of god. An agnostic isn't someone who just says I donno, but someone who listens tonarguments on all sides and then comes to an informed conclusion. And an informed conclusion is very rarely along the lines of "i can't make up my mind about god because god is beyond my understanding" that's philosophically weak
Edited by TkO-Sedai, Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:03 am.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
HaZy
Member Avatar
Level 3
I haven't read much of this discussion at all, frankly because after about 3 or so of the internet pages it starts to get circular. After all it is a discussion about beliefs, whether people will try to say it isn't "faith", or whether they say they "don't care". It is still in the context of belief and therefore will never be able to be completely objective unless everyone agreed on an arbitrary source OUTSIDE ourselves. However given the fact that no one here is really agreeing on such a thing there can be no real conclusions reached. But this topic was started by someone just looking for personal reasons and such.

So, without saying one way or another about my views I want to give a famous quote about this whole faith/believing/atheism/etc topic.

"To them that ask, where have you seen the Gods, or how do you know for certain there are Gods, that you are so devout in their worship? I answer: Neither have I ever seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it."
~Marcus Aurelius (Emperor of Rome)

Offline Profile Quote Post
 
HaZy
Member Avatar
Level 3
TkO-Sedai
Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:41 pm
It's entirely possible to believe in a god that does not control the occurance of natural phenomenon ie some forms of Buddhism,
Before I say anything else, I really like your posts Sedai. They're fun to read and such. Having said that I don't mean to be an ass but I just wanted to point something out: speaking of education I wanted to let you know that right here you used the abbreviation "i.e." wrong. Now this is nothing big except for the fact that, having taken Latin for a long time and being trained extensively in its use, I have a bit of a pet peeve. And that peeve is when people use the wrong abbreviation in their writing, especially when people are using it to present themselves well. Specifically "i.e." stands for "id est", which is Latin for "that is". This is only to be used where you are redefining something you have said before. And while "some forms of Buddhism" is certainly an instance of what you had said prior, it most definitely is not a definition of "believ[ing] in a god that does not control the occurance of natural phenomena" (sic). Therefore it is incorrectly used in your post. What you were looking for was "e.g.", which stands for "exempla gratia", meaning "many instances" (or more commonly used as "for the sake of example / such as").


I just hate when people present themselves as well-learned scholars and then carelessly condemn themselves in their own writing with such trivial mistakes.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Nothing screams "educated" like condescension and personal insults. Classy.

Anyway, you're wrong on several points.

Atheists are not trying to disprove God. Your definition is arbitrary and incorrect because nobody is trying to disprove the existence of an entity that is inherently unfalsifiable. This is a key point that you seem to take for granted and it's not even true. I repeat, a serious Atheist is not trying to disprove God any more than he is trying to disprove a unicorn because it's impossible to completely disprove something. Atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists”. There cannot be an experiment where the conclusion is "God does not exist". It's impossible. What Atheists do try to do is find explanations in their relevant fields that lie inside the natural world. Science precludes anything supernatural as an explanation for anything natural. They find these explanations through scientific inquiry. Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, you name it. None of these fields are actively disproving God, but providing evidence for alternative explanations. The scientific process is Atheistic. However, that doesn't mean that all scientists are Atheists and I'm not claiming.that.

In addition to being impossible, disproving God is also a task which Atheists don't find necessary. The burden of proof in this situation is with the people who claim the existence of God. It's not the responsibility of Atheists to disprove God since they are not the ones making such a claim. It's not of "central importance" to anything except Theists and their beliefs. If you are an organic chemist, and I claim that dehydration of an alcohol does not take place through an E1 reaction mechanism as is believed but is the result of little aliens manually detaching and reattaching atoms, is it of "central importance" to disprove my theory? No. Is it possible to prove that I'm wrong? No. Is it necessary to you as a chemist to even attempt to prove that I am wrong? No.

Atheists hold that IF God existed, then he SHOULD be able to be measured empirically. Theists posit that God lies outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Atheists assert that God is a scientific theory about the universe that needs supporting evidence in order to be accepted as a valid theory. Nothing has been shown thus far, and thus to Atheists God is not a legitimate theory. It's really that simple.

As for your comment on Agnosticism, it's also misinformed. Someone who "listens tonarguments on all sides and then comes to an informed conclusion" would be either a Theist or an Atheist, depending on the conclusion reached. Agnosticism on the other hand would be unconvinced by either side and still hold that ultimate knowledge is impossible. Whether it is a "philosophically weak" stance is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm simply defining it for you.

If you want to argue for another definition of Agnosticism then please provide me a link. And no, your scholarly "street cred" does not suffice.
Edited by Tonic, Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:55 pm.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Reveal
Level 11
Tonic is right about Agnostics (I am one) even though this topic is about atheists, being agnostic is right next to atheism. Being Agnostic to put it simply is that a person believes that a higher being or entity exists it's just not certain who or what it is. Basically I believe in God but do not recognize my God to be Jesus, Muhaamd (bad sp), etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
TkO-Sedai
Level 2
My ba about the ie. You are perfecly right about the Latin meaning of the phrase. Thy being said, I was using it Ina very colloquial manner. I don't know any scholarly publication that uses ie formally anyway. That being said, my area of expertise is defnitely not linguistics. And agnosticism is not righ next to atheism. It's kind of smack dab in the middle. Agnostics don't necessarily believe Ina higher power. They basically don't know if there is higher power, period. Defining or understanding said higher power is secondary to them. Btw I am personally agnostic as well. Thank you for the friendly correction Reveal :)

tonic, you have no idea at all what you are talking about :(. I'm not going to bother continuing this back and forth, so I will just leave you the tools to educate yourself. Go read anything by Richard Dawkins, the most militant atheist out there, who... Lo and behold... Goes about proving that God does not exist. Many theists and Deists will say that although we don't understand god now... Doesn't mean we won't in the future. Hmmm or maybe you think the earth is still flat and the sun revolves around us?
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
HaZy
Member Avatar
Level 3
Bravo Tonic. I appreciated that post a lot. Well said.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Being a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I can tell you with certainty that he doesn't "go about" proving anything of the sort, nor does he try to. I've read most of his books, and the closest he comes to even attempting this is in the book The God Delusion in the chapter titled, "Why God almost certainly does not exist" or something alone those lines. Notice that he didn't write "Why God certainly does not exist". He's too smart for that.What he does do is provide sound criticism of established religion, refute Theistic arguments for the existence of God, and provide alternative evolutionary explanations to features of humanity such as morality. Pretty much exactly what I stated the Atheist objectives were earlier.

In short, don't try to drop names of prominent Atheists on me, as chances are I'm familiar with their works already. It seems to me you don't know much about Dawkins except that he's an Atheist, and you already have a distorted understanding of the concept of Atheism. All I can say is, nice try.

It seems strange to me that for someone who claims to be learned, you're surprisingly crass and intolerant. I'm wondering if you think your arguments are foolproof and that you know everything simply because you have taken a course or two in the subject material. My educational background is in Biochemistry and Biology, and have taken few courses in Metaphysics or Philosophy. I prefer the practical sciences. Even so, the mistakes you're making are so elementary that I'm sure I could have corrected you back in high school. I suggest that if you're going to take on the role of the erudite professor and "guide the discussion"(lol), then I suggest you drop the pretentiousness and at least make sure your arguments are up to par.
Edited by Tonic, Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:01 am.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
ClansAreForGays
Level 4
HaZy
Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:37 am
Bravo Tonic. I appreciated that post a lot. Well said.
Same. Sedi, you are being taken to school here.

But I define an agnostic as someone who does not hope to grasp whether god exists or not, but can reason that even if there was a god, it isn't concerned with a human's personal belief of him.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
That would probably be more in line with Deism, CAFG.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
SOLAR
Level 9
Tonic
Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:09 pm
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.
Tonic is indeed correct!
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Tonic
The Mambo King
Yea, the latter part of his definition would be a deistic notion except without the uncertainty. The first part of his definition is consistent though.

Since I've had similar discussions with FaZ in the past I invite him to explain what he defines agnosticism to be.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
FaZ-
Level 39
Agnosticism to me means that discussions about God are largely academic and wholly useless. Until evidence presents itself as to the nature, origin, or specification of God, there is nothing that anyone can argue truthfully that would matter to anyone else. Faith is, above all, personal. I expect to wait until my death before I answer that question and have no qualms with the inherent uncertainty. Some feel that they have been touched by a deity; I acknowledge that I won't be able to dissuade anyone from such a point of view and that is where the atheist and I differ: they fully reject the idea of personal evidence as being unscientific. Perhaps it is, but that doesn't change its power on people.

Agnosticism says simply that we do not know, and that it is thus foolhardy to attempt to make any explanation either affirming or denying the existence of a deity. Atheism attempts the latter, most religions the former. Both are nothing more than a waste of breath, to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
GoDs-WeapoN
Member Avatar
Level 4
i dont believe in god..
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
DeMuRe
Member Avatar
Level 25
GoDs-WeapoN
Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:49 pm
i dont believe in god..
I do.




I don't think this is a poll though.


:-/
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
Reveal
Level 11
That was a really good post by FaZ I must say summed it up pretty darn well. Whether people choose to believe in God or not is completely up to them because believing in God requires faith. A faith that may or may not be true nonetheless I personally think organized religion is bullshit (I.E. Scientology). :T
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
GoDs-WeapoN
Member Avatar
Level 4
DeMuRe
Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:41 am
GoDs-WeapoN
Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:49 pm
i dont believe in god..

I don't think this is a poll though.


:-/
it is a poll, if you have "faith" it is..

lol.. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Discussions · Next Topic »
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5