Atheism

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Thomas...the case (as you put it) for "believing" there is a GOD...is the same case for "believing" there are no gods.

No it isn't, because entities that are complex enough to create universes, breathing earth into lumps of clay, drowning all life on Earth in a flood impregnate virgins, listen to our prayers, obsess about our sex lives and so forth, are statistically improbable. But you couldn't accept this argument the last dozen-or-so times I made it; I will not try to convince you of it again.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyway...how ya been. Hope all is well with you.

All is well, thanks. How about you? Looks like you've turned into an agnostic recently.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I don't see any place in Ruse's article where he's claiming that Dawkins's arguments are inadequate for refuting the case for believing in gods.

There is no way to make an "adequate" argument to refute...

...a) "believing" (or guessing) that a GOD exists...or...

...b) "believing" (or guessing) that there are no gods.

The theistic argument and the atheistic arguments are absurd. But "believing" (or guessing) one way or the other is fine.

I note, however, that at least the theists are, for the most part, willing to acknowledge that their "belief" has nothing to do with logic.

Atheists want to pretend their "beliefs" are the result of logic.

Loony Tunes!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I don't see any place in Ruse's article where he's claiming that Dawkins's arguments are inadequate for refuting the case for believing in gods.

Really? I think he says that quite clearly. Ruse agrees with Dawkins' conclusion, no question there. He is not denying that the conclusion is "sound." But the basis for it is invalid, as he sees it. Basicallly he's saying Dawkins is merely resorting to his own form of misguided "faith" to counter religion, and that his assertions are more a product of emotion than logic/understanding.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

It's becoming more apparent with every post you make that you are probably one of those who thinks matters of substance are decided by definition and whose idea of debate and discussion is endless semantic quibbling.

So am I. What's your problem with that? Words have meanings, and these meanings can be looked up in dictionaries. Sure, you can insist that humanism and atheism are synonymous, but that doesn't mean you have made a substantive point. All it means is that you insist on speaking some language other than English.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

...entities that are complex enough to create universes, breathing earth into lumps of clay, drowning all life on Earth in a flood impregnate virgins, listen to our prayers, obsess about our sex lives and so forth, are statistically improbable.

This seems to be relatively timely illustration of a point I made when suggesting that "atheism" should not merely be "anti-Christianity." As I said there:

Quote:

But their Christian affiliation/upbringing stays with them. To them, God is a guy with a long white beard who lives in the sky.

http://able2know.org/topic/141106-614#post-5918259

1 Reply

@layman,

Thank you, Layman. I will comment on one thing.

You wrote:

Quote:

To me calling every conclusion a "guess" just levels all attempts at knowledge...

At no point have I ever suggested that every conclusion is a guess.

Never. Anywhere.

Nor will I ever.

But I will say that EVERY "conclusion" about the true nature of the REALITY of existence IS a guess...and a blind guess at that.

If you feel better considering the blind guesses being offered here as "considered opinion" (whatever you mean by that)...by all means do so.

If you feel better considering my comments about what I see to be "blind guesses" about REALITY to be less than respectful (or even disrespectful)...by all means do so. (I certainly do not offer them as disrespect.)

With all the respect in the world, however, I see remarks made about the REALITY which require the existence of a GOD...to be nothing more than blind guesses...and I see remarks made about the REALITY which requires that there be no gods...to be every bit as much blind guesses.

I would be untrue to myself to state otherwise.

Call them estimates or considered opinions if you want...but for me...they are nothing more than blind guesses.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

...you can insist that humanism and atheism are synonymous...

I didn't, and don't, say the two are synonymous, at least not is every usage of the term. But A doesn't have be "synonymous" with B, in order to entail B. And if A entails B, then asserting A is equivalent to also asserting B.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

This seems to be relatively timely illustration of a point I made when suggesting that "atheism" should not merely be "anti-Christianity."

In your opinion, what definition of the term "god" should I use?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Thomas...the case (as you put it) for "believing" there is a GOD...is the same case for "believing" there are no gods.

No it isn't, because entities that are complex enough to create universes, breathing earth into lumps of clay, drowning all life on Earth in a flood impregnate virgins, listen to our prayers, obsess about our sex lives and so forth, are statistically improbable. But you couldn't accept this argument the last dozen-or-so times I made it; I will not try to convince you of it again.

Well...stop thinking of "GOD" as that abomination from the Bible...and that problem goes away on its own. You will never convince me of it...because it is illogical.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyway...how ya been. Hope all is well with you.

All is well, thanks. How about you?

I'm fine. Going into town to meet with Jonathan and Steve tomorrow. Can you make it?

Quote:

Looks like you've turned into an agnostic recently.

I have been an agnostic throughout the time you've known me. I am a particular kind of agnostic, though.

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

If you see anything there that you consider offensive or ill-conceived, let's talk about it.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

In your opinion, what definition of the term "god" should I use?

There are many. Use whatever one you want

My post was merely intended to describe a phenomenon I have seen, not to prescribe a particular definition.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well...stop thinking of "GOD" as that abomination from the Bible...and that problem goes away on its own. You will never convince me of it...because it is illogical.

Same question as to layman: What definition of the term "god" do you suggest I use instead?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm fine. Going into town to meet with Jonathan and Steve tomorrow. Can you make it?

No, sorry. I'm in LA for a conference this week.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
In your opinion, what definition of the term "god" should I use?

There are many. Use whatever one you want

I did. And you didn't like it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well...stop thinking of "GOD" as that abomination from the Bible...and that problem goes away on its own. You will never convince me of it...because it is illogical.

Same question as to layman: What definition of the term "god" do you suggest I use instead?

Same answer Layman gave you. Use whatever one you want. But if you are suggesting that there are no gods...it better be pretty broad.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I'm fine. Going into town to meet with Jonathan and Steve tomorrow. Can you make it?

No, sorry. I'm in LA for a conference this week.

Okay...we'll get together when you get back. Warmer weather coming...so I should be getting into town more often.

Old guys gotta go easy.

0 Replies

@layman,

Not by the second definition in the American Heritage Dictionary for the word "definitively" one doesn't.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

You are?

I'll pm you..

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Call them estimates or considered opinions if you want...but for me...they are nothing more than blind guesses.

Omar Khayyam got a little disillusioned with all that, too:

Quote:

“Myself when young did eagerly frequent----Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument---About it and about: but evermore---Came out by the same door as in I went.”

But in his case, at least, he came away with a conclusion, ya know?:

Quote:

“Some for the Glories of This World; and some---Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come---Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go---Nor heed the music of a distant Drum!”

1 Reply

@layman,

It's interesting to watch Frank post is guesses as being the right interpretation for everything he posts. What makes it more fun is his opinion that he's always right! LOL

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You didn't have the intelligence to answer my last question, lets see if you can manage this one ...
Do you realise how silly it is to say that a entity that creates this universe must be bound by statistical probability from within it ?

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Do you realise how silly it is to say that a entity that creates this universe must be bound by statistical probability from within it ?

I can hardly wait for his answer. I bet I'll be waiting a while.

http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/popcorn.gif

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Do you realise how silly it is to say that a entity that creates this universe must be bound by statistical probability from within it ?

Even putting that aside, I wonder if he realizes how silly it is to even try to assign a "statistical probability" to that. His "premises" would merely reflect his pre-formed conclusion and would therefore just be an(other) example of totally circular "reasoning."

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know