Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Setanta wrote:

I have no doubt that we'll see you later Frank, that was just a little wishful whimsy on my part. In fact, i'm sure we'll hear your self-serving agnostic screed again and again and again . . . to the same boring extent which we have already.

So, Frank, with your contention about hitting a nerve, it would be reasonable for me to assume that when you make insulting speculations about the quality of my life, and using playground insults such as crybaby, in replies to my criticisms of what you've written, and not any speculation about your character--it seems reasonable for me to assume that i've hit a nerve. Using your criterion, that is the obvious conclusion.

Yes, Frank, you are using a strawman. In denying the existence of any god or goddess, i am denying what has previously been posited by theists. I am not indulging in a speculative statement which in any way derives from, nor underpins what you are pleased to refer to as my belief system. Having come to this conclusion long ago, those ideas which characterize what i believe have no theistical references at all. None of this is important to what i believe. All of it is very important to the issue of living in a largely theistic society, which has long demonstrated a prejudice against those whom these theists characterize as atheists--so it matters to me in that regard. This is definitely not a case of me making any such statement as a basis for debate, but is rather a response to a position in a debate, which is prompted by my belief that those making an extraordinary claim have the burden of proof, and my intention not to believe any such nonsense absent proof. That is not at all the same as making guesses about whether or not "god" exists. That you continue to frame the issue in those terms is to be expected, since your facile position rests upon such an assertion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've struck a nerve with you. With any kind of luck at all, it will soon hit home and you will drop the pretence that your atheism is based on reason and logic.

If doen't happen -- hey... sometimes that's the way things go.

But your particular silly brand of atheism should really be shot down by your fellow atheists. Your brand is an insult to reason and logic -- and it really reflects badly on other atheists who handle themselves and their arguments better than you.

0 Replies

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

Your nastiness continues to suggest that you have a raw nerve . . .

Really, Frank, that is the only strong rhetorical technique you apply isn't, invective and invidious comparison . . .

I've no problem with being the lightening rod here, i've seen you get just as sneeringly nasty with others who have made statements here of which you are contemptuous--better you take your low browed cheap shots at me, than offending others who are less familiar with your arrogant contempt for the thoughts of others. As far as that being a personal remark, i do not, of course, know whether or not you enjoy cordial relations with others in your personal life, and it is not my business. I do know that in these fora, you typically heap a nasty scorn upon those with whom you disagree. I've never offered any pretence, nor any claim, that my atheism is based on reason and logic. I'm not impressed with either method, as they exist only in a rhetorical context, and rarely have any use in day to day life. As i've pointed out again and again, atheist is a tag put on me by others, in those cases in which i deny their fantastical claims about the existence of a deity. Whether or not such a retort on my part is based upon logic or reason is beside the point--the point is that i don't accept extraordinary statements about persons or event absent a demonstration or proof.

Nice to see that you are now rating brands of atheism. Are you going to market those you think most likely to succeed? Have you gotten trademarks for the more appealing brands? Talk about silliness . . .

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

[
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only reason I claim agnosticism is a superior position to atheism and theism is because IT IS A SUPERIOR position to both.

Is it? Even if the person thinks there is plenty of evidence to one side you think your position is superior why?

Why???

Haven't you been reading my posts, Craven?
I've already explained why.

Because this "plenty of evidence" is not plenty of evidence -- and such little of it as there is, is ambiguous. That means that the guesses based on it are...inappropriate. And simply acknowledging that one does not know IS SUPERIOR TO AN INAPPROPRIATE GUESS.

But I see no evidence that suggests that agnosticism is a better position or is not a better position. Faced with this dearth of evidence I believe that remaining agnostic about whether agnosticism is a better position or not is superior to an inappropriate guess.

This is no longer a poke. If you follow me on this I'll show you where I'm going.

You claim that the guess is "inappropriate" when it is not to many. Most of us have no empirical evidence about who our parents are, or whether the tooth fairy is real.

But we still are forced to operate with our "guesses".

When you arbitrarily determine that this is a subject that should not involve any guesswork you too are making a "guess".

Just what do I have to do to finally get you atheists to quote me correctly on this particluar issue?

I defy you to show me anywhere where I have said or intimated that "this is a subject that should not involve any guesswork."

In fact, I can probably show a half dozen comments of mine where I have said the exact opposite.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU GUESS OR 'BELIEVE."

Setanta is not talking about guesses or beliefs -- HE IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS. He is not saying he "believes" there are no gods -- he is not saying he thinks there are no gods -- he is not saying that he estimates there are no gods. And when challenged, he insists there are no gods -- not that this is just an estimate or a guess or anything like that.

What is there about that, Craven, that you cannot comprehend.

I DO NOT CARE ONE WHIT ABOUT WHAT ANYONE GUESSES OR BELIEVES.

WHO CARES THAT THE GUESS IS INAPPROPRIATE? That, if you read it in context, was a comment on the logic used to derive the guess -- not about the fact that you are making guesses.

Not only do I NOT "arbitrarily determine that this is a subject that should not involve any guesswork" -- I am saying that damn near everything said by the atheistic and theistic camps on this subject -- IS a guess.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, Craven. If that point has not been established by now, why bother? You obviously are not reading what I write -- and are interested only in what you want me to be writing so that you can feel better about your guesses.

But I will leave you with this question:

What is the evidence that you have that makes you so sure there are no gods -- OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THEISTS HAVE POSITED ABSURD GODS?

What evidence do you have that the answer to the question "What is the nature of REALITY?" ...

...does not have a spiritual component?

What evidence do you have that it is more probable than not that the answer to the question "What is the nature of REALITY?"...

...does not involve a higher intelligence?

What is this evidence that you are touting with such determination, Craven?

Because I do not see any evidence that points in that direction at all. And you apparently see overwhelming evidence in that direction.

Share it with us.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

What is there about that, Craven, that you cannot comprehend.

Frank so do you take issue when people make statements like "Bush is a moron". Would you say that an agnostic position about that is preferable?

You again in your post demand "evidence" and in my previous experience I know that you will simply point out that none is emprirical.

I agree.

So before you start asking me for evidence again about "what makes me so sure" I must say that I am not sure. certainty doesn't exist, you know my position on this.

But as I have been asking what makes your criteria on the theism/atheism issue so different from other subjects?

You declare that agnosticism is superior. You do not say that in your opinion agnosticism is superior. When asked for evidence for this claim you do not come up with anything empirical either.

And that is my point Frank. When someone asks you who your Dad is one might not have empirical evidence for it but one also does not reply, "I think it's that dude over there."

I think it's unfair to play king of the mountain, declare one's beliefs superior to all others and if ever questioned demand empirical refutation.

You do not demand emprical evidence to support your position. You defend agnosticism saying a perfect balance exists between the opposing arguments. Not a single leaning to either side of the slightest degree.

That's your prerogative, if you want to assert that there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that for anyone's opinion but your own, but you have no emprirical "evidence" that this is true. You do not state it as a belief, you brazenly declare that agnosticism is superior to the alternatives. You have said that there is NO evidence toward either side. To me that's a matter I contest and I want to pull a Frankie and say:

Prove it.

You ask atheists to disprove a negative with empirical evidence. If your opinion is the self-declared superior one I think you should at least face the same challenges. What evidence do you have that none of the information available to us constitutes evidence toward any opinion other than your own?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
What is there about that, Craven, that you cannot comprehend.

Frank so do you take issue when people make statements like "Bush is a moron". Would you say that an agnostic position about that is preferable?

You again in your post demand "evidence" and in my previous experience I know that you will simply point out that none is emprirical.

I agree.

So before you start asking me for evidence again about "what makes me so sure" I must say that I am not sure. certainty doesn't exist, you know my position on this.

I most assuredly did not ask you for evidence of certainty.

In fact, one of my questions was:

"What evidence do you have that it is MORE PROBABLE than not that the answer to the question "What is the nature of REALITY?"...

...does not involve a higher intelligence? "

I am asking you -- as I have asked so many atheists who assert what you do -- why you think it is more PROBABLE that the answer to the question "What is the nature of REALITY" does not involve a higher intelligence.

You are asserting that you have pondered the evidence and come up on the side of "The nature of REALITY does not involve a higher intelligence."

What is the evidence to which you refer?

At no point have I ever asked for empirical evidence -- nor have I ever dismissed evidence on the grounds that it is not empirical.

I have observed that the evidence you folks all speak about mostly reduces to:

"The theists cannot produce any meaningful evidence that there are gods."

or

"The gods the theists propound are absurd."

I agree completely with both those assertions, Craven.

Theists CANNOT provide any meaningful evidence. They can bearly produce any kind of evidence -- but after being chastised (appropriately) by Monger for not accepting the Bible, for instance, as evidence, I will acknowledge that they do produce some evidence, but hardly the kind of evidence upon which most people would base strong conviction.

Theirs is simply a case of "faith" and "belief."

And the gods they tout ARE a laughable crowd.

But acknowledging either of those things is not meaningful evidence that there are no gods any more than the Bible is meaningful evidence of the existence of God.

So I ask you once again.

What is the evidence upon which you rely to come to the position that a higher intelligence is not part of REALITY?

Let's discuss that.

And perhaps in so doing, you will discover why I say "I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a guess in either direction...

...is superior to guessing one way or the other.

0 Replies

"What is the evidence upon which you rely to come to the position that a higher intelligence is not part of REALITY?" Simply because there is no evidence of a "higher intelligence." What is "higher intelligence?" Please define. Sounds to me like you are considering the possibility of a god. I'm saying there is no evidence. Show us the evidence of this "higher intelligence?"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"What is the evidence upon which you rely to come to the position that a higher intelligence is not part of REALITY?" Simply because there is no evidence of a "higher intelligence." What is "higher intelligence?" Please define. Sounds to me like you are considering the possibility of a god. I'm saying there is no evidence. Show us the evidence of this "higher intelligence?"

That makes no sense, ci.

Please do interpret "higher intelligence" as a god of some sort.

But the logic is simply not there in your argument.

If you were saying that there is no evidence of a higher intelligence -- and that is evidence that there is no evidence of a higher intelligence -- you'd be okay. But to assert that because there is no evidence of a higher intelligence is evidence that there is no higher intelligence simply does not compute.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any intelligent life somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Would you assert that therefore there is no intelligent life in the Andromeda Galaxy?

Would you even assert that because there is no evidence of intelligent life there, that is evidence that there is no intelligent life there?

0 Replies

As far as I'm concerned, in my world, there is absolutely no evidence. That's what matters in my life. I don't care about what they find in the future. I live in the present,not in the future.

0 Replies

Frank,

There is no way to prove we don't live in the Matrix either.

This is old hat. Humans can always invent things that can't be disproven.

You say that the cartoonish gods are absurd but what isn't? That is what I am getting at, your criteria for what is and is not absurd.

Anthropomorphizing a god obviously is to you. I agree.

But I can come up with any number of abstract takes on reality within a few minutes. To me they are all absurd because of the fact that I know they are constructs of my invention.

The concept of a god is uniquely human. There is no way to disprove there is a higher intelligence or that our reality even exists.

But withing our observable universe there is plenty that suggests and underlying order of physics with no cognizant power.

The aleatory nature of OOU is such that an underlying intellugence is not found.

There is no way to prove it's not "out there" somewhere. But there is some evidenc that would lead one to say that there is no discernable manefestation of this in OOU of any significance.

There is no way to disprove that in another paralel universe you are a cross-dressing dancer either.

What is the criteria through which you determine that some of the contructs are absurd and others are not? Unless you remain agnostic about all of them you are differentiating them somehow.

What do you use to differentiate between a contruct you consider absurd (but which you can't provide evidence to disprove) and one that you do not consider absurd and decide to remain agnostic on.

I use examples that are comical on purpose. Is comical value the criteria for absurdity? If not, then if you decide to remain agnostic about god, yet at the same time are not agnostic about the cross-dressing dancing frank in another dimention then there is a differentiation being made whose criteria I'd like to know.

0 Replies

One can create many gods and other higher intelligence, but it has no bearing on my life today. My reality is what I can understand with the limited senses of my biology. No more, no less. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture, and not in my reality. Your agnosticism has as much value to me as my atheism toyou. Your feeling superior about your belief is based on faith. Mine is based on my reality.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

One can create many gods and other higher intelligence, but it has no bearing on my life today. My reality is what I can understand with the limited senses of my biology. No more, no less. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture, and not in my reality. Your agnosticism has as much value to me as my atheism toyou. Your feeling superior about your belief is based on faith. Mine is based on my reality.

(sorry to target you cicerone, yours was the last thread.)

This thread has diverged into hierarchical repetative banter. If wer're going to play in the philosophy and debate forum, we should use standard guidelines. This does not mean the posts have to be lengthy (encompassing all), but try to condense and follow some rules. I propose:

Observation is limited, but there is a degree of certainty in our observed universe. If you cite uncertainty of observation for every logical argument, the arguments can't get anywhere, so don't rely on it as the core of your argument unless absolutely necessary.

Whenever someone makes a claim, they sould back it up with evidence (bear the burden of proof)

Try to aviod paternalization, unneccesary hierarchical language, unnessesary name calling. Be deliberate and rational.

When word definition comes into question, use a standard dictionary as the basis of definition.

Try to keep posts short. Really long posts generally don't get read, and when debating in this format, it isn't practical to respond to many arguments simultaneously. (this results in one-on one debate in a sea of posters, or no one reading your posts.)

0 Replies

Sorry, Portal Star, your not my instructor or master, and I will post anything I please on A2K. Your idea of control, IMHO, turns off more people than my personal opinion on any subject. Ever hear of freedom of speech? Go toss your control freekyness elsewhere.

0 Replies

I think it is time for a seventh inning stretch.

And a break.

I'll listen in for a few days.

Gonna be quiet.

Maybe I'll see some of you in another thread.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Sorry, Portal Star, your not my instructor or master, and I will post anything I please on A2K. Your idea of control, IMHO, turns off more people than my personal opinion on any subject. Ever hear of freedom of speech? Go toss your control freekyness elsewhere.

I thought general philosophy debate guidelines would be helpful for the philosophy debate forum, for more involved and productive arguments. I guess the real intent of these forums is amusement, and I'm not going to be whacking anyone with a stick.

0 Replies

The thing is though, Portal Star, this particular argument has no logical solution, and is already 16 pages long.

0 Replies

There's no possible way to prove or disprove any god for homo sapiens. Saying that agnosticism is superior is an oxymoron. Most on this planet believe in some god, and that's not about to change because we can't prove there is or isn't any god(s). Philosophers and theologians have been searching for answers over two thousand years, and we're not about to find the answers on A2K. That's the only fact we can be sure. There's a minority on this planet that say there is no god. It's all a circular argument, because nobody is going to convince the other who believes in a god that none exists and visa-versa.

0 Replies

It does not have a clear logical answer, but I wouldn't call it circular or futile. I was trying to narrow it down to matters of immateriality and materiality (the dualist view), and then whittling further from there. We have reached the conclusion that there is no clear evidence, which I think speaks for agnosticism but can be an excuse for theism or atheism (there's no proof otherwise).

The thread seems to agree about the lack of evidence, but people attach personal identity and meaning to the labels, and the labels of (theism, atheism, agnosticism) are not descriptive of individual thoughts and feelings.

My intent was to show there is no proof available in the g-d argument, making agnositicm the only logical argument because the others (atheism and theism) are not supported by evidence. This doesn't mean someone must have evidence to have a belief (I don't believe in any g-ds) but I cannot logically (in absolutes) deny the existance of somthing entirely immaterial, so strictly speaking, I cannot definately say there are gods or there no gods, which is why I am rooting for agnosticism.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only reason I claim agnosticism is a superior position to atheism and theism is because IT IS A SUPERIOR position to both.

I beg to differ, not that you'll care or anything. Man has absolutely no absolute proof of *ANYTHING*! If we all followed your example, we'd just sit around twiddling our thumbs all day because we couldn't make decisions. There comes a point for most of us where we take what information we have and we make decisions based upon it. I'm sure we're all sorry you're so petrified in fear of making a wrong decision that you refuse to decide at all. For most of us, it really isn't that difficult.

Quote:

Every indication is that none of us knows if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and the evidence available (and used by) both theists and atheists is so ambiguous -- it is laughable that people pay it as much respect as you atheists and theist do.

None of us "knows" much, if you only define knowledge as absolute proof. The real world isn't like that Frank. Just because most of us are able to make due with less than your standard of perfection doesn't say there is anything wrong with us, more that there's something wrong with you.

0 Replies

Cephus, Well put; all of the positions concerning the existence of god will remain an endless argument. None is superior over the other, because nobody can come up with the "fact" with logic or physical evidence. It hasn't been done in the past, in the present day, and more than probable not in the future - if the past history of man during the past hundreds of thousands of years is any indication.

0 Replies

It is so logical, following human evolution and history, so plain to see that "god" is a concept people gave themselves. There is no reason to assume there are or even could be gods, except that people sugarcoat reality for a whole multitude of reasons, all or at least most of which are based in emotion. For reasons of societal integration, the believers have to meddle in everyone's lives. But for that, I don't give a hoot who believes what.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know