Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Dawkins, NOMA, and You: Inchoate musings on things I don't really grok.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    I appreciate the desire of someone to reduce surface area in a debate; however, when one takes atheism to that place it becomes an unmeasurable vapor.
    You mean, if nothing logically follows from atheism, it's really difficult to falsify atheism?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      You mean, if nothing logically follows from atheism, it's really difficult to falsify atheism?
      I wouldn't say it would be difficult to falsify that type of atheism; I would say it would be impossible.
      One cannot falsify nothing.

      I'd wonder why the person was wasting my time by stating nothing.
      He could have literally said nothing and it would have meant the same thing.
      Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
        I wouldn't say it would be difficult to falsify that type of atheism; I would say it would be impossible.
        One cannot falsify nothing.
        It is understood that atheism, theism, nor Deism can be falsified, nor proven true nor false.

        I'd wonder why the person was wasting my time by stating nothing.
        He could have literally said nothing and it would have meant the same thing.
        This accusation would be true for all beliefs in the context of this thread.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
          I wouldn't say it would be difficult to falsify that type of atheism; I would say it would be impossible.
          One cannot falsify nothing.

          I'd wonder why the person was wasting my time by stating nothing.
          He'll have to answer for himself. Just as Christians don't all agree on what it means to be a Christian, so too we atheists don't all agree on what it means to be an atheist. Of course, we all agree it must have something to do with God's nonexistence, just as Christians all agree that Christianity must have something to do with teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. But that isn't saying much that is useful.

          I do accept "absence of belief in any god" as the best definition of atheism, but having said that, I think the sensible response from a theist is not "How would you falsify that?" but rather, "Why do you have no belief in any god?" If I couldn't give you any reason, don't you think you would then have grounds for objecting to my atheism?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            He'll have to answer for himself. Just as Christians don't all agree on what it means to be a Christian, so too we atheists don't all agree on what it means to be an atheist. Of course, we all agree it must have something to do with God's nonexistence, just as Christians all agree that Christianity must have something to do with teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. But that isn't saying much that is useful.

            I do accept "absence of belief in any god" as the best definition of atheism, but having said that, I think the sensible response from a theist is not "How would you falsify that?" but rather, "Why do you have no belief in any god?" If I couldn't give you any reason, don't you think you would then have grounds for objecting to my atheism?
            But it isn't really "absence of belief in any god". Most people in the world believe in a divinity of some sort. Have always believed in a divinity of some sort. It's not that you lack belief, it's that you look around you at most people who do believe in a divinity and have decided that you do not believe in a divinity. It is an active belief that god/s do not exist, not some sort of psychological state where when the mention of "god/s" come up, your mind goes blank.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              I do accept "absence of belief in any god" as the best definition of atheism, but having said that, I think the sensible response from a theist is not "How would you falsify that?" but rather, "Why do you have no belief in any god?" If I couldn't give you any reason, don't you think you would then have grounds for objecting to my atheism?
              What you're accidently illustrating here is how atheism is, in fact, a world-view.
              I already know how you'd answer the question: "Why do you have no belief in any god?"
              That is how familiar I am with your not-a-world-view.

              We could carry out this conversation over the course of 50+ posts.
              Instead of that noise let me go ahead and summarize as follows:

              Meh Gerbil: "Why do you not believe there is a God?"
              Doug Shaver: "I've see no evidence of a God."
              Meh Gerbil: "How about the world around us?"
              Doug Shaver: "That all has naturalistic explanation."
              Meh Gerbil: "So love is explained thus?"
              Doug Shaver: "Love is a name given to feelings of devotion which evolved to make society possible."

              ^--- As you can see, the adherence to atheism plays the defining role in how important questions about the world around us are answered by the atheist. It frames how the questions are asked, what are the acceptable parameters for an answer, and so on. That is why the term 'atheism' can be a handy title for a world-view. It is absolutely prescriptive and acts as a governor for all the important questions - the answers to which define a world view.
              Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                What you're accidently illustrating here is how atheism is, in fact, a world-view.
                I already know how you'd answer the question: "Why do you have no belief in any god?"
                That is how familiar I am with your not-a-world-view.

                We could carry out this conversation over the course of 50+ posts.
                Instead of that noise let me go ahead and summarize as follows:

                Meh Gerbil: "Why do you not believe there is a God?"
                Doug Shaver: "I've see no evidence of a God."
                Meh Gerbil: "How about the world around us?"
                Doug Shaver: "That all has naturalistic explanation."
                Meh Gerbil: "So love is explained thus?"
                Doug Shaver: "Love is a name given to feelings of devotion which evolved to make society possible."

                ^--- As you can see, the adherence to atheism plays the defining role in how important questions about the world around us are answered by the atheist. It frames how the questions are asked, what are the acceptable parameters for an answer, and so on. That is why the term 'atheism' can be a handy title for a world-view. It is absolutely prescriptive and acts as a governor for all the important questions - the answers to which define a world view.
                Equally true of all 'isms.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                  What you're accidently illustrating here is how atheism is, in fact, a world-view.
                  I already know how you'd answer the question: "Why do you have no belief in any god?"
                  That is how familiar I am with your not-a-world-view.

                  We could carry out this conversation over the course of 50+ posts.
                  Instead of that noise let me go ahead and summarize as follows:

                  Meh Gerbil: "Why do you not believe there is a God?"
                  Doug Shaver: "I've see no evidence of a God."
                  Meh Gerbil: "How about the world around us?"
                  Doug Shaver: "That all has naturalistic explanation."
                  Meh Gerbil: "So love is explained thus?"
                  Doug Shaver: "Love is a name given to feelings of devotion which evolved to make society possible."

                  ^--- As you can see, the adherence to atheism plays the defining role in how important questions about the world around us are answered by the atheist. It frames how the questions are asked, what are the acceptable parameters for an answer, and so on. That is why the term 'atheism' can be a handy title for a world-view. It is absolutely prescriptive and acts as a governor for all the important questions - the answers to which define a world view.
                  On the contrary, this is just as great a demonstration for how atheism stems from a worldview rather than being a worldview itself. We have naturalistic explanations, therefore supernatural explanations aren't needed. We see contradictions among religious claims, therefore we don't believe those claims. Ergo, we don't believe there is a god. Atheism is the conclusion, not the foundation.

                  You can't make a universal claim about atheism in this manner. It's not the same for everyone. Atheism for me is a conclusion, not a starting point.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    You can't make a universal claim about atheism in this manner. It's not the same for everyone. Atheism for me is a conclusion, not a starting point.
                    Nobody is making a weird all inclusive claim about atheists or atheism.
                    Different definitions of the term were recognized early in the thread.
                    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      But it isn't really "absence of belief in any god". Most people in the world believe in a divinity of some sort. Have always believed in a divinity of some sort. It's not that you lack belief, it's that you look around you at most people who do believe in a divinity and have decided that you do not believe in a divinity. It is an active belief that god/s do not exist, not some sort of psychological state where when the mention of "god/s" come up, your mind goes blank.
                      Most people holding a belief is pretty irrelevant. There are, in fact, an increasing number of people for whom there will be blankness when gods are mentioned. I strongly suspect my daughter will be one of those.

                      For that matter, most of my family is pretty blank when it comes to any god except for theirs. They don't know the names, they don't know even the regions or general groupings. It's not terribly far-fetched for a mind to go blank when gods are mentioned.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                        Nobody is making a weird all inclusive claim about atheists or atheism.
                        Different definitions of the term were recognized early in the thread.
                        You say that, but it's not how it appears given:

                        Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                        What you're accidently illustrating here is how atheism is, in fact, a world-view.

                        *snip*

                        ^--- As you can see, the adherence to atheism plays the defining role in how important questions about the world around us are answered by the atheist. It frames how the questions are asked, what are the acceptable parameters for an answer, and so on. That is why the term 'atheism' can be a handy title for a world-view. It is absolutely prescriptive and acts as a governor for all the important questions - the answers to which define a world view.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                          You say that, but it's not how it appears given:
                          That quote has to be taken within the context of previously allowed definitions.

                          Incidentally, how can you be making the argument that it isn't a world view when you use the term to summarize a bunch of data points into a conclusion that you'll use to analyze data moving forward? That is to say, if you've found plenty of data that illustrates to you that there is no god and come to the conclusion that 'atheism' is accurate that conclusion will certainly color your perception of data moving forward.

                          You have a world view that could accurately be described as an atheist world view.

                          I'm baffled as to why anyone would balk at that description.
                          Do you feel you open yourself up to a particular line of attack by using it?
                          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                            That quote has to be taken within the context of previously allowed definitions.
                            Ok.


                            Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                            Incidentally, how can you be making the argument that it isn't a world view when you use the term to summarize a bunch of data points into a conclusion that you'll use to analyze data moving forward? That is to say, if you've found plenty of data that illustrates to you that there is no god and come to the conclusion that 'atheism' is accurate that conclusion will certainly color your perception of data moving forward.
                            Because the underlined isn't correct. I don't use the conclusion of atheism to analyze data. Which is why this:

                            Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                            You have a world view that could accurately be described as an atheist world view.
                            Isn't accurate.


                            Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                            I'm baffled as to why anyone would balk at that description.
                            Do you feel you open yourself up to a particular line of attack by using it?
                            I balk at the description because it doesn't describe me. My current belief is that a deistic (i.e., non-interfering) god could exist but that it's functionally equivalent to no god. I don't think said deistic god exists. Both of these beliefs are open to revision. I haven't established atheism as a fact upon which to base other analyses. In truth, I hold very little to be 'fact'.

                            There isn't a particular line of attack that's opened up here, though, more like a particular dismissal. "You're just an atheist therefore you'll interpret any data a certain way" is both false and insurmountable. No amount of argument will change the mind of a person who holds that belief.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              Because the underlined isn't correct. I don't use the conclusion of atheism to analyze data. Which is why this: *snip quote* Isn't accurate.
                              Of course not, you're not an atheist - I'm not writing about the deist world view.

                              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                              There isn't a particular line of attack that's opened up here, though, more like a particular dismissal. "You're just an atheist therefore you'll interpret any data a certain way" is both false and insurmountable. No amount of argument will change the mind of a person who holds that belief.
                              First, saying a person has a particular world view doesn't give a comprehensive description of how that person will respond to each and every scenario. A world view is a very good starting point for understanding someone but it isn't exhaustive by any means.

                              Secondly, the idea that an atheistic world view will interpret data in a particular way (in general terms) is dead on accurate. For example, if someone brings Tassman into a hospital and he's frothing and foaming like he usually does on these boards, the assertion that Tassman is demon possessed is going to be dismissed by the atheist immediately. If someone has reached the atheist conclusion the supernatural is entirely cut out of questions regarding origins, ethics, beauty, etc. (roll with me on that and don't get hung up on edge cases...sheesh)

                              Usually people aren't 100% a particular world view.
                              They gravitate between them - they're constantly in flux.
                              Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                Most people holding a belief is pretty irrelevant.
                                It's perfectly relevant for the reasons I already mentioned.

                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                There are, in fact, an increasing number of people for whom there will be blankness when gods are mentioned.
                                No there won't be.

                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                I strongly suspect my daughter will be one of those.
                                I find that so unlikely as to be absolutely implausible.

                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                For that matter, most of my family is pretty blank when it comes to any god except for theirs. They don't know the names, they don't know even the regions or general groupings. It's not terribly far-fetched for a mind to go blank when gods are mentioned.
                                Absolutely ridiculous. One need not know about every god to know that the concept of divinity does, in fact, exist for most people in the world, and has always existed for most people in the world.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X