• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Atheism as a Faith: The (Hopefully) Final Debate

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by leftrightleftrightleft, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    I'm aware thats what Atheists think. And its always associated with Atheism too. However this is not a Science thread. We can take this information somewhere else. You have are reaffirming my points that Secular Humanism, which holds its basis on Evolution and Relativism, is in reality an understanding of what Atheistic Philosophy is all about.

    I will tell you that I have a close associate of Science who holds a Bachelors degree in Biology and a Doctorate in Pharmacology who believes that Evolution is in his own terminology "hogwash."
     
  2. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    +251
    Atheist
    Private
    No such thing as atheistic philosophy. Atheism is a position on the existence of God. That is it. Anything else is not atheism. Related to atheism, perhaps, but not atheism.

    I'm an atheist. I also like cheesecake. Many other atheists like cheesecake. That doesn't mean that liking cheesecake is an atheistic culinary position.

    Unfortunately for him, appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.
     
  3. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    Theism is a position on God, but is also Philosophical. Then theres nothing to talk about if theres no such thing as Atheistic Philosophy. And there is no such thing as Atheistic Theology, since there is nothing to study. Atheistic Theology is a self refutation (we've been over this). So Atheism seems to be bunk from the get go. In this case, the argument is declared over, with Theism the winners. Theism becomes the Philosophically default position, and we can all move on to better positions. Is that what you want?

    Relativism is not the truth. Preferences are nice, but do nothing to enhance the truth.

    Who is your idea of an authority though? John Loftus? Appeals to authority are not always bad, but sometimes can be fallacious when taken the wrong way. Here is the understanding of it by most Christians.


    [SIZE=+1]Appeal to Authority (or, Appeal to False Authority, or Appeal to Questionable Authority, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam)[/SIZE]
    Let's face it. Not one person will ever become qualified as an expert in every field of research relevant to Apologetics. A person can spend decades studying only one field alone. Most laypeople will have to rely on experts from time to time to establish a point; even experts in one field of study will appeal to experts in another field. Appealing to an authority to make a point can be an acceptable way to make a point.
    One must be cautious, however, as no authority is perfect. Authorities have been known to contradict each other, and being an authority doesn't make one infallible. So, it is recommended that one only uses an authority when, for whatever reason, it would be impractical or unnecessary to present the evidence or argument the authority represents. However, if one is responding to another's personal opinion, a professional opinion carries more weight in debate.
    There are a few different ways to commit an Appeal to Authority fallacy: 1. When one uses a claim from an person not qualified to comment on the area one is making the argument in. For example:
    Albert Einstein stated that, "God does not play dice."
    Therefore, random probability (luck) is in contradiction to God's sovereign plan.
    The conclusion may be correct (I'm not entirely sure), but the argument is fallacious because Einstein was an expert in science, not theology.

    2. Since authority is one of the weakest forms of evidence, one must not over-depend on the strength of an authority. The example above does, using the opinion of an authority as though it were absolute proof ). 3. Another kind of appealing to false authority is to state that something is validated by "many" or "most" of a class of authorities. For instance, one can say, "the majority of scholars think that the historical Jesus was just a really good teacher." However, unless actual authorities are cited, this is a fallacious appeal to unspecified authorities. Most philosophers agree with this (take tongue and plant firmly in cheek).

    http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#150

    So to declare the Easter bunny says there is no God, is not a way to support your claims.
     
  4. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    +251
    Atheist
    Private
    First sentence makes sense. Second sentence also makes sense. Third sentence makes no sense at all. It is not related to the first two sentences, and appears to be a wild stab at drawing a desired conclusion from whatever facts are available. Plenty of things are neither philosophy or theology. Televisions, for example. Are you telling me they are bunk too?

    Yes it does. It's just subjective.

    The head of state is an authority. Teachers are authorities within the confines of their school. Bosses are an authority when it comes to the workplace. Parents are also an authority figure. There are also people who are considered to be authority figures by many because of their education, for example many scientists are considered to be authorities in their field of study. Then you've got figures like Gandhi who are considered by many to be moral authorities, and people like the Pope who are religious authorities.

    Exactly what kind of authority were you after?

    Also, I have no idea who John Loftus is. I googled him and I'm still not sure. He wrote some controversial books, apparently. He appears to dislike the Catholic Church.[/quote]

    EDIT:
    That is correct. I have no idea why you said that but you are correct.
     
  5. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2010
  6. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    Most Atheists seem to love and support Loftus's material on a high plain.
     
  7. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

    +348
    Atheist
    Private
    It is up to you, I guess, to buy into that kind of reasoning ... No? :D
     
  8. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    I'm a matter of the Principle of Identity. It is what it is. Deducible to the Principle of Noncontradiction, this is where we stand.

    It is no more or less true than the Scientific Principles, and the Scientific Method providing support to Science. In the same way, the Principles of Logic, provide support to all things, even Science for which it depends on Philosophy as well.
     
  9. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    +251
    Atheist
    Private
    Demonstration of what? The existence of atheism? I am an atheist. Consider it demonstrated.

    Or do you want the demonstration of atheism as a correct viewpoint? I can't give you that, but then I'm not trying to convert you, so it really doesn't matter.

    "I went to the shops." - philosophical?

    You're meandering so much it's hard to keep up. Now you're putting unrelated statements into one sentence? Why does a conversation being about philosophy mean that atheism is not relevant to reality?

    Or maybe he is. Depends on the god.

    Suggestion: if you change the topic (for example, talking about subjectivism), don't change it back randomly and then say it was irrelevant (for example, making a reply about objectivism and then saying the conversation about subjectivism is a red herring).

    Subjective 'truths' are not objective truths, that is true.

    You ask a question, and then say the answer is irrelevant? Interesting. What did you want me to say?

    Oh, I see, was your comment about him supposed to be an insult or some kind of comment about my percieved viewpoint? You could have just likened me to Hitler; I would have understood that one.

    EDIT: After reading the rest of your post after you edited it, I now understand where your confusion lies. You assume that all atheists believe the same thing. We do not. We are as alike as theists are. So using people like Luftus, Dawkins or Harris to make comments about all atheists is a rather nonsensical generalisation, akin to me using the Pope to criticise Hindus.
     
  10. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

    +348
    Atheist
    Private
    Principle of idendity: A=A Correct?

    (I would add though, that A is A regardless of what it is referred to as.)



    Hmmm. Maybe.
     
  11. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    +251
    Atheist
    Private
    You haven't met most atheists. You've only met a few and read the words of some of the louder atheists. That is not a position to be making a generalisation from.
     
  12. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    Atheism is a position. The church of Atheism even agrees. And the leaders of the Atheistic movement is most certainly more reflective of the movement than those who are not of the majority. Just as I would evaluate any Christian resource, etc.
     
  13. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single

    But a can not be non-a, as is being demonstrated through the posts made.
     
  14. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

    +348
    Atheist
    Private
    Sorry, I guess you need to be a little bit more clear.
     
  15. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    You think you are, but you don't understand the position of Atheism. You have even admitted to not really studying it in depth. You are an Agnostic. Trust me.

    Yes, I would like that.

    Yes it is. It is a statement, thereby steeped in linguistics.

    I am? Or you are?

    You don't understand the nature of God, I'm suspecting.

    No, thats what you're doing, not me.

    :thumbsup:
    Because it doesn't answer the question.

    Just as the master of the refutation of infidels.org, James Patrick Holding mentions, the statements made by any Atheists are not anything new. And he's been at this for 20 years. You seem to be reaching in your assumption for relativism as basic truth. See here - Relativism | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

    And for its refutation, see here - Refuting relativism | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
     
  16. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    Me?

    Are we going with the postmodernism strategy? One can not determine any claim made? Whatever does your above statement mean then? For I am not sure. You absolutely determine what your own claim means when you make the statement, otherwise you would not be writing about it.
     
  17. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    +251
    Atheist
    Private
    Yes...

    There's a church?

    What leaders? We're not exactly organised.

    And your evidence for this is?

    And this bit makes no sense. I don't get how it is related to the rest of the post.
     
  18. hamashiachagape

    hamashiachagape Newbie

    +67
    Messianic
    Single
    Making it Philosophical. Make up your mind.

    Yes.

    Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. The Humanist Manifesto. Acharya S. Infidels.org. Etc.


    See above.

    We've already proven my position on all of this stuff. See http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ Can we move on?

    Also see here - forgot this from earlier - YouTube - Refuting Relativism
     
  19. Lord Emsworth

    Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

    +348
    Atheist
    Private
    Yes.




    Which one?



     
  20. SithDoughnut

    SithDoughnut The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

    +251
    Atheist
    Private
    I know. I'm an agnostic atheist. The agnostic bit is the first word.

    Total lack of evidence for the existence of God, as well as a total lack of a need for the existence of God so far. That's what my position is based upon.

    You use possibly the broadest definition of philosophy ever. If this is true, then atheism is a philosophy, but so is liking chocolate.

    Personally, I don't consider every statement to be philosophical, given that philosophy is a study, and walking to the shops isn't.

    You are, you're jumping from one point to another and back again. It makes things very hard to follow.

    Again, depends on the God. You do realise that there is more than one God that people worship?

    You changed the topic to subjectivism. We'll just leave this here.


    Then you need to explain your question, as I obviously misunderstood.

    See, this is the random jump that I'm talking about. We mentioned relativism once in passing, and you jump to this bizarre conclusion.

    Forgive me if I don't necessarily trust CARM as a particularly good place to be getting arguments from. For example, they're stuck under the same delusion as you that atheism can only be a statement that there is no God, regardless of all the agnostic atheists who demonstrate otherwise.

    Also, the second link doesn't understand that relativism need not be total relativism. I'm a moral relativist, but not a total relativist.
     
Loading...