Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Janissary said:I've never understood why some atheists are so obsessed about their own rationality. I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded? Or, at least, isn't that what we keep telling ourselves? Yet I hardly ever see even agnosticists get arrogant about their rationality.
Loner said:I am a Ex-Athist, I use to belive that religon was like something like the tooth fairy, but over time I change my views. During my days as a athist I clamed I was apart of no Religon but now that I am thinking back, was I? I mean it is a set of belifes about the world and since most athist belive in Evlotion it alwso a belife in how the world was created, like most religons. So do the Athist count as a Religon or not?
Janissary said:I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded?
shaks said:According to this description, atheism is an ANTI-religion as it teaches humans not to believe in a supernatural power as a creator. Wont u agree.
Janissary said:Well, it's a religious duty for them to prosetylize, and some seem to think that telling people that Jesus loves them is the way to do it.
I've never understood why some atheists are so obsessed about their own rationality. I mean, don't we all think our worldview is rationally founded? Or, at least, isn't that what we keep telling ourselves? Yet I hardly ever see even agnosticists get arrogant about their rationality.
Asimov said:Yes, we all do, but mine is demonstrable. Yours isn't.
Oh....snap!
ghazirizvi said:Excellent. Lets have a little fun here. Please demonstrate the non-existence of God.
ghazirizvi said:Excellent. Lets have a little fun here. Please demonstrate the non-existence of God.
Illuminatus said:The null state is default. Please demonstrate the existence of God.
ghazirizvi said:No, that is your opinion. Dont tell me you too are trying to use Occams Razor (as another atheist did a while back) ?
Asimov claimed he could demonstrate the non-existence of God. So far neither you nor him have given any objective evidence, only your opinions. Which is a rather bleak "demonstration"
Asimov said:There is no evidence for God, therefore I am justified in believing he doesn't exist.
Asimov said:Any defined God is internally incoherent or undemonstrable. If we cannot tangibly or even theoretically provide a logical argument for God, I am justified in believing God doesn't exist.
Asimov said:1. I believe God does not exist.
2. I justified my disbelief with a rational argument.
C. God does not exist.
ghazirizvi said:Poor argument. I could easily claim the entire universe is evidence for the existence of the Creator.
Well this is also incorrect. What the heck does internally coherent mean here?
What about the existence of the universe as evidence for God thus constituting a theory (is that tangible enough). Also what about the fact that the one of the most widely believed reasons for our existence has been God throughout human history and still continues to be to this day (what a unique phenomena).
Also as you say, if there isnt any evidence for God, the how the hell does that constitute evidence for the non-existence of God. That is absurd. The fact remains the only "rational" (as many athiest take the word to be) view is agnostic.[/QUOTE]
A lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that such a thing does not exist. Unless demonstration of the existence of such a being is provided, the belief remains justified.
There is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism, you're muddying the waters.
Belief in the non-existence of God is just that: a belief. You justified nothing, you only resorted to your belief for justification. And lastly what in the world is 1, 2, C.
Of course it's just a belief. And I have justified it. YOU need to do a little better than making naked assertions and "what about's?"
I resorted to the environment and logical argumentation for justification. I did not say "I do not believe in God therefore I am justified".
Illuminatus said:It's been empirically shown that a parsimonious explanation triumphs over an unneccessarily complex explanation.
Wikipedia said:While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, unbelief should be preferred.
Wikipedia said:Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity"
Illuminatus said:The existence of a deity is not a given. Rather, you must demonstrate that a deity exists.
If you want your god to be a given, you're going to have your hands full disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Dionysus, and every other deity from every pantheon you can conceive of
ghazirizvi said:LOL. Please dont bring Darwin in here ok. You and I both know what you are saying is incorrect. If I may be allowed to resort to Wikipedia.
See your use of this Occam's Razor is incorrect because as I stated before the assumption that God does exist, though it introduces a probability of error it also explains why as I mentioned before throughout Human History people have always tended to believe in a supernatural power.
Because that is what Occams Razor essentially tries to do, explain all the evidence in the simplest way possible.
Finally. Occam's Razor is only a philosipical belief of reductionism, it is not a fundamental tenant of logic. So your argument again results in you resorting to your beliefs.
I would ask you to bring your "empirical evidence" for Occam's Razor but I dont wanna make the debate diverge.
As for the second part of your statement, I am sorry but I dont understand it.
Asimov said:So? How does that follow from your claim that mine is a poor argument?
In order to demonstrate that it is poor, you'd have to claim evidence and then provide a reason that this is evidence for God.
Asimov said:What about the existence of the universe as evidence for God? What about human history?
A lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that such a thing does not exist. Unless demonstration of the existence of such a being is provided, the belief remains justified.
There is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism, you're muddying the waters.
Asimov said:Of course it's just a belief. And I have justified it. YOU need to do a little better than making naked assertions and "what about's?"
I resorted to the environment and logical argumentation for justification. I did not say "I do not believe in God therefore I am justified".
Illuminatus said:I'm not sure precisely how I brought Darwin into things. In any case, being told that if I bring up Darwin, (a highly respected and seminal scientist), I will be attacked with Wikipedia (a frequently distorted and unreliable source), puts me in stitches.
Illuminatus said:Actually, biological and psychological reasons are why humans tend to believe in deities.
Illuminatus said:
Indeed. As there's no substantiative evidence or need for the existence of any deity, it's simplest to assume that there are no deities.
Ockham's Razor has been shown to empirically work.
In science, the parsimonious explanation is the preferred. If theory A explains phenomenon X, you don't pick theory A+B. It's just simple logic.
Illuminatus said:You're arguing that we must disprove the existence of a god. That's fine, but I'll flip that back at you: disprove the existence of all gods but yours.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you.
ghazirizvi said:I am calling your argument poor because you are saying that lack of evidence for god comprimises evidence for his non-existence. Which is absurd. And once again I am not trying to argue the existence of God, I am only asking you to demonstrate his non-existence.
So why in the world would I claim evidence for the existence of God and try to prove he exist. I was only trying to point out that you claim there is no evidence for the existence of God and I said there is (i.e. this universe) because that is what belief in God tries to rationalize, our very existence. Now I admit to some, there are other "theories" or "beliefs" which also try to justify the very existence of the universe (athiesm is just not one of them). So once again you have to provide evidence for Gods non-existence.
Let me guess, "a lack of evidence for the existence of an object justifies its non-existence", because you say so ?
And there is a world of difference between athiesm and agnosticism, its not muddying waters as you claim.
Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of God whereas you people flat out reject God's existence (without evidence I might add - since you havent really demonstrated anything to me yet). Agnostic's realize that there is no evidence for God's non-existence however they also claim there is no evidence for God's existence (which as far as modern day empirical arguments go, is correct).
Well I know its a belief, I was asking you to demonstrate its correctness rationally which you have yet to do instead of resulting to reductionism (which btw is also a belief). I am not making naked assertions as you say, I am only trying to point out the flaw in your reasoning when you try to claim you can prove gods non-existence.
You did not resort to empirical evidence, only lack of it (which is not even a logical thought - its the philosiphy of reductionism). So essentially all you have claimed so far is that "I do not believe in God so therefore I am justified".
Yes --- and they worship even more fervently than we do:Loner said:So do the Athist count as a Religon or not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?