EPT"I believe in God"
"you're delusional"
"My faith in him has given me strength"
"you're everything that's wrong with the human race"
Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
"I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race" | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:24 jalstar wrote: His representation of religious debates in video 3 is extremely inaccurate. Most that I've seen (at least on the internet) go more like: "I believe in God" "you're delusional" "My faith in him has given me strength" "you're everything that's wrong with the human race" Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote: Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are. What are they ignorant of? | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote: Those arguments irritate the shit out of me. In my experience, atheists/agnostics are completely ignorant/naive just as often as religious people are. I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote: I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile. Depends what community you're from (by which I also mean what part of the world). I've met many reasonable atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc. And I've also met a lot of unreasonable people who go by the same names. Certain movements and groups can carry certain stigmas as well, that no one wants to associate with (i.e. Westboro Baptist, "brights"). But that said, seems to be human nature that we paint with a brush so large... | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote: I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile. This also addresses the poster above you - Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive. A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either. | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:45 Gnosis wrote: Depends what community you're from (by which I also mean what part of the world). I've met many reasonable atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians, etc. And I've also met a lot of unreasonable people who go by the same names. Certain movements and groups can carry certain stigmas as well, that no one wants to associate with (i.e. Westboro Baptist, "brights"). But that said, seems to be human nature that we paint with a brush so large... Well said. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote: This also addresses the poster above you - Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive. A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either. If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real. | ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:52 zulu_nation8 wrote: On TL the people who argue against faith and religion are definitely more mean-spirited and hostile. coudn't agree more, add to it condascending tone and "superiority complexes" btw anyone saw the show on TLC "Seeing vs Believing" pretty entertaining show | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote: If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real. Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have). | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote: If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real. Why would a religious person 'have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things'? Just because a person believes that some sort of higher being created everything means he has to believe every other possible belief that cannot be neither proven nor unproven? No. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
Common civility and decency. | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote: Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have). By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is. I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On May 03 2010 10:52 zulu_nation8 wrote: On TL the people who argue against faith and religion are definitely more mean-spirited and hostile. I blame mada_jiang | ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
Those videos were a nice idea but I think he should rewrite some of the script so it's a little more.. succinct. I'm staying out of this religion thread but just a reminder everyone be nice!! :D | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote: By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is. I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God. Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion (i.e. agnostics from a naturalist background, or agnostics from a religious background). Because lets not forget, you arrive at a conclusion through logic by taking into consideration certain proofs. I'm not entirely sure how you wind up with "agnostic logic". I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
Someone mentioned that science and religion are not ideologically opposed. I would argue that they are. Here's why: Posters touched earlier on the idea of subjectivity vs objectivity, before taking a brief detour toward solipsism. I think what we call reality can best be described as expectations being met. If we observe something, or perform an action, and our expectations about what we will see happen next are met, then the model of reality we have in our head is a good one. Closing the gap between expectations and results is how we learn, and it's at the core of all human existence. It's how we learn to move our limbs, speak, relate to others - everything. We are emotionally and mentally predisposed to reduce our uncertainty. Leaving aside how that led to the invention of religion in the first place, there came a point when religion and science parted company. The various scientific methods employed down the ages strive to allow us to predict outcomes with ever greater accuracy. They reduce the range of expected future events. Religion, on the other hand, has over the same period of time gone from making specific claims and statements about how god works and how he interacts with our lives, to statements that either permit any eventuality or are self-fulfilling. Gods who walked among us have become invisible and intangible. Gods who once would assist the faithful and smite their enemies now provide silent 'spiritual strength' to help the faithful endure on their own. At one point in the Old Testament an actual scientific experiment is proposed to determine which set of believers is right. These days, believers are very quick to point out that science cannot touch god. That is why I say science and religion are ideologically opposed; not because of what science or religion might have to say about a particular subject, but because of the divergent journey each is taking. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
people's feelings  | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote: Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion. I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above. The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence. I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist  | ||
| ||
