• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:32
CEST 07:32
KST 14:32
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed13Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Who will win EWC 2025? The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Starcraft in widescreen
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 723 users

Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 7

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 41 Next All
jalstar
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States8198 Posts
May 03 2010 01:24 GMT
#121
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"
ploy
Profile Joined January 2006
United States416 Posts
May 03 2010 01:31 GMT
#122
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
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 01:33 GMT
#123
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


What are they ignorant of?
jalstar
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States8198 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-03 01:37:23
May 03 2010 01:36 GMT
#124
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-03 01:46:14
May 03 2010 01:45 GMT
#125
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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...
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
zulu_nation8
Profile Blog Joined May 2005
China26351 Posts
May 03 2010 01:52 GMT
#126
On TL the people who argue against faith and religion are definitely more mean-spirited and hostile.
ploy
Profile Joined January 2006
United States416 Posts
May 03 2010 02:41 GMT
#127
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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
Profile Joined January 2006
United States416 Posts
May 03 2010 02:45 GMT
#128
On May 03 2010 10:45 Gnosis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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...


Well said.
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 02:47 GMT
#129
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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.


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
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Peru3081 Posts
May 03 2010 03:04 GMT
#130
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
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-03 03:14:48
May 03 2010 03:13 GMT
#131
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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.


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).
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
ploy
Profile Joined January 2006
United States416 Posts
May 03 2010 03:17 GMT
#132
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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.


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
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United States1451 Posts
May 03 2010 03:23 GMT
#133
On May 03 2010 10:33 Lixler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


What are they ignorant of?

Common civility and decency.
But why?
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 03:27 GMT
#134
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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.


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).


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
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
May 03 2010 03:29 GMT
#135
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
That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
Xenocide_Knight
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Korea (South)2625 Posts
May 03 2010 03:29 GMT
#136
Ahhh!
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
Shine[Kal] #1 fan
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-03 03:39:31
May 03 2010 03:33 GMT
#137
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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.


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).


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.

"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
Umpteen
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United Kingdom1570 Posts
May 03 2010 03:35 GMT
#138
This site really does have everything, doesn't it?

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.
The existence of a food chain is inescapable if we evolved unsupervised, and inexcusable otherwise.
eMbrace
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States1300 Posts
May 03 2010 03:37 GMT
#139
On May 03 2010 10:33 Lixler wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


What are they ignorant of?


people's feelings
Lixler
Profile Joined March 2010
United States265 Posts
May 03 2010 03:38 GMT
#140
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:41 ploy wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:36 jalstar wrote:
On May 03 2010 10:31 ploy wrote:
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.


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.


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).


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 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
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 41 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 28m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 247
StarCraft: Brood War
Snow 207
Leta 183
Noble 26
Icarus 11
NotJumperer 1
Dota 2
monkeys_forever853
League of Legends
JimRising 774
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1115
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King100
Other Games
summit1g13148
hungrybox989
shahzam911
WinterStarcraft472
C9.Mang0314
ViBE198
NeuroSwarm56
ROOTCatZ41
Trikslyr33
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2336
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• practicex 54
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1920
• Lourlo1157
• Stunt448
Other Games
• Scarra2838
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
4h 28m
OSC
7h 28m
WardiTV European League
10h 28m
Fjant vs Babymarine
Mixu vs HiGhDrA
Gerald vs ArT
goblin vs MaNa
Jumy vs YoungYakov
Replay Cast
18h 28m
Epic.LAN
1d 6h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CSO Contender
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
5 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

JPL Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.