• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:16
CEST 09:16
KST 16:16
  • 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
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation5$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced4Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Earn Rewards for Every Prediction in the Game Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
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 Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 578 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 2h 44m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
JimRising 638
WinterStarcraft576
StarCraft: Brood War
TY 498
Leta 479
actioN 270
PianO 130
Noble 120
sSak 50
Yoon 44
Larva 28
Sacsri 16
yabsab 11
Dota 2
XaKoH 389
ODPixel262
Fuzer 63
XcaliburYe29
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K384
Other Games
summit1g8498
shahzam1264
monkeys_forever240
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick35537
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH362
• Hupsaiya 69
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• tankgirl 1
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota289
League of Legends
• Lourlo1645
• Stunt451
• HappyZerGling92
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
2h 44m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
8h 44m
WardiTV European League
8h 44m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
16h 44m
RSL Revival
1d 2h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
1d 5h
Replay Cast
1d 16h
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
2 days
OSC
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
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
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
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
FISSURE Playground #1
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.