Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bobinius · 11-07-2005, 09:19 AM

Good post Alf. But remember that 'controlled experiment' is a foreign notion to a believer. He prays for stronger faith, not for confirming evidence.

I am still waiting for the refutation...

Afghan · 11-07-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breathilizer

We'd all be atheists...

I doubt it. It wouldn't take people long to invent them.

ELECTROGOD · 11-07-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breathilizer

We'd all be atheists...

Sort of but not technically.
Non-belief in supernatural beings is actually a default position. If we lived in a world where the concepts/fantasies of gods had never been imagined then there would be no god ideas for us to not "believe" in. Since we know of no other life in the universe we haven't been exposed to any other concepts of supernatural beings. This means that these concepts originated with humans and without humans there would be no supernatural ideas.
Since people have dreamt up ideas of supernatural beings (clearly not real as everyone cannot "experience" them and no evidence whatsoever can be produced to substantiate them) those of us who hold to the default position and do not accept any of the vast numbers of fanciful claims about supernatural beings that originated in the minds of humans are now by default considered Atheists in light of these claims already made by others.
(When you get into definitions like this you kind of have to keep in the back of your mind early man and the world/universe before man)

Another way to see this idea is like this:
If there is no war going on at the time you can be anti-war but if the concept of war was never conceived then you cannot be anti-war.
Just like I'll be that you never were aware of the flying spaghetti monster before I just mentioned it (unless you read here a lot). Now the idea is out there and you by default take a position of either believing it or not. Not-believing it doesn't take an effort since not acknowledging that it must exist shows that you do not really believe in this monster......(and you will go to hell for that). :devil3:

ninewands · 11-07-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

I don't have to claim that werekoalas don't exist.

I want to thank you for embedding a REALLY wierd mental image in my brain ... I will probably have to drill a new hole in my head to let it get out!

John A. Broussard · 11-07-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

I don't have to claim that werekoalas don't exist. There are a vast, perhaps infinite, number of imaginary critters that certainly don't exist; it's simply not necessary to offer separate disproofs of each and every one.

Oh, yeah!

Here's a question from a potential tourist to the Australian tourist agency--and the answer.

Q: I have a question about a famous animal in Australia, but I forget
its name. It's a kind of bear and lives in trees.(USA)
A: It's called a Drop Bear. They are so called because they drop out of gum trees and eat the brains of anyone walking underneath them. You can scare them off by spraying yourself with human urine before you go out walking.

Paul Brand · 11-07-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagella

A few weeks ago I mentioned on another thread at Apologetics.org that I planned to declare victory in this debate. I feel such a declaration is long overdue, and if I am remiss, then I am remiss for not declaring this victory weeks ago. We skeptics and critics have worked long and hard to discredit religion and Christianity in particular. Seeing that we have indeed discredited some of the most fundamental tenets of religion such as the existence of gods and the historicity of miracles, we deserve credit for a job well done. Christians and other religionists rarely if ever will concede our victory, and if all else fails they will run from the debate hoping that nobody notices their having been proved wrong. We skeptics know what we’ve accomplished, and we should be proud of it.

At this point I would like to explain in detail the claims of Christians and other religionists that we skeptics have disproved or discredited. These claims are the following:

*God exists. We have demonstrated that not only is this claim false, it cannot conceivably be true. The being described as “God�? by Christians cannot be reconciled with what we know about our world.

*There is a life after death. After many centuries of science studying life, not one bit of credible evidence has ever been uncovered that there is any life save this one. Moreover, traditional religious beliefs in heaven and hell have been discovered to be based in mythology much of it originating in pagan religions that even Christians would say are false. There is no life after death, no heaven to pine for, and no hell to fear.

*Belief in God and religious piety makes a person moral. Regarding this claim, we critics of religion need only sit back and watch Christians and other believers prove their own claim false! In fact, one need go no farther than this very forum to see that this claim is a transparent falsehood. Christians will rise up in the most vile and cruel anger when their beliefs are questioned and will lash out at the skeptic who dares to criticize their beliefs.

*The Bible is perfectly true. At best, the Bible contains some barbaric history, but it contains many fabrications and mistakes as well. Even the Roman Catholic Church has recently admitted that the Bible includes errors.

I could go on, but there’s always time for that later. I welcome any intelligent, polite questions, comments, or rebuttals that are decently written. As always, I will respond in kind.

Jagella

Congratulations on your hard fought victory. So what kind of prize do you win?

fast · 11-07-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

If you have a specific disproof of the existence of God, feel free to go ahead and present it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

[Seebs] didn't make a claim of existence--you are making a claim of nonexistence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

[Seebs] assumed the claim. Precious little difference. No counter claim makes any sense if the initial claim has never been made.

Alf,

I would ordinarily say that the distinctions between a claim and a counter claim are immaterial; however, my point of contention from a purely logical stand point is that to consider it a counter claim (as opposed to what I have posited it as) does necessarily change the dynamics.

If I were to declare that “x does not exist“, one may say to me, “so what, no one ever said that x does exist�?, but if I persisted in making my declaration that “x does not exist,�? it would in fact be a claim and not a counter claim.

I realize seebs is a theist, and I realize the atheistic position wouldn’t even be an issue without theists to first declare the existence of a God, and from a counter argument perspective, I understand that its incumbent upon the claimant to offer valid and sound arguments for such claims to be with any merit, but I still have to contend with seebs actual words. He is necessarily treating the atheist position as a claim, as opposed to a counter claim, and I’m guessing here, but I’d say there’s a little more difference between them than the simple of order of them.

My question is, “if we treat the counter argument not as a counter argument but rather as an argument, will this make the slightest bit of difference logically (other than order)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobinius

P1: If God exists, there should be observable effects of his existence.

How do we infer "should be observable effects of his existence" from "God exists"?

Biff the unclean · 11-07-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

My question is, “if we treat the counter argument not as a counter argument but rather as an argument, will this make the slightest bit of difference logically (other than order)?

It becomes completely illogical. You've seen this many times here when an Atheist will claim that (some jumble of letters) does not exist. The statement is without logic because the jumble of letters has been given no meaning and no one ever declared that the jumble of letters did exist.

It's much like the tree in the forest not making a sound but only vibrating the air when there is none to hear. The word God is meaningless by itself since it doesn't represent an actual thing. The word itself exists only as a claim.

Jagella · 11-07-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Brand

Congratulations on your hard fought victory. So what kind of prize do you win?

I don’t believe I’ve won any prize, but I do know that I have my personal integrity which is a hell of a lot more than what my Christian opponents can say.

Jagella

lee_merrill · 11-07-2005, 08:54 PM

Hi Jagella,

Quote:

Antony (see the correct spelling) Flew decided to abandon sound reasoning for a vague, cryptic belief in some “god�? or other. Why he did so is not clear to me.

It was abiogenesis, as I understand it. May I say that the "directed panspermia" explanation sure sounds like a vague, cryptic belief in some alien or other, to me?

Quote:

... no communist government ever totally eradicated religious belief.

But this sounds a lot like the "Communism will only prove its effectiveness when the entire world is finally communist," though! As long as there is one little speck of non-communism, the whole system is rather disabled. But I would have thought there would have been a noticeable effect, before this point.

Quote:

... if communist governments have been repressive, then that repression is a result of the stifling of free thought.

So then moral and social progress do not hinge on the eradication of religious belief?

There are other hinges, just as crucial, or maybe even more important?

Regards,
Lee

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2005, 09:19 AM	#71
Bobinius Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Transylvania (a real place in Romania ) and France Posts: 2,914	Good post Alf. But remember that 'controlled experiment' is a foreign notion to a believer. He prays for stronger faith, not for confirming evidence. I am still waiting for the refutation...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.