Koyaanisqatsi

For the billionth time now, what "opposing" facts are you talking about that atheists refuse to look at?

This is such disengenuous nonsense! What you meant to assert is that atheists refuse to blindly accept hearsay testimony as a fact, which is what anyone in their right minds should do.

As the length and depth of deconstruction in this post alone proves, atheists apply a rigorous due process to examine in detail every shread of "evidence" theists present. The problem of course being that theists never present any evidence at all!

A hypothetical question about a broken leg healing itself is not evidence of an anthropomorphic fairy god king intervening from a supernatural realm to countermand "nature." PERIOD.

A broken leg healing itself faster than normal, likewise, is not evidence of an anthropomorphic fairy god king intervening from a supernatural realm to countermand "nature." PERIOD.

For anyone to then come along and say, "See? You refuse a priori to accept evidence of god," based on that is out of their mind! It's not evidence of an anthropomorphic fairy god king intervening from a supernatural realm to countermand "nature."

To just obstinately respond with a variation of, "Well, I think it is," merely demonstrates the lack of scientific discipline on behalf of the claimant and nothing else.

Indeed, the only people in this whole scenario that have offered detailed, critical analysis of the "evidence" has been we atheists, the keepers of due process and skeptical review. To assert (or merely vehmently proclaim) anything to the contrary is to (yet again) fly in the face of the facts in evidence.

Vorkosigan

I might be wrong.]

Then you're an agnostic, right?

No, aware of my own limitations. AFAIK, there is no god. New information might change that point of view.

[I might learn some new argument or an interesting piece of information.]

Likewise, for me but for what purpose?

I need a purpose to learn something?

[As an Infidel, I owe it to Andrew to listen.]

This is noble of you, but why do you owe him anything?

We run a forum for discussions. If we don't let people discuss, what's the point?

[My boss loves to spew apologetic nonsense, but if I let him talk, I'll get a raise for sure.]

Sounds like patronizing to me. Hope you get the raise. You worked hard to get it.

Just keeping my face straight was about the hardest thing I ever did.

[This hot little Christian number might be feeding me apologetic horseshit, but if I let her talk, I might be able to get her in bed tonite.]

Try to be less serious and more humorous. The chicks really go that type.

Alas, I thought I had her, but as an atheist, I wasn't decadent enough. She eventually gave it up for a satanist. What can I say, I was 19 and still learning.

[My father <sigh> always lecturing, lecturing....]

You should of listened to him more, who knows what direction you may have taken.

Probably toward the seminary....

I don't "expect" you to do anything. You'll do as you will. But you charge in here, a newbie, announce we're all closeminded and discriminatory and you can advise us on how to deal with these arguments, and then you call me "condescending" when I respond. What a strange point of view you have. Wouldn't it have been better to have opened with a less judgemental salvo?

There wasn't anything discriminatory here. Andrew's hypothetical was answered with a hypothetical. You didn't find it to your taste, but you never put forth any way to demonstrate why Andrew's Jesus was a better explanation than aliens. These arguments are old hat to us; it is in fact logically impossible to demonstrate the origin of a miracle, which is why theists will never get anywhere with miracle arguments.

Michael

joedad

I must just be slow, Andrew, so I'll be reading along in any debate.

But are you going to argue that "intelligence" is supernatural? That "design" is supernatural? Accept these as assumptions? Or that nature itself has "supernatural" fingerprints all over it somehow? You're going to have to define "supernatural" before any substantial discussion can occur, I would think, so I will look for this in your opening remarks.

Good luck describing "the supernatural" in 100 percent "natural" terms and without making an argument from ignorance.



joe

agapeo

[I don't "expect" you to do anything. You'll do as you will. But you charge in here, a newbie, announce we're all close-minded and discriminatory and you can advise us on how to deal with these arguments, and then you call me "condescending" when I respond. What a strange point of view you have. Wouldn't it have been better to have opened with a less judgemental salvo?]

Whew! This is an excellent example of looking down one’s nose at another. “Newbie” As if I’m expected to keep my mouth shut until such time that I “fit in” with the “in crowd.” And NO, I didn’t announce that “we’re all close-minded” but my “judgmental salvos” were directed at you per say. But after all, is not making judgments an element of discussions and subsequently we all make them. The question is whose judgments are more valid. You likewise have a strange point of view, stranger yet than mine, when you as an Administrator think that emphasizing my being a “newbie” has any relevance to the discussion. That is tantamount to saying this guy hasn’t been “educated” as we have been. It smacks of character assassination IMO.

[There wasn't anything discriminatory here.]

Wrong! I suggest you closely review the comments I referred to back a few posts again. Try to see past that “nose” of yours.

As to the rest of your comments I’ll refrain from responding to them all because it becomes a game of “tit-for-tat” and I ass/u/me that you ass/u/med that I would of responded to them with vehemently “theistic” disgust and say something along the lines of “What an immoral and decadent excuse for a human being.” Au contraire, I saw them as “tongue in cheek” comments intended to get a rise out of me. (Well, perhaps you were serious about the chick thing).

[I need a purpose to learn something?]

The purpose of learning is to UNDERSTAND life and to know HOW to live it. But I can see how some may view it as a means of filling that empty space called a brain.

[We run a forum for discussions. If we don't let people discuss, what's the point?]

I’ll get to this in my closing comments.

[Andrew's hypothetical was answered with a hypothetical. You didn't find it to your taste, but you never put forth any way to demonstrate why Andrew's Jesus was a better explanation than aliens. These arguments are old hat to us; it is in fact logically impossible to demonstrate the origin of a miracle, which is why theists will never get anywhere with miracle arguments.]

I’ve conceded to the same, in case you didn’t notice. I didn’t see a need to explain anything hypothetically or otherwise. My point was and is that if one holds no belief to the existence of god[s] no defense is required. But on the other hand when one puts forth a view, as is done here, that view which is an opposing one presented by Andrew, is then required to be answered with an explanation. If you don’t want your view challenged then don’t express one. For example: If I say the sun is shining (my view) and you say it’s not (your view) we equally should explain why our views are more valid, or else shut up. Andrew’s “evidence” was the hypothetical broken leg being healed. His view was that it could be evidence of a supernatural event. From that premise he could give greater detail as to why it was supernatural, but a question was posed: “What would it take. . .” to which I answered, quite simply, that it would be insufficient in and of itself to convince me of the supernatural. Having thus stated this it then becomes my burden (if I have the compulsion) to explain why the hypothetical example could be explained by means of metaphysical naturalism. None was seriously put forth. Therefore without counter-explanations for the hypothetical example it is only reasonable to conclude the possibility that Andrew’s explanation is plausible, but highly unlikely. Enough said.

Look, tell you what I’ll do, in the way of a courtesy to all those waiting in the wings until we cease our little aside (and yet relevant) issues. I’ll give you the last word, to which one of your groupies can salute you with the cutesy in-depth little instant gremlins of platitudes. Let me pose a few simple questions after citing the objective of this Board.

“Welcome! The Secular Web is an online community of nonbelievers dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and tolerance. Our goal is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself. We want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise. To disbelieve in the gods, as Emma Goldman wrote, is at the same time to affirm life, purpose, and beauty.”

A theist, and specifically a Christian, believes in the existence[s] of their god[s] and subsequently feels the need to “promote” their respective view[s]. An atheist claims not to have any such belief, hence no need to promote their views on this issue, for no views exists which can be promoted. Therefore, in respect to the above cited purpose of this Board. – What exactly is it that you’re promoting, if not a view? Your intellect? Anybody with half of brain can read the above and see it’s more than that and I quote: “. . .the view that our natural world is all there is. . .” The remainder of this statement is hypocritical in nature when it is stated that a theist claims a supernatural view and therefore the burden of proof lies at his doorstep. You likewise claim a view but dodge the issue of having to defend it because it’s “sufficient unto itself.” In my opinion this is “intellectual dishonesty.” How can I know it’s sufficient unto itself if no reasonable explanation is put forth. When you can not explain what occurs when a hypothetical theory is presented the course of response is not to simply outright reject the theory but to examine it and postulate a theory of your own if the first leaves a “bad taste” in your mouth. Therefore, yes, perhaps I didn’t find Andrew’s hypothetical tasteful, but I didn’t really see any reasonable “natural” explanation put on the buffet table. So what was there to taste?

Now, if the best that you can do is critique my intelligence by comparing it to yours then you have committed two errors in reasonable thinking of which I have no inclination to educate you to. Hidden within this comment are clues as to what they may be. Use your superior intelligence to figure them out.

This is my last word (I promise you) in this discussion, so go ahead, take your best shot and then everybody can say Amen and the discussion can continue on as before.

Jack the Bodiless

The majority of us here aren't just atheists: we are also metaphysical naturalists.
If you ask an atheistic metapysical naturalist about "worldview" issues, they'll talk about their worldview, which is metapysical naturalism. They're not speaking as atheists, they're speaking as metaphysical naturalists.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. That doesn't mean that atheists don't have a worldview: but it isn't atheism.

Bill

The debate is happening <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000011" target="_blank">HERE!</a>

So, now we can talk about them behind their back, because they've each sworn to not read this thread until its over.....

So, how're they doing, folks?

== Bill

daemon

I admire Andrew_theist's willingness to engage in such a debate--and he is very well spoken--but I think he has managed to shoot himself in the foot in his opening paragraphs. He argues
Well and good, but it seems to me that science is, itself, a scientifically unproven philosophical system, and cannot possibly be scientifically proven. Given that, we wind up in a position where we shouldn't be using scientific methods to conduct science. Hooray! Science is bunk! Wait a minute...

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]</p>

faded_Glory

I don't want to cut anyone short, but could you guys discuss the debate in the thread I have set up for it <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000149" target="_blank">here</a> please?

Thanks,

fG

Wandering

WOW! It's been awhile since I've been here.

I picked this thread and just thought I'd browse but I just gotta comment on a few things.

I nearly fell of my rocker when I read that! Things HAVE changed since I've been away.

If it couldn't be presupposed but must be learned, WHO first taught man that? Sounds like an argument in favor of that irrational belief theism.

I wonder why this is usually ignored?

Ok, maybe things have changed all that much.

Apparently checking in doesn't mean reading the thread.

But is it proof?

Question - HelenSL - the same Helen from Christianity Exposed?

Ya know, I gotta be honest - I missed this place!

Vorkosigan

Whew! This is an excellent example of looking down one’s nose at another. “Newbie” As if I’m expected to keep my mouth shut until such time that I “fit in” with the “in crowd.”

Nope. Isn't what I said. I don't mind too much if you charge in all judgemental and condescending. What I objected to was your hypocritical contention that I was condescending for responding to your comments.

...when you as an Administrator think that emphasizing my being a “newbie” has any relevance to the discussion. That is tantamount to saying this guy hasn’t been “educated” as we have been. It smacks of character assassination IMO.

Wrong again. Being a newbie DOES have relevance in that newbies are often unfamiliar with arguments....and often charge in here making judgements about everyone and everything without a clue as to what is going on.

The purpose of learning is to UNDERSTAND life and to know HOW to live it. But I can see how some may view it as a means of filling that empty space called a brain.

How silly of me to simply enjoy learning for its own sake, rather than as a means to some end. From now on I'll adopt your more utilitarian perspective.

hand when one puts forth a view, as is done here, that view which is an opposing one presented by Andrew, is then required to be answered with an explanation.

Which I did. Several posts. Don't understand how you missed it.

If you don’t want your view challenged then don’t express one. For example: If I say the sun is shining (my view) and you say it’s not (your view) we equally should explain why our views are more valid, or else shut up. Andrew’s “evidence” was the hypothetical broken leg being healed. His view was that it could be evidence of a supernatural event. From that premise he could give greater detail as to why it was supernatural, but a question was posed: “What would it take. . .” to which I answered, quite simply, that it would be insufficient in and of itself to convince me of the supernatural. Having thus stated this it then becomes my burden (if I have the compulsion) to explain why the hypothetical example could be explained by means of metaphysical naturalism. None was seriously put forth.

I put forth at least one equally hypothetical. Several other people made suggestions. Intent on your own agenda, you simply missed it.

Look, tell you what I’ll do, in the way of a courtesy to all those waiting in the wings until we cease our little aside (and yet relevant) issues. I’ll give you the last word, to which one of your groupies can salute you with the cutesy in-depth little instant gremlins of platitudes. Let me pose a few simple questions after citing the objective of this Board.

Let's see.....you're broadminded, and you object to character assassination, and you're not judgemental, but you refer to other posters as "groupies." Right.

A theist, and specifically a Christian, believes in the existence[s] of their god[s] and subsequently feels the need to “promote” their respective view[s]. An atheist claims not to have any such belief, hence no need to promote their views on this issue, for no views exists which can be promoted. Therefore, in respect to the above cited purpose of this Board. – What exactly is it that you’re promoting, if not a view? Your intellect? Anybody with half of brain can read the above and see it’s more than that and I quote: “. . .the view that our natural world is all there is. . .” The remainder of this statement is hypocritical in nature when it is stated that a theist claims a supernatural view and therefore the burden of proof lies at his doorstep. You likewise claim a view but dodge the issue of having to defend it because it’s “sufficient unto itself.” In my opinion this is “intellectual dishonesty.” How can I know it’s sufficient unto itself if no reasonable explanation is put forth. When you can not explain what occurs when a hypothetical theory is presented the course of response is not to simply outright reject the theory but to examine it and postulate a theory of your own if the first leaves a “bad taste” in your mouth. Therefore, yes, perhaps I didn’t find Andrew’s hypothetical tasteful, but I didn’t really see any reasonable “natural” explanation put on the buffet table. So what was there to taste?

Is there an idea in this rant? Why don't you go over to Andrew's board and see what he believes? Andrew claimed, seriously, that "Atheists are X." I simply pointed out that there are many atheists who think differently. The discussion wasn't about the SecWeb's motto, but about the meaning of atheism, a much broader idea encompassing many different viewpoints. Andrew, like many, simply thinks atheism=total skepticism.

I put forward a reasonable naturalistic explanation that was equally hypothetical -- advanced technology, deployed in that case by aliens. That is one of many possible explanations. Nobody bothers much with hypotheticals because, well, they are hypothetical.

Now, if the best that you can do is critique my intelligence by comparing it to yours then you have committed two errors in reasonable thinking of which I have no inclination to educate you to. Hidden within this comment are clues as to what they may be. Use your superior intelligence to figure them out.

Since I can't recall comparing our relative intellectual weight, I'll assume that this paragraph reflects some insecurity you have.

[This is my last word (I promise you) in this discussion, so go ahead, take your best shot and then everybody can say Amen and the discussion can continue on as before.[/b]

It seems to have ground to a halt as Andrew prepares for the debate.

Michael