3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-01-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Taq, I finally got my full site version working and I just wanted to say that I love your signature Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2014, 08:40 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(11-01-2014 08:21 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Taq, I finally got my full site version working and I just wanted to say that I love your signature Heart

LOL! *I* love it, too! Can't remember quite who you said it to, it probably looks like you wre saying it to *me*.....but after all....heehee...

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2014, 08:51 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(11-01-2014 08:40 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(11-01-2014 08:21 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Taq, I finally got my full site version working and I just wanted to say that I love your signature Heart

LOL! *I* love it, too! Can't remember quite who you said it to, it probably looks like you wre saying it to *me*.....but after all....heehee...

Pretty sure it was the "Am I the only atheist against gay marriage?" post. Lol Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
11-01-2014, 10:45 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Idiot brownshit:

[Image: respect.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
12-01-2014, 02:05 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(11-01-2014 06:22 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-01-2014 02:09 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Asking for evidence, despite the obvious lack of it, for any cause of existence is a red herring.

Being sceptical is the pretence of being able to find out. No one knows, granted theists are little more nutty but you guys need to hold your horses.

How am I asking for evidence?

Being skeptical doesn't actually presume you can find out. You are so warped up in this false picture that everyone but agnostics definitely believe they can find truth that isn't real.
So you're an atheist based on the lack of truth available?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2014, 05:51 AM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2014 05:57 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Brownshirt,

1. A set of statements that result in a logical contradiction cannot all be true
2. Many religious teachings contradict each other
3. (1+2) Many religious teachings cannot be concurrently true
4. There is no way to determine which contradictory religious claims (if any) are actually true due to lack of sufficient evidence for most religious claims
5. (3+4) Accepting religious claims without sufficient evidence necessarily leads to false beliefs
6. False beliefs increase the likelihood that a believer will act out of correspondence with reality and will cause actual or potential harm to themselves or to others
7. (5+6) A bias to disbelieve religious claims that are not backed by sufficient evidence leads one to act more in correspondence with reality and reduces the potential for harm or potential harm to themselves and others

The modern sceptical approach to knowledge seeks to apply critical thinking to the important questions of life. That thinking process amounts to something like:
a. The subject is presented with a new fact or argument
b. The subject attempts to verify the veracity of the fact or argument as it stands, independent of other information and biases
c. The subject reassesses the veracity of their previously "known" facts and arguments
d. The set of verified facts and arguments are reviewed as a whole and a new or modified working model of reality is formulated by the subject

This model of thinking is closely related to scientific approaches and has a proven rate of success in increasing the set of reliable facts and arguments "known" to mankind, while still allowing our population to quickly adapt on the basis of new information. Working through a series of "provisionally true" models based on the best available facts and arguments has a high success rate in producing additional facts and arguments because new "provisionally true" models are based on observations of where the previous "provisionally true" models did and did not correspond to external reality.

In contrast your model of agnosticism seems to be "I don't know, and I'll never know and my curiosity is satisfied at that. I have no basis for increasing the information I have at my disposal because i have no existing provisionally true model to work from and to compare with reality. I find it kind of offensive that someone would claim some knowledge as provisionally true because it offends people who hold a different model as being true and it doesn't correspond to my sense of true - which requires an infinite goodness and trueness property not found in a progression of provisionally true models of reality."

I know which approach I'll continue to hold to in my quest to increase my knowledge and its correspondence to reality.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
12-01-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(12-01-2014 05:51 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Brownshirt,

1. A set of statements that result in a logical contradiction cannot all be true
2. Many religious teachings contradict each other
3. (1+2) Many religious teachings cannot be concurrently true
4. There is no way to determine which contradictory religious claims (if any) are actually true due to lack of sufficient evidence for most religious claims
5. (3+4) Accepting religious claims without sufficient evidence necessarily leads to false beliefs
6. False beliefs increase the likelihood that a believer will act out of correspondence with reality and will cause actual or potential harm to themselves or to others
7. (5+6) A bias to disbelieve religious claims that are not backed by sufficient evidence leads one to act more in correspondence with reality and reduces the potential for harm or potential harm to themselves and others

The modern sceptical approach to knowledge seeks to apply critical thinking to the important questions of life. That thinking process amounts to something like:
a. The subject is presented with a new fact or argument
b. The subject attempts to verify the veracity of the fact or argument as it stands, independent of other information and biases
c. The subject reassesses the veracity of their previously "known" facts and arguments
d. The set of verified facts and arguments are reviewed as a whole and a new or modified working model of reality is formulated by the subject

This model of thinking is closely related to scientific approaches and has a proven rate of success in increasing the set of reliable facts and arguments "known" to mankind, while still allowing our population to quickly adapt on the basis of new information. Working through a series of "provisionally true" models based on the best available facts and arguments has a high success rate in producing additional facts and arguments because new "provisionally true" models are based on observations of where the previous "provisionally true" models did and did not correspond to external reality.

In contrast your model of agnosticism seems to be "I don't know, and I'll never know and my curiosity is satisfied at that. I have no basis for increasing the information I have at my disposal because i have no existing provisionally true model to work from and to compare with reality. I find it kind of offensive that someone would claim some knowledge as provisionally true because it offends people who hold a different model as being true and it doesn't correspond to my sense of true - which requires an infinite goodness and trueness property not found in a progression of provisionally true models of reality."

I know which approach I'll continue to hold to in my quest to increase my knowledge and its correspondence to reality.

I'm not Agnostic towards religious claims. My curiosity is not satisfied with the position I just see no reason to believe that science will answer this question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(12-01-2014 01:39 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(12-01-2014 05:51 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Brownshirt,

1. A set of statements that result in a logical contradiction cannot all be true
2. Many religious teachings contradict each other
3. (1+2) Many religious teachings cannot be concurrently true
4. There is no way to determine which contradictory religious claims (if any) are actually true due to lack of sufficient evidence for most religious claims
5. (3+4) Accepting religious claims without sufficient evidence necessarily leads to false beliefs
6. False beliefs increase the likelihood that a believer will act out of correspondence with reality and will cause actual or potential harm to themselves or to others
7. (5+6) A bias to disbelieve religious claims that are not backed by sufficient evidence leads one to act more in correspondence with reality and reduces the potential for harm or potential harm to themselves and others

The modern sceptical approach to knowledge seeks to apply critical thinking to the important questions of life. That thinking process amounts to something like:
a. The subject is presented with a new fact or argument
b. The subject attempts to verify the veracity of the fact or argument as it stands, independent of other information and biases
c. The subject reassesses the veracity of their previously "known" facts and arguments
d. The set of verified facts and arguments are reviewed as a whole and a new or modified working model of reality is formulated by the subject

This model of thinking is closely related to scientific approaches and has a proven rate of success in increasing the set of reliable facts and arguments "known" to mankind, while still allowing our population to quickly adapt on the basis of new information. Working through a series of "provisionally true" models based on the best available facts and arguments has a high success rate in producing additional facts and arguments because new "provisionally true" models are based on observations of where the previous "provisionally true" models did and did not correspond to external reality.

In contrast your model of agnosticism seems to be "I don't know, and I'll never know and my curiosity is satisfied at that. I have no basis for increasing the information I have at my disposal because i have no existing provisionally true model to work from and to compare with reality. I find it kind of offensive that someone would claim some knowledge as provisionally true because it offends people who hold a different model as being true and it doesn't correspond to my sense of true - which requires an infinite goodness and trueness property not found in a progression of provisionally true models of reality."

I know which approach I'll continue to hold to in my quest to increase my knowledge and its correspondence to reality.

I'm not Agnostic towards religious claims. My curiosity is not satisfied with the position I just see no reason to believe that science will answer this question.

You know Brownsquirt, if nothing else you deserve credit for starting one of the most cretinous threads I've ever had the misfortune to turn my nose up at which subsequently attracted 96+ pages of commentary.

Kudos brother!

-- Max

I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I am not afraid to go out of it that way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nooneofconsequence's post
12-01-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(12-01-2014 01:39 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(12-01-2014 05:51 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Brownshirt,

1. A set of statements that result in a logical contradiction cannot all be true
2. Many religious teachings contradict each other
3. (1+2) Many religious teachings cannot be concurrently true
4. There is no way to determine which contradictory religious claims (if any) are actually true due to lack of sufficient evidence for most religious claims
5. (3+4) Accepting religious claims without sufficient evidence necessarily leads to false beliefs
6. False beliefs increase the likelihood that a believer will act out of correspondence with reality and will cause actual or potential harm to themselves or to others
7. (5+6) A bias to disbelieve religious claims that are not backed by sufficient evidence leads one to act more in correspondence with reality and reduces the potential for harm or potential harm to themselves and others

The modern sceptical approach to knowledge seeks to apply critical thinking to the important questions of life. That thinking process amounts to something like:
a. The subject is presented with a new fact or argument
b. The subject attempts to verify the veracity of the fact or argument as it stands, independent of other information and biases
c. The subject reassesses the veracity of their previously "known" facts and arguments
d. The set of verified facts and arguments are reviewed as a whole and a new or modified working model of reality is formulated by the subject

This model of thinking is closely related to scientific approaches and has a proven rate of success in increasing the set of reliable facts and arguments "known" to mankind, while still allowing our population to quickly adapt on the basis of new information. Working through a series of "provisionally true" models based on the best available facts and arguments has a high success rate in producing additional facts and arguments because new "provisionally true" models are based on observations of where the previous "provisionally true" models did and did not correspond to external reality.

In contrast your model of agnosticism seems to be "I don't know, and I'll never know and my curiosity is satisfied at that. I have no basis for increasing the information I have at my disposal because i have no existing provisionally true model to work from and to compare with reality. I find it kind of offensive that someone would claim some knowledge as provisionally true because it offends people who hold a different model as being true and it doesn't correspond to my sense of true - which requires an infinite goodness and trueness property not found in a progression of provisionally true models of reality."

I know which approach I'll continue to hold to in my quest to increase my knowledge and its correspondence to reality.

I'm not Agnostic towards religious claims. My curiosity is not satisfied with the position I just see no reason to believe that science will answer this question.

And no one has claimed that science will.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
12-01-2014, 10:47 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(12-01-2014 06:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-01-2014 01:39 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I'm not Agnostic towards religious claims. My curiosity is not satisfied with the position I just see no reason to believe that science will answer this question.

And no one has claimed that science will.

So is the request for evidence for a deity seems to be a very odd one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: