How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Origins: Whence did everything come? Don't know yet, and don't care. Science is still looking into it. I'm not in a hurry and don't actually need to know the answer. At this point it's more a "Who would win in a fight, Batman or Spiderman?" kind of question.

Meaning: What is the purpose of life? Nothing in particular, and nothing universal. Meaning is what we make it, and it's ludicrous to think that one's personal meaning has to be assigned to us by some outside agent such as a god.

Morality: How should we live? In such a way as to maximize our own joy and self-actualization, while minimizing harm to others and aiding them in their own quests for happiness.

Destiny: What happens after we die? We rot, and then our atoms go off looking for new gigs. We already have eternal life in abundance, just not as John Q. Human of 123 Earth Street.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 12:33 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 10:44 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 10:38 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  All you have done is make ignorant, unproven assertions. So we simply don't believe your warped perception of the universe and dismiss it as ignorant.

What you mean to say is : ' I don't want to believe your assertions based on common reality because it conflicts with my personal MO for doing life so I have to dismiss it even though I claim to champion scientific inquiry (until it upsets my applecart) ' .

Except your common reality is delusional. Not everyone sees your God like you do, and a claim of God existing is unfalsifiable which is therefore NOT scientific.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
I don't feel like I should have to defend my view that there is no God. The existence of a God is the CLAIM it's the statement/hypothesis that needs to BE proven. My lack of belief in it is no more a worldview than my lack of belief in any claim for the existence of something which:

1. Has never been proven
2. Is not observable or testable
3. Is not necessary as a component or condition of other claims which ARE observable and testable
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 12:20 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  It takes too much faith to be an atheist .

You know, I don't know what trips the mods towards a ban, but I think this theist troll has violated rule 1 and probably rule 5 of the forum rules.

He has nothing original to say, he is not seeking any real discussion and there is nothing else he has to contribute except this repetitive, debunked nonsense.

Will the clown continue his dance? Or do we wait for repetition of trite bible scriptures to cut this short?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 12:20 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 12:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  1. The plural of "atheist" is "atheists".
2. You have no idea what "atheists enjoy" as you are not in their head. You are a presumptuous judgmental twit-fool.
3. Just because YOU NEED to play your little psycho games, doesn't mean everyone else does.
4. Many here are "igtheists" as there is no coherent definition of the word "god". You can't provide one.
5. You're obsessed with sex. What ? You don't get any ?
6. you don't know any atheists, so you have no clue what they would do.
7. The MOST generous person on the planet, (Bill Gates) is an atheist, so all your bullshit assumptions are just that.
8. Did you forget your anti-psychotic medications today ? Maybe you better ring for the nurse and tell her you need an extra dose.

It takes too much faith to be an atheist . Bill Gates knows that too. Being generous with Ones money isn't enough to find Gods favor im afraid . That comes thru willful surrender of putting God in his rightful place in our lives , but that requires dethroning SELF ---- something that is just too high a price for most.

I do know what Atheists enjoy and what is in their Minds. I used to be one and ran with the same crowd . Essentially, the fallout to such a life is defeatism because theres no ultimate hope, meaning, purpose, or long lasting joy to be had ; how could there be when one thinks hes the product of worthless pond scum that burped forth from substance which was dead ?!

So my question to you is were you being dishonest with a partial quote of Professor Richard Lewontin or are you just ignorant and didn’t understand what was being discussed?

Stop avoiding the question.

Right now Dave all you are doing is just flinging monkey poop all over the forum in the hopes that some of it sticks, but all you’re accomplishing is getting it all over yourself.

Whatever went through your mind or goes on in your mind can’t be projected onto others. You sure seem to think you know what goes on in other’s minds, you even know what Bill Gates thinks, wow! You would make a good psychic if you weren’t so psychotic.

So, you were addicted to sex, used women...

(24-11-2014 09:34 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  7. As Evolutionist Julian Huxley said :' Having no personal Creator
(viz.God) , coincided with my sexual mores' (and Genital satisfaction via using Women was my favorite American pastime) .

What else are you hiding you bad, little boy?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:12 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 11:58 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 11:37 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You would declare it as intelligent design.

Both Donkey Dung and Pecan Pie ARE intelligently designed , unless you think that either came about from non personal, non intelligence , unwilled , accidental Causes .... which they didn't. Pecan Pie is intentionally CREATED as is Donkey Dung as it moves thru the Animals anatomy . Next time you step in some, just tell yourself that 'it just popped into existence' then pretend it isn't reality either . And if Someone tells you that you smell like Donkey Dung....just tell em that their accidental compilations of atoms that make up their nose cant be trusted.

You cant escape the intelligent design of things all around you. But you can pretend they don't exist and/or you can willfully disregard them because of the natural implication of it (a Creator) which is a fly to ones lifestyle ointment.

sigh

ahh the ol' look at how complex the world is = god!

That is called the watchmakers argument, let me help you with that...

William Paley's watchmaker argument (design implies a designer). Also bleeds into the complexity theory. Think of a tornado, does a mystical super being push a theoretical button and create a tornado? I would like to think not, the complexity can emerge as a natural result of a system and not as designed or orchestrated by an entity.

- David Hume argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

- Richard Dawkins argues that the watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

- this argument suffers from a number of critical flaws, the biggest flaw being a failure to understand why no amount of empirical evidence will support Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy. This stems from a failure to understand how analogies work: analogies are not arguments. Analogies illustrate arguments, and insofar as one only makes an analogy (but fails to sketch out the meat of the argument), then one is failing to make an argument.

But I’m willing to be a little flexible on this point: insofar as a good argument is one that is clear and unambiguous, and insofar as an analogy is less clear than a list of premises followed by a conclusion, then an analogy is a bad argument. Sure, good rhetoric has implicit/hidden premises, but good arguments don’t.

The Watchmaker Analogy will never demonstrate that design is true, or that belief in design is justified, no matter the evidence. Allow me to provide an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, that we have a painting by a particular artist. The artist has admitted to creating the painting, and people witnessed the creation. The artist has a distinctive style and technique, prefers to use certain unique materials (which are generally not used by other artists). In short, there are a set of characteristics that are associated with this particular artist.

Now suppose that we find a second piece of art. The artist is silent as to whether or not they created this new piece. We start to investigate all the materials and techniques that went into creating this picture, and every characteristic we identify in the second picture, matches a characteristic in the ‘set of characteristics’ mentioned above. Are we justified in concluding that the same artist also created this picture? If not, if we keep accumulating more and more ‘characteristics’, will our conclusion eventually be justified?

Absolutely not.

Because I’m not a theologian, I’ll attempt to make the argument clear:
1) There exists a painting (P1) known to have been painted by an Artist (A1)
2) The construction of P1 consisted of certain steps (S1) known to be associated with A1.
3) If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was created by A1.
4) P2 was constructed according to S1.
5) P2 was created by A1.

The flaw in this argument lies in Premise 3. Premise 3 fails to account for any alternative hypotheses, such as the existence of another artist (A2, A3, … An) who also utilises S1. Changing Premise 3 to the more weak “If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was probably created by A1” doesn’t resolve this issue. Once we arrive at the conclusion that it’s possible the painting was created by either A1 or A2, we now need to compare A1 and A2 (themselves) to see how likely it is that they created the painting.

Paley’s argument is that a designer (A1) is known to have created a watch (P1), and the marks of design (S1) can be found in the watch. By analogy, Paley claims that life (P2) also exhibits these marks (S1), ergo a designer (A1) is responsible for the creation of life.

This argument fails because it fails to take into account an alternative explanation, namely that the processes of Evolution (A2) also exhibit S1.
You can make S1 consist of 10 points of similarity, 1000 points, or 1,000,000 points of similarity: so long as those other points are likewise explained by evolution, one is not justified in simply declaring “alright so, they were designed”. Merely shoveling in more data into S1 is irrelevant.

At this point, anyone acting in accordance with intellectual integrity will move their investigation up a notch, to discuss whether or not A1 (god) or A2 (evolution) exists. As there are only self-contradictory definitions of god, and as there is no evidence for god, and as there are no non-question-begging arguments for god, one cannot assert that god (A1) is a viable explanatory mechanism.

As the arguments for god collapses, the argument for theistic design collapses. The argument is fatally flawed not because of a lack of empirical data, but due to the insufficiency of the arguments for god.

you're welcome, anything else I can clarify for you? Now my turn..how do you know of god? biblical based? observational philosophical musings of the world around you? Are you of the Young Earth Creationist view or Old Creationist view, or a hybrid? I can't help you with your delusion without some intelligent input...

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
26-11-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 12:09 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 10:31 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  SO, what are you going to do now ? That's the question.

I'm going to ask you one last time for that non-presuppositional, non-circular evidence you've been promising us before putting you on ignore for trolling.

That's what I thought. /ignore it is!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:36 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 12:25 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 12:20 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  It takes too much faith to be an atheist.
As opposed to blindly believing in a nonexistent deity that presents himself through a confusing and contradictory book where he paints himself as a genocidal monster. Mhm.

Its your subjective conclusion that a required personal theistic Creator for our personal intelligent-displayed Creation, is 'a non existent Diety' . Im saying simple that I don't have enough faith that atoms, energy, time, chance, and mutations could ever produce ANY level of complexity and NON-material entities such as what we enjoy . Im glad that youre faith is that remarkable though.

The Genocidal Monster is that of atheistic Secular Humanism which accounted for over 120,000,000 murders by professed Atheist Tyrants in just the last century alone. ... followed by mass Infanticide starting in 1973 due to Humanisms Sexual Freedom gone further wrong resulting in walkin abortion at the rate of 4,000 daily now surpassing 60,000,000 total . Of course Humanisms Monster has been made more plausible sounding by calling it Ones 'Liberty' .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:41 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:12 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 11:58 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Both Donkey Dung and Pecan Pie ARE intelligently designed , unless you think that either came about from non personal, non intelligence , unwilled , accidental Causes .... which they didn't. Pecan Pie is intentionally CREATED as is Donkey Dung as it moves thru the Animals anatomy . Next time you step in some, just tell yourself that 'it just popped into existence' then pretend it isn't reality either . And if Someone tells you that you smell like Donkey Dung....just tell em that their accidental compilations of atoms that make up their nose cant be trusted.

You cant escape the intelligent design of things all around you. But you can pretend they don't exist and/or you can willfully disregard them because of the natural implication of it (a Creator) which is a fly to ones lifestyle ointment.

sigh

ahh the ol' look at how complex the world is = god!

That is called the watchmakers argument, let me help you with that...

William Paley's watchmaker argument (design implies a designer). Also bleeds into the complexity theory. Think of a tornado, does a mystical super being push a theoretical button and create a tornado? I would like to think not, the complexity can emerge as a natural result of a system and not as designed or orchestrated by an entity.

- David Hume argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

- Richard Dawkins argues that the watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

- this argument suffers from a number of critical flaws, the biggest flaw being a failure to understand why no amount of empirical evidence will support Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy. This stems from a failure to understand how analogies work: analogies are not arguments. Analogies illustrate arguments, and insofar as one only makes an analogy (but fails to sketch out the meat of the argument), then one is failing to make an argument.

But I’m willing to be a little flexible on this point: insofar as a good argument is one that is clear and unambiguous, and insofar as an analogy is less clear than a list of premises followed by a conclusion, then an analogy is a bad argument. Sure, good rhetoric has implicit/hidden premises, but good arguments don’t.

The Watchmaker Analogy will never demonstrate that design is true, or that belief in design is justified, no matter the evidence. Allow me to provide an analogy to illustrate my point. Imagine, if you will, that we have a painting by a particular artist. The artist has admitted to creating the painting, and people witnessed the creation. The artist has a distinctive style and technique, prefers to use certain unique materials (which are generally not used by other artists). In short, there are a set of characteristics that are associated with this particular artist.

Now suppose that we find a second piece of art. The artist is silent as to whether or not they created this new piece. We start to investigate all the materials and techniques that went into creating this picture, and every characteristic we identify in the second picture, matches a characteristic in the ‘set of characteristics’ mentioned above. Are we justified in concluding that the same artist also created this picture? If not, if we keep accumulating more and more ‘characteristics’, will our conclusion eventually be justified?

Absolutely not.

Because I’m not a theologian, I’ll attempt to make the argument clear:
1) There exists a painting (P1) known to have been painted by an Artist (A1)
2) The construction of P1 consisted of certain steps (S1) known to be associated with A1.
3) If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was created by A1.
4) P2 was constructed according to S1.
5) P2 was created by A1.

The flaw in this argument lies in Premise 3. Premise 3 fails to account for any alternative hypotheses, such as the existence of another artist (A2, A3, … An) who also utilises S1. Changing Premise 3 to the more weak “If a painting (P2) is constructed according to S1, then P2 was probably created by A1” doesn’t resolve this issue. Once we arrive at the conclusion that it’s possible the painting was created by either A1 or A2, we now need to compare A1 and A2 (themselves) to see how likely it is that they created the painting.

Paley’s argument is that a designer (A1) is known to have created a watch (P1), and the marks of design (S1) can be found in the watch. By analogy, Paley claims that life (P2) also exhibits these marks (S1), ergo a designer (A1) is responsible for the creation of life.

This argument fails because it fails to take into account an alternative explanation, namely that the processes of Evolution (A2) also exhibit S1.
You can make S1 consist of 10 points of similarity, 1000 points, or 1,000,000 points of similarity: so long as those other points are likewise explained by evolution, one is not justified in simply declaring “alright so, they were designed”. Merely shoveling in more data into S1 is irrelevant.

At this point, anyone acting in accordance with intellectual integrity will move their investigation up a notch, to discuss whether or not A1 (god) or A2 (evolution) exists. As there are only self-contradictory definitions of god, and as there is no evidence for god, and as there are no non-question-begging arguments for god, one cannot assert that god (A1) is a viable explanatory mechanism.

As the arguments for god collapses, the argument for theistic design collapses. The argument is fatally flawed not because of a lack of empirical data, but due to the insufficiency of the arguments for god.

you're welcome, anything else I can clarify for you? Now my turn..how do you know of god? biblical based? observational philosophical musings of the world around you? Are you of the Young Earth Creationist view or Old Creationist view, or a hybrid? I can't help you with your delusion without some intelligent input...


Click here for answers to Dawkins Delusion book : http://creation.com/atheist-with-a-missi...d-delusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(26-11-2014 01:36 PM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Im saying simple that I don't have enough faith that atoms, energy, time, chance, and mutations could ever produce ANY level of complexity and NON-material entities such as what we enjoy . Im glad that youre faith is that remarkable though.

You don't need faith. You just need to read some science books. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: