MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2015, 11:20 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 11:05 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:34 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  I honestly figured that see eye to eye with my perspective but ye it'll be tough to get everyone to humbly admit that they can't know everything.

Humbly admit what?!

We're not talking about knowing everything, I thought the discussion was about a deity existing?

I'm still waiting for your definition of what "god" is. You mentioned that you don't subscribe to a "religion" but then you talk of "miracles" and "holy books"

If a magician performs an illusion, do you automatically assume it must be a miracle?

I can't define what I don't know. I talk of miracle claims that may or may not be true yes because there are many who claim miracles are real and we can't ignore that and it is not outside the realm of possibility. I do also speak of holy books because holy books exist I have seen held and read many and they offer an alternative understanding of the world as well as ancient wisdom that often helps those in the present and we can't dismiss this. I don't claim I know which if any are true or if they are all partially true but all have the possibility of being true and we must admit that they may be the truth about reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2015, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2015 11:26 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 10:17 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 06:10 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Okay, first of all, I think we may need to do some clarification on the burden of proof. In short, it dictates that the Onus rests on those who are making the affirmative claim; those who claim the existence of biblical characters a la Moses, Noah and whomever else are the ones who must meet the burden.
Those on the negative side are required only to answer to the presented evidence: it is not the job of the negative party (or anybody for that matter) to prove the negative itself, merely to establish the lack of sufficient evidence for the affirmative claim.

That said, the evidence for characters like Moses is at best comprised of circumstantial connections and at worst flimsy, biblically based assertion. I'm sure I need not tell you why that last one is so flimsy.
I write this with the disclaimer that I'm not a historian or archaeologist and am just passing on what I've been made aware of.

To continue, there is a considerable lack of evidence for many of the tales surrounding central characters as well, on with Moses; we can be sure the Exodus, for instance, didn't happen due to the total lack of any evidence for the event. Much the same can be said of things like Noah's flood which certainly didn't happen as purported either, and for the biblical narrative of creation, which is known is wrong due to it being contradicted by modern findings in evolutionary chronology and the basic laws of physics, not to mention internal contradictions in the tale itself.

You're right in that 'we weren't there', but through evidence that was left behind and from the accounts of those at the time, we can reasonably establish the reality of things.

Where does the burden of proof fall when a person is making a claim that Moses might have existed and might have done what the holy books tell us. I don't believe my claim is positive but I do think it's logical as it admits that there are multiple possible truths.

'Might' is well and good and all but it is still an affirmative claim which still needs to be backed up as per the Onus; in order to make that statement the person has to be able to prove that the conditions in which the stipulated 'might' may have occurred to have actually happened: They would need to show that a man named Moses did indeed exist and that the Egyptians had enslaved an entire race (a la the Jews) and that the Exodus occurred, among a great many other details ascribed to the Moses stories.

[Edit: addition:] I also disagree with your belief that there are multiple possible truths. Multiple different states cannot all simultaneously be true, as they all would contradict each other.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
03-03-2015, 11:26 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 10:38 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:34 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  I honestly figured that see eye to eye with my perspective but ye it'll be tough to get everyone to humbly admit that they can't know everything.

No it won't be because most of us are already there. Read my response to one of your posts back at the bottom of page five.

Yes a few of you have admitted this it's true. Most have not I should have specified this. It's tough not to generalize with so many conversations going but I will try not to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2015, 11:28 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 06:50 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  No religion is not blind faith but a way of life long tested for generations so it has an abundance of knowledge which it draws from deep into the centuries. Thats why all faiths must be respected.

If religions followed the “Live and let live” rule then I wouldn’t care what people conjure up in their fantasies. But unfortunately the religious want others to believe what they believe and use political clout and violent means to achieve those ends.

Women should be covered from head to toe and are the property of men.
Creationism/ID should be taught alongside evolution.
Condoms should not be used even though millions are transmitting HIV.
Infidels should be killed.
Cartoonists must die because they drew your prophet.
Homosexuals are not to be granted the same rights or protection under the law.

No, I’m sorry MC, fuck faiths and religions. None get any respect from me as long as they don’t keep to themselves. Hope that makes my position clear.

BTW welcome to the Forum.

“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
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
03-03-2015, 11:29 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 10:39 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

I already admitted I don't know every thing. This NOT the same as then saying that I know NOTHING. Tongue

I feel like admitting I don't know something is an act that is enlightening because you accept your limitations and expend your perspective on the issue at hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2015, 11:38 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 11:29 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:39 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

I already admitted I don't know every thing. This NOT the same as then saying that I know NOTHING. Tongue

I feel like admitting I don't know something is an act that is enlightening because you accept your limitations and expend your perspective on the issue at hand.

It's not enlightened, it's honest.
Enlightened is when you study the subject and learn something new and then keep studying and keep learning.

A child is not enlightened by what he doesn't know.
He is simply ignorant

Look up the definition of ignorant before you complain about it.

I find it very likely that you don't know what the word means.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
03-03-2015, 11:41 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 11:14 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  If you study all these fields and learn to understand the complex storm you would likely know less then if you simply experience the complex storm.

No, because studying it doesn't mean you can't also experience it. By definition somebody who does both would know more than somebody who just experiences it.

Quote: A man who studies the storm would not be able to be open minded enough to see beyond his classical scientific education a person who knows nothing about the storm and experience it would be able understand that they don't know that the storm is physical and emotional and we can not ever hope to understand it beautiful complexity.

Storms aren't emotional. They can cause an emotional response but that's not the same thing. In my opinion, understanding the physical forces at work in the storm gives a much deeper appreciation of it.

(03-03-2015 11:20 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  I can't define what I don't know. I talk of miracle claims that may or may not be true yes because there are many who claim miracles are real and we can't ignore that and it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Yes, we can ignore it until somebody provides evidence for it. People experience coincidences and things they don't understand all the time but there's no reason to accept a claim of miracle without proof. Doing so is just being gullible.

Quote: I do also speak of holy books because holy books exist I have seen held and read many and they offer an alternative understanding of the world as well as ancient wisdom that often helps those in the present and we can't dismiss this.

The books were written by people and can definitely contain much that is of value. I don't understand why they would be called "holy" though because the wisdom found in them can also be found in other writings. It is just the product of human experience. The idea is to find the good and make use of it and discard the bad. By making it "holy" you enshrine the bad along with the good.

Quote: I don't claim I know which if any are true or if they are all partially true but all have the possibility of being true and we must admit that they may be the truth about reality.

Not without actual evidence. Simply assuming that they might be true is, again, just gullibility. Read them, test the ideas, keep what works, discard what doesn't.
The bible, the quran, the bhagavad-gita, etc are no more "truth" than Shakespeare, Dickens, and Tolkien are, and they usually aren't as well written.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
03-03-2015, 11:55 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 11:29 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  I feel like admitting I don't know something is an act that is enlightening because you accept your limitations and expend your perspective on the issue at hand.

I know there is much I don’t know. I don’t even know what I don’t know but collectively the human species knows much. Up to now, as far as I know, not once has the answer ever been “god”.

2+2=4, no god needed
The sun disappears from the sky = Earth rotates on it’s axis, no god needed
Lightning = electrical charges, no god needed
Lunar eclipse = Earth passes between sun and moon, no god needed
Species evolve through decent and environmental pressures = evolution, no god needed

In short, ”God is an ever receding pocket of ignorance” ~ N.D.Tyson

One doesn’t expand their perspective by saying “I don’t know”, but instead by observation, experimentation, trial and error and searching for the answer. Throwing your hands up and saying I’m enlightened because I don’t know this or that answer is a ridiculous, defeatist notion.

“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
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
03-03-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 11:20 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 11:05 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Humbly admit what?!

We're not talking about knowing everything, I thought the discussion was about a deity existing?

I'm still waiting for your definition of what "god" is. You mentioned that you don't subscribe to a "religion" but then you talk of "miracles" and "holy books"

If a magician performs an illusion, do you automatically assume it must be a miracle?

I can't define what I don't know. I talk of miracle claims that may or may not be true yes because there are many who claim miracles are real and we can't ignore that and it is not outside the realm of possibility. I do also speak of holy books because holy books exist I have seen held and read many and they offer an alternative understanding of the world as well as ancient wisdom that often helps those in the present and we can't dismiss this. I don't claim I know which if any are true or if they are all partially true but all have the possibility of being true and we must admit that they may be the truth about reality.

So the magician who does an illusion is really performing a miracle?

There are stories that predate "holy books" that exist. Greek myths aren't really full of ancient wisdom. It was a way to explain things, they weren't capable of understanding. The Iliad and the Oddesy speak of Zeus, does that make Zeus a real deity?

Can snakes talk today? Or do you hold the opinion that a snake might be able to talk because you don't know anything about a snake's biology or anatomy?

Do you think snakes couid speak 3000 years ago?

You mentioned Moses. Do you recall the part of story where he threw down his staff and it turned into a snake? Do you recall that Pharoh's people did the same thing?

Going back to mythology... The story of Pandora, do you believe all the diseases of the world are here because someone some woman opened a box she shouldn't have and was told not to open, thereby releasing all the ills into the world? Do you believe "hope" is a butterfly, because it was said in the story?

Do you believe we have rainbows only because of Gilgamesh? Oops I mean of course Noah, even though the Epic of Giflagmesh is older.

Do you believe that people don't have imaginations to create stories for entertainment? Do you think it was different in ancient times?


This whole, you can't know one or another...is a cop out. I'm pretty damn confident leprechauns, Santa Claus, and gods don't exist.

I also believe Harry Potter and Jedi Knights are also a work of fiction.

But then again, no one is trying to convince me that I should be humble and admit because I've never met JK Rowlings or George Lucus personally and heard from their own lips they made the shit up, I should believe.

For that matter, I feel it's far more likely that the flying spaghetti monster exists than the sorry tale about bronze age cannibalism during a Jewish seder.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
03-03-2015, 11:57 PM
RE: MC Yo Wassup VS Atheism
(03-03-2015 11:38 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 11:29 PM)mcyowassup Wrote:  I feel like admitting I don't know something is an act that is enlightening because you accept your limitations and expend your perspective on the issue at hand.

It's not enlightened, it's honest.
Enlightened is when you study the subject and learn something new and then keep studying and keep learning.

A child is not enlightened by what he doesn't know.
He is simply ignorant

Look up the definition of ignorant before you complain about it.

I find it very likely that you don't know what the word means.

As far as I understand ignorant means to lack knowledge in a subject.

As far as what you said goes I do not think every time someone studies something they come closer to understanding reality because learning basically means identifying patterns and associating patterns with rules but as you do this and gain confidence in an understanding that you built on the subject you allow for less and less other possibilities and thus narrow how many perspectives you can understand that subject from and instead you end up with one ultimate perspective. On the other hand if you do not study a subject the perspectives you can have on it are limitless as you don't have prior bias and thus in one of those perspectives lies the truth. However the person who studied and studied and narrowed the perspectives he can see the subject from he may have the truth but he also may have ended up able only to see the lie he reinforced. Isaac Newton discovered gravity by observing and studying why objects fall and he came to the conclusion that a force called gravity causes the objects to fall and it's seems like he is right but science often reforms and adds and changes it's theories and I am sure in a thousand years our understanding of gravity will be radically different from now, when Newton's theory is proven wrong or falls short of reality people would see that he was not right in the belief he held. If we however lived in an alternative history where Newton sat under the tree and an apple fell on his head and he admitted that something much more complex was happening in the universe than he can ever comprehend and he simply experienced it instead of trying to put it in a box and label it he would never ever be on the wrong side of reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: