Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2016, 06:19 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(30-09-2016 04:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Cosmic accident, cosmic accident, cosmic accident....

The physical laws of our (known) universe demonstrably and evidently allowed for life to rise at least once, at least here, maybe at some other places in some other times too, we dont know.

So fucking what?!

Oh and if you dont like being the result of an "accident", aka. an event that is not planned or intended / an event that occurs by chance, then i have breaking news for ya:
Said universe and its greater reality doesnt give a shit about what you like or want it to be, it just doesnt give a shit. Because it cant, because it has no plan/intend. Facepalm

I never said I don't like it. What I said is no one actually believes that, not even atheist, who seem to prefer to lack a belief in that as well. I don't believe it, because I don't like it, I don't believe it because I find it absurd, so absurd in fact that defenders of that position are non-existenent, the ones who might on occasion pay lip service to it, seem unable to honestly believe it themselves. Or at least failed so miserably of convincing other atheists of that position, that atheists prefer to define their position as lacking a belief, as undecided, absent of a position themselves.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2016, 07:41 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(02-10-2016 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-09-2016 01:02 AM)morondog Wrote:  Here we go Tommy.

Cosmic accident huh? Have you ever read anything about the big bang? It's a damn good theory supported by a shitload of evidence.

This is getting long, but we can go over evolution or the formation of the solar system next. Or you can whine about something stupid.

Not sure what you're going on about here, I concede the big bang occured, and evolution happened.

What I find interesting, is that even though there are a variety of atheistic worldviews, very few atheists actually hold them. Most atheists don't seem to see their own lack of belief here, as result of holding contrary beliefs, like I lack a belief the earth is flat, as the result of believing it's round. Instead they see themselves like undecided voters, a lack of confidence in a world absent of God, and one endowed by him. They lack a belief in whether life is intentional, or unintentional, whether we're product of a cosmic accident, or some purpose.

To imagine life as a cosmic accident appears absurd, not just to theists apparently, but even to atheists, who you'd be hard to pressed to find those who support such a view with a straight face. In fact they see the concept of a reality born of a cosmic accident, as uncomfortable, the words too loaded.

No. And no.
What we don't agree with is your emotionally-loaded, biased wording.
You have been told this repeatedly and you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to admit it.

There is no evidence of purpose in the universe. Evolution has no goals.
You choose to use wording that inflames. We choose to use wording that is accurate.

Looking past your bullshit attitude, I fully back the position that we are here by chance. Our existence is contingent.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-10-2016, 08:11 PM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(02-10-2016 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I find interesting, is that even though there are a variety of atheistic worldviews, very few atheists actually hold them.

This statement is a bit twisty. There are a variety of worldviews that have atheistic components. Atheists are not united by their atheism but by other aspects of their worldview.

(02-10-2016 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most atheists don't seem to see their own lack of belief here, as result of holding contrary beliefs, like I lack a belief the earth is flat, as the result of believing it's round. Instead they see themselves like undecided voters, a lack of confidence in a world absent of God, and one endowed by him.

This is rather inaccurate. Atheists here have stated that they lack belief and that the burden of proof is on the believer. However most atheists here have gone on to state acceptance of science, rationalism and naturalism. Hardly undecided.

(02-10-2016 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They lack a belief in whether life is intentional, or unintentional, whether we're product of a cosmic accident, or some purpose.

This is also not accurate. Most posters here have stated a belief in abiogenesis, the Big Bang theory and evolution. Most posters here have flat out rejected purposeful design and other nonsense.

(02-10-2016 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To imagine life as a cosmic accident appears absurd, not just to theists apparently, but even to atheists, who you'd be hard to pressed to find those who support such a view with a straight face. In fact they see the concept of a reality born of a cosmic accident, as uncomfortable, the words too loaded.

Now you are being dishonest. And making strawmen.

The words cosmic accident are loaded because they are routinely used in evangelical and apologetics (like yours). An accident implies chance, an undesired result and other negative connotations.

Instead of your strawman, here is my belief:

The Big Bang, according to our current understanding was a Cosmic Event.
It was not a cosmic accident. According to our understanding it happened in accordance with natural laws and scientific principles. There was no indication of supernatural agency.

Abiogenesis is currently our best theory regarding the origins of life. According to our understanding it happened in accordance with natural laws and scientific principles. There was no indication of supernatural agency.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-10-2016, 06:18 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(02-10-2016 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. And no.
What we don't agree with is your emotionally-loaded, biased wording.
You have been told this repeatedly and you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to admit it.

There is no evidence of purpose in the universe.

No there is evidence of purpose in the universe, conscious creatures, with moral and creative capacities who desire truth, pursue meaning, have a sense that there something more here, is all evidence for purpose, creatures not seeking to merely survive, but in finding something to live for. The alternative would be creatures with innate desire for meaning and purpose, yet what they seek does not exist.

But likely you'll appeal to your special meaning of evidence, which would not only rule out evidence for purpose in the universe, but evidence that the universe is meaningless, purposeless. Ain't that right old man? So you'll be right back where you started with a lack of belief one way or the other.

Quote:Evolution has no goals.

Evolution is just a series of mechanism, so when speaking of goals here it wouldn't be attributed to evolution, but to the properties of what it works with, to make us inevitable, given enough time and space. Matter having properties that when arranged in certain ways produces self-aware beings, who desire to know why they are here, to seek truth, appears as a goal. A view in which it's not, so absurd, not even you would go to bat for it. It's why you have nothing to sell, no position to persuade one to here. Empty handed in all turns.

Quote:You choose to use wording that inflames. We choose to use wording that is accurate.

No, you just put on a pony show, a series of dancing, lack the ability to be direct and honest, and use a serious of euphemism, and misdirection to avoid whats being said. You might be accurate in saying that you lack a belief in the universe being a cosmic accident, you wouldn't be accurate in saying I'm using the terms improperly. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish your own beliefs, or lack of them, from contrary positions to theism.

You're just an indecisive bunch, confused, and lacking any sense of clarity on the big questions, that you just sit on the fence, and believe everyone else should share your confusion too.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2016, 06:34 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(03-10-2016 06:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-10-2016 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. And no.
What we don't agree with is your emotionally-loaded, biased wording.
You have been told this repeatedly and you are either too stupid to understand or too dishonest to admit it.

There is no evidence of purpose in the universe.

No there is evidence of purpose in the universe, conscious creatures, with moral and creative capacities who desire truth, pursue meaning, have a sense that there something more here, is all evidence for purpose, creatures not seeking to merely survive, but in finding something to live for. The alternative would be creatures with innate desire for meaning and purpose, yet what they seek does not exist.

Did you purposely misunderstand the statement?
We make our own purpose - it is not inherent in the universe.

Quote:But likely you'll appeal to your special meaning of evidence, which would not only rule out evidence for purpose in the universe, but evidence that the universe is meaningless, purposeless. Ain't that right old man? So you'll be right back where you started with a lack of belief one way or the other.

Until you show evidence of purpose, you can't claim it exists.

Quote:
Quote:Evolution has no goals.

Evolution is just a series of mechanism, so when speaking of goals here it wouldn't be attributed to evolution, but to the properties of what it works with, to make us inevitable, given enough time and space.

That's rather salad-like, but there is no reason to think 'we' are inevitable. That's contrary to how evolution works.

Quote:Matter having properties that when arranged in certain ways produces self-aware beings, who desire to know why they are here, to seek truth, appears as a goal.

How so? Whose goal? You make an entirely unwarranted leap.

Quote:A view in which it's not, so absurd, not even you would go to bat for it. It's why you have nothing to sell, no position to persuade one to here. Empty handed in all turns.

Can you not read? I have stated clearly that that is my position.

Quote:
Quote:You choose to use wording that inflames. We choose to use wording that is accurate.

No, you just put on a pony show, a series of dancing, lack the ability to be direct and honest, and use a serious of euphemism, and misdirection to avoid whats being said.

Can you not read? I have clearly stated my position.

Quote:You might be accurate in saying that you lack a belief in the universe being a cosmic accident,

Can you not read? It is your choice of words that is at issue.

Quote:you wouldn't be accurate in saying I'm using the terms improperly. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish your own beliefs, or lack of them, from contrary positions to theism.

Can you not read? I have clearly stated my position.

Quote:You're just an indecisive bunch, confused, and lacking any sense of clarity on the big questions, that you just sit on the fence, and believe everyone else should share your confusion too.

You are a fool. You are unable to understand clear explanations.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-10-2016, 07:39 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(02-10-2016 08:11 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  This statement is a bit twisty. There are a variety of worldviews that have atheistic components. Atheists are not united by their atheism but by other aspects of their worldview.

It doesn’t seem that most atheists have a worldview, they have a lack of belief in a worldview. If they had a contrary worldview to theism, than their lack of belief in God and etc.. wouldn’t be the result of a lack of evidence, as much as it would be the result of holding their worldview as true. It would be “since my worldview is true, alternative theistic worldviews would be false.” But judging that in such discussions, without missing a beat, the atheist will present himself as lacking a belief, with no beliefs to support or defend in such discussions. Their worldview seems absent, or so malformed they prefer to leave it at home, under the rug somewhere.

Quote:This is rather inaccurate. Atheists here have stated that they lack belief and that the burden of proof is on the believer. However most atheists here have gone on to state acceptance of science, rationalism and naturalism. Hardly undecided.

The above just proves my point. To reword what you just said: “The burden of proof is on the believer to defend and prove his worldview, the atheist lacks a worldview to defend and prove.”

Quote:This is also not accurate. Most posters here have stated a belief in abiogenesis, the Big Bang theory and evolution.

As do I. So it seems you’re not being accurate.

Quote:Most posters here have flat out rejected purposeful design and other nonsense.

They don’t flat out reject it, they flat out assert their lack of belief in these things. Lacking a belief in whether your married, doesn’t constitute as flat out rejecting you’re married.

Quote:The words cosmic accident are loaded because they are routinely used in evangelical and apologetics (like yours). An accident implies chance, an undesired result and other negative connotations.

An accident implies that the result was unintentional. Was purposeless. “Without apparent or deliberate cause”. It’s the contrary to any theistic, teleological, purposeful view of the universe and human life. The terms are not loaded, just because you yourself lack a belief in this as well. I’m not claiming that you or other’s here believe we’re a product of a cosmic accident. In fact the routine position on this seems to be a lack of belief as well..

Quote:The Big Bang, according to our current understanding was a Cosmic Event.
It was not a cosmic accident. According to our understanding it happened in accordance with natural laws and scientific principles. There was no indication of supernatural agency.

Abiogenesis is currently our best theory regarding the origins of life. According to our understanding it happened in accordance with natural laws and scientific principles. There was no indication of supernatural agency.

I already concede that the Big Bang likely happened, abiogenesis occurred. And don’t dispute any particular scientific facts here. The question of meaning and purpose, or meaningless, a cosmic accident, is ontological.

Perhaps this might help, imagine another universe, or multiverse, where matter regardless of arrangement can’t produce self-aware creatures. You can have all the forces of physics working to produce a wide variety of configurations, but as a result of matter lacking that essential property, self-aware creatures are not possible. You’d have a different configurations of lego blocks, perhaps a near endless configuration of lego blocks, but not self-aware beings.

Matter having such essential properties to produce self-aware creatures is astonishing in and of itself, but even more so in light of living in a universe/multiverse with forces of physics and natural principles, that churn the wheels making the arrival of such beings inevitable. And these beings are not just self-aware, they desire truth, goodness, and meaning, and purpose, they seek transcendence, have a sense that there’s something more to all of this, something sacred and deeper under the surface, etc…

This is not a question of any particular scientific fact, but something to be said of the facts themselves. That they scream purpose, that we are here for some reason, even if we’re not really aware of what that reason is. We seek it, even if we don’t find it.

What’s also interesting to me, is that you’re hard pressed to find atheists who attempt to explain such factors in a purposeless worldview, at best they can only muster the courage to say they lack a belief in it. And at worst they don’t understand the question being raised, with their own views seemingly contorted and confused themselves. You can sort see why the preferred view of those that are confused, is to lack belief, as their go to position.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(03-10-2016 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Can you not read? I have stated clearly that that is my position.
I have clearly stated my position.

Oh so it's not a lack of belief. You actually hold a series of positive beliefs here. That the universe is meaningless, etc..

You hold a contrary position which has the burden of proof as well. Okay then, present the evidence for it. Prove to me it's true.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2016, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 08:47 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(28-09-2016 06:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I've already quoted you both wikipedia and a philosophy basics article that points out to you that deism, panantheism etc. are all forms of theism.
...
Take this as a brief educational lesson, as learning something new. Hopefully you'll cease with your ignorance now that you've been properly instructed.

What I learned is you don't know how to spell panentheism let alone likely appreciate it's implications. Spinoza spits on your ignorance. Hopefully you'll cease with your ignorance now that you've been properly instructed.

(27-09-2016 08:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  God is also is a self-defined concept?

well duh. What else could it be?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-10-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(27-09-2016 08:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  Oh I see Tommy. You're saying you're a believer in the bucket god, because you believe in buckets and I just decided that buckets are divine.

To be fair, unlike gods buckets are useful.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-10-2016, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2016 09:07 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Probable, or Not. The 1000 flavors is boring me...
(27-09-2016 09:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm also curious about your personal definition of God, that excludes an impersonal life force, from being a God. Can you provide that personal definition?

Sure. See my avatar.

(27-09-2016 09:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If someone else defines God as an impersonal life force, while they may disagree with your personal definition, they wouldn't be wrong. And the person who believes in an impersonal life force, would be a theist, in this view. And he wouldn't be wrong in his assessment, because as your suggested it's a matter of personal preference.

Nope. That would be a deist. A theist believes not only that god/s created everything there is, it also manages it. A deist don't believe in the manages bit. Chas is right. How else would you describe a deist?

(27-09-2016 02:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You do realize that deism is a form of theism, just like pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, etc.. are forms of theism? Belief in any kind of "god/s" would constitute as theism.

Nope. See above.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: