The Atheist cop out
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:49 PM)Isserus Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:39 PM)amyb Wrote:  I posted the link because I thought it might clear up your misunderstandings of atheism and agnosticism; you seem to think atheism is a "belief." It is a lack of belief in deities. It doesn't have to provide alternatives to anything.

A/gnosticism is a claim of knowledge or no knowledge. A/theism is a statement of whether or not a person believes in deities. Most atheists are not gnostic atheists. Richard Dawkins is not, for example.

As an atheist, I lack belief in gods. That's different from "there is no god." I find deities to be highly unlikely, but if I was presented with evidence, I could change my mind.
Atheism very much is a belief, friend. "It" might not have to provide alternatives but atheism is a belief within a person, it is not the whole person. you as a person, as a rational thinker are less obligated...how?

Atheism is NO belief. Less obligated to .... what?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:36 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Too much side stepping, never cared for the agnostic labels (which is just a technicality). I know for a fact there are no gods. I use "fact" and "god" as it's commonly used.

I know for a fact similarly in the way I know for a fact that a magical dragon isn't sitting on my lawn or anywhere else. The claims of such don't hold up to evidence and reason, and claims that indirectly relate to disclaiming magical dragons do hold up to evidence and reason.

I rather dislike most of these labels. You cannot use fact when saying there is no god, because you cannot fully disprove them. Not having the ability to do this, as i'm sure you know, is not your obligation. But still, you cannot say it's a fact.

Also...the ori are not gods...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:53 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:49 PM)Isserus Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:39 PM)amyb Wrote:  I posted the link because I thought it might clear up your misunderstandings of atheism and agnosticism; you seem to think atheism is a "belief." It is a lack of belief in deities. It doesn't have to provide alternatives to anything.

A/gnosticism is a claim of knowledge or no knowledge. A/theism is a statement of whether or not a person believes in deities. Most atheists are not gnostic atheists. Richard Dawkins is not, for example.

As an atheist, I lack belief in gods. That's different from "there is no god." I find deities to be highly unlikely, but if I was presented with evidence, I could change my mind.
Atheism very much is a belief, friend. "It" might not have to provide alternatives but atheism is a belief within a person, it is not the whole person. you as a person, as a rational thinker are less obligated...how?

Are you going to continue to be dense and ignore everything posted here? Your initial question has been answered a couple of times now and yet you are still acting as though you were attacked upon arrival. You began by making sweeping generalisations and are continuing in those generalisations even after more than 1 person has explained the deference between what you are claiming (a strawman) and what reality is.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:49 PM)Isserus Wrote:  Atheism very much is a belief, friend. "It" might not have to provide alternatives but atheism is a belief within a person, it is not the whole person. you as a person, as a rational thinker are less obligated...how?

Atheism is NO belief. Less obligated to .... what?

to provide some kind of alternative theory
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
Are you advocating for a "God of the gaps"?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:54 PM)Isserus Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:52 PM)Dom Wrote:  Atheism is NO belief. Less obligated to .... what?

to provide some kind of alternative theory

Why provide a theory if it can't be tested? Kind of pointless, no? And you didn't answer my other post. I'd be interested in what you say.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:53 PM)Isserus Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:36 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Too much side stepping, never cared for the agnostic labels (which is just a technicality). I know for a fact there are no gods. I use "fact" and "god" as it's commonly used.

I know for a fact similarly in the way I know for a fact that a magical dragon isn't sitting on my lawn or anywhere else. The claims of such don't hold up to evidence and reason, and claims that indirectly relate to disclaiming magical dragons do hold up to evidence and reason.

I rather dislike most of these labels. You cannot use fact when saying there is no god, because you cannot fully disprove them. Not having the ability to do this, as i'm sure you know, is not your obligation. But still, you cannot say it's a fact.

Also...the ori are not gods...

You are in error sir.

Our senses are receivers of things from the external world. Thus we can only prove positive claims. We can show the object we call a can to a person, and that person can psychically experience it. However you can not provide an object that proves cans do not exist. Because of this we prove positive claims and reject all those with out evidence.

Now how do you prove something in the negative if you cannot produce evidence in the negative? Two ways..

You investigate the world until everything is explained.

Or you look at these ideas logically, and due to the law of noncontradiction we can say that logically god as a concept is invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:49 PM)Isserus Wrote:  Atheism very much is a belief, friend. "It" might not have to provide alternatives but atheism is a belief within a person, it is not the whole person. you as a person, as a rational thinker are less obligated...how?

It is a lack of belief in god. That is not a belief. The burden of proof is on the person making extraordinary claims (in this case, god(s) exist(s)).

and no, I don't see any need to provide an alternative theory. Atheism is "lack of belief in god(s)." That's all it is. Atheists are under no personal obligation to provide anything. If they don't know how the universe came to be, it's okay to say "I don't know how the universe came to be." And scientists will look for answers, but that's not out of any perceived obligation, it's scientific curiosity.

Quote:Are you going to continue to be dense and ignore everything posted here? Your initial question has been answered a couple of times now and yet you are still acting as though you were attacked upon arrival. You began by making sweeping generalisations and are continuing in those generalisations even after more than 1 person has explained the deference between what you are claiming (a strawman) and what reality is.
No, I'm not ignoring and I'm not acting as though attacked, that would be you... I did not make any generalizations, I just attempted to explain what atheism and agnosticism are, and that neither of these things automatically obligates a person to make an alternative theory of anything. But you're obviously a troll, so I'm done here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like amyb's post
12-05-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 03:56 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Are you advocating for a "God of the gaps"?

I'm only advocating for possibilities and trying to debunk what i see as suborn conclusions, when no one can know for sure. god of the gaps? Maybe, sure.

But more accuracy, more specifically, I'm(as i have been from the start) making the case that even if one was to hold to the belief that there is no particular god(s) as described by current religion, isn't some answer still left over? Isn't the atheist still obligated to provide an answer of some kind? And if so(which i believe), couldn't the possible answer to that big question be related to an extra-dimensional being of some kind? Known or unknown? I'm not trying to pivot, rather, i'm trying to not be held down by the traditional framework of what we currently know of gods.

It feels like i'm going a bit in circles, and i think it's because i am. So i do apologize. I'm making the point that how can one say that their atheism excuses them from the obligation of answering that question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: The Atheist cop out
(12-05-2013 04:02 PM)amyb Wrote:  
(12-05-2013 03:49 PM)Isserus Wrote:  Atheism very much is a belief, friend. "It" might not have to provide alternatives but atheism is a belief within a person, it is not the whole person. you as a person, as a rational thinker are less obligated...how?

It is a lack of belief in god. That is not a belief. The burden of proof is on the person making extraordinary claims (in this case, god(s) exist(s)).

and no, I don't see any need to provide an alternative theory. Atheism is "lack of belief in god(s)." That's all it is. Atheists are under no personal obligation to provide anything. If they don't know how the universe came to be, it's okay to say "I don't know how the universe came to be." And scientists will look for answers, but that's not out of any perceived obligation, it's scientific curiosity.

Quote:Are you going to continue to be dense and ignore everything posted here? Your initial question has been answered a couple of times now and yet you are still acting as though you were attacked upon arrival. You began by making sweeping generalisations and are continuing in those generalisations even after more than 1 person has explained the deference between what you are claiming (a strawman) and what reality is.
No, I'm not ignoring and I'm not acting as though attacked, that would be you... I did not make any generalizations, I just attempted to explain what atheism and agnosticism are, and that neither of these things automatically obligates a person to make an alternative theory of anything. But you're obviously a troll, so I'm done here.

Yes, I'm a troll so please stiff arm me further and don't waste your time with the likes of me. I'll continue to wait for other beasts, like myself, to engage me. Once again, as i've tried to say from the start, i'm asking how atheism excuses any person from having to answer the big question. because, if it doesn't, then you don't know, just like the rest of us, making the title of atheism seem rather pointless. that was my contention.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: