What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 01:24 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(29-01-2014 09:59 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 09:51 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  So it's incorrect due to lack of focus on practical application?
I distinctly remember suggesting you to stick to the things I say in my posts. Consider

In any case, I never so much as hinted at the notion that a philosophy with no practical application is incorrect, I said that it has little merit to me because I'm a pragmatist.

I distinctly remember you saying:

"I assess the merit of a philosophy primarily based on its success in practical application."

I find it interesting when people say other philosophies have little merit. Perhaps my PM request to you was premature, as it stands currently I don't care whether you answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 01:50 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 01:24 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I distinctly remember you saying:

"I assess the merit of a philosophy primarily based on its success in practical application."

I find it interesting when people say other philosophies have little merit.
It looks to me like you are not only incapable of understanding the positions of others, but also of addressing them adequately in your responses.

In the very post you responded to, I explicitly stated that epistemological philosophies like rationalism have little merit to me, not that they have no merit to others or no merit in general.

Likewise, in the citation above, I explicitly pointed out that this is the criterion I choose for assessing the merit of a philosophy.

Neither of those statements give any credibility to the false notion that I think they are inaccurate.

(30-01-2014 01:24 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Perhaps my PM request to you was premature, as it stands currently I don't care whether you answer.
As you may or may not have noticed, I never had the intention of answering your request.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-01-2014, 02:01 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(29-01-2014 09:06 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 09:02 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  We are skeptical of theism because they, in a sense, have painted a target on their own back.

Because evidence works, Bitchez.

Making shit up doesn't work.

(30-01-2014 01:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 01:24 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I distinctly remember you saying:

"I assess the merit of a philosophy primarily based on its success in practical application."

I find it interesting when people say other philosophies have little merit.
It looks to me like you are not only incapable of understanding the positions of others, but also of addressing them adequately in your responses.

In the very post you responded to, I explicitly stated that epistemological philosophies like rationalism have little merit to me, not that they have no merit to others or no merit in general.

Likewise, in the citation above, I explicitly pointed out that this is the criterion I choose for assessing the merit of a philosophy.

Neither of those statements give any credibility to the false notion that I think they are inaccurate.

(30-01-2014 01:24 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Perhaps my PM request to you was premature, as it stands currently I don't care whether you answer.
As you may or may not have noticed, I never had the intention of answering your request.

If people are able to rationalise their position appropriately I can understand them. For example, Chippy, Tartarus Sauce, and Kestrel have rationalised their position sufficiently.

That you think a philosophy has little merit to you is interesting.

All you asserted is your belief that pragmatism is a correct approach to take. I don't care that it is if you can't even rationalise it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 02:19 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(29-01-2014 03:19 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you don't know what you're looking for
I'm not looking for anything lol Laughat

the burden of proof is one the one who is making the claim that a so&so God exists.
Quote:how can you claim it's lacking?
Well there is no solid evidence for a God so there's that.Drinking Beverage
Quote:Or do you lack belief that you can define what evidence is?
Why do i have define what God's evidence is going to be like? i simply don't know! that's why i'm an atheist lol

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 02:21 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 02:01 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If people are able to rationalise their position appropriately I can understand them. For example, Chippy, Tartarus Sauce, and Kestrel have rationalised their position sufficiently.

That you think a philosophy has little merit to you is interesting.

All you asserted is your belief that pragmatism is a correct approach to take. I don't care that it is if you can't even rationalise it.
Oh, but that is where you're wrong. I provided you with specific reasons to support my view that pragmatism is superior to other epistemological philosophies in some aspects. Not that I think you are qualified to make such an assessment in the first place.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-01-2014, 02:47 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 02:19 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 03:19 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you don't know what you're looking for
I'm not looking for anything lol Laughat

the burden of proof is one the one who is making the claim that a so&so God exists.
Quote:how can you claim it's lacking?
Well there is no solid evidence for a God so there's that.Drinking Beverage
Quote:Or do you lack belief that you can define what evidence is?
Why do i have define what God's evidence is going to be like? i simply don't know! that's why i'm an atheist lol

If you don't know what the evidence is, stating that the lack of evidence is an invalid premise, as you don't know what you're lacking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 02:53 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 02:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 02:01 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If people are able to rationalise their position appropriately I can understand them. For example, Chippy, Tartarus Sauce, and Kestrel have rationalised their position sufficiently.

That you think a philosophy has little merit to you is interesting.

All you asserted is your belief that pragmatism is a correct approach to take. I don't care that it is if you can't even rationalise it.
Oh, but that is where you're wrong. I provided you with specific reasons to support my view that pragmatism is superior to other epistemological philosophies in some aspects. Not that I think you are qualified to make such an assessment in the first place.

Such as in the practical application, how vague. I don't think anyone is in the position to assess a suitable epistemology for anyone else. Your comment implies otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 03:26 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 02:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Such as in the practical application, how vague.
You want me to be more specific? Very well then. The scientific method is an integral part of the philosophies I have mentioned earlier in this thread and it has proven itself to be the most effective tool we currently have for gathering knowledge about our universe in a reliable and objective manner. Every scientific discovery, every new invention, every technological development is further evidence to support the view that pragmatism, and with that, empiricism and methodological naturalism are useful in practical applications.

Of course, that is not to say that other epistemological philosophies don't have their own uses. Rationalism, for instance, can be useful in theoretical areas such as in mathematics.

(30-01-2014 02:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I don't think anyone is in the position to assess a suitable epistemology for anyone else.
As it happens, I have never attempted to do anything remotely similar. I have repeatedly stressed the point that I am merely stating my own assessment, in fact.

(30-01-2014 02:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Your comment implies otherwise.
No, it doesn't. You see, it's quite easy to make blanket assertions without ever substantiating them; anyone can do it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-01-2014, 04:24 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(30-01-2014 02:47 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  If you don't know what the evidence is,stating that the lack of evidence is an invalid premise
That's not an invalid premise -_- what's the evidence? some ancient books and some asinine superstitious myths? that's the best "evidence" i've encountered on the subject of GAWD.

Logic dictates that there is a lack of evidence for any God.

You're free to assume that God Exists and parrot nonsensical "personal testimonies" but that IS NOT evidence for God. that is bullshit and i can see right through that.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 04:31 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 04:41 AM by viole.)
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 11:36 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  This is a curiosity question. I've been having some interesting discussions with some people in these forums and the comment that I seem to get the most often is, "there is no proof of a creator's existence."

Now, first of all, I'm not using the term "God" as I have been advised that it is loaded. All I mean, by the term creator is some sort of "first cause" for the existence of the universe who created the universe purposefully (an "agent").

....'&c.

LFA,

I would probably pray: God I do not believe you exist, but if you do, change please the physical structure of my brain so that I believe you.

If that works, then I will believe him.

Joking aside, I was thinking about this. Probably, seeing all theists converging towards the same version of God in a very short time would make me doubt my unbelief.

Imagine reading on the news "100 millions of Muslims claimed last month to have seen the risen Christ during their Friday prayers".
Or "A billion of Christians, Muslims and Hindus turned last week to worship Zeus and erect temples to him, amid visions of him during meditation".

That would do, I think. It is actually also to be expected from a God who really wish to make himself known to humanity.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like viole's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: