Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2010, 07:07 AM
 
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(08-11-2010 09:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 2buckchuck.

I will not be the butt of your jokes.

Why not?
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 07:17 AM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(09-11-2010 07:07 AM)2buckchuck Wrote:  
(08-11-2010 09:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 2buckchuck.

I will not be the butt of your jokes.

Why not?

Why are you being a dick?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 07:30 AM
 
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(08-11-2010 07:41 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Of course we're only alluding to scientifically verifiable knowledge here. If you call collated information knowledge then this is precisely what religion is based upon. What the discussion here (and on other threads) is proving is that scientific knowledge is wholly ineffective when considering the subject. Agnosticism (theistic or atheistic) recognises that fact.

What specifically do you mean by "collated knowledge"?

How do you propose to define "scientific verifiability"?

I believe that the statement made regarding the ineffectiveness of scientific knowledge is hyperbolic in the extreme. I take it by this exaggerated claim that the only standard you choose to accept is 'absolute proof' regarding one position or the other. We have discussed this at some length here, and I've tried my best to suggest that:

(1) Proving a general negative is logically impossible, so the burden of proof necessarily lies with believers, not nonbelievers. They have failed to provide any credible evidence to bolster their belief.
(2) Science in general does not deal in 'absolute proof' at all - scientific understanding is always provisional, and inevitably based on whatever evidence is available. New evidence can alter scientific understanding.
(3) Scientific evidence, in some instances, can be so compelling that although absolute proof is always impossible, we can logically behave as if such 'proof' has been established thoroughly (e.g. the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, etc.)
(4) The absence of any credible historical evidence for much of the content of the 'sacred' texts, examination of 'sacred' religious documents revealing logical inconsistencies and contradictions within those texts and their human (rather than divine) origins, and the extended absence (at least 2000 years) of any tangible evidence that comes close to credibility for establishing the existence of 'god' provide a strong scientific basis for rejecting the 'god hypotheses' embodied in Abrahamic documents.
(5) The continuing exorcism by science of the 'god of the gaps'.

This is not absolute proof, of course, but it makes a strong case, nevertheless. Thus, to say it is 'wholly ineffective' is simply not correct.
(09-11-2010 07:17 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(09-11-2010 07:07 AM)2buckchuck Wrote:  
(08-11-2010 09:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 2buckchuck.

I will not be the butt of your jokes.

Why not?

Why are you being a dick?

When are you going to stop beating your wife?
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 01:24 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Hey 2buckchuck

Collated knowledge = take the bible for xtianity

Ghost has already quite eloquently made the argument pointing out the futility of using the scientific method when examining a supernatural subject. I can't do it as well as he does, so I'll let his explanation stand. Kudos to you Ghost/ Matt.

1. The BOP lies with anyone that makes the claim, and not just believers, as discussed.
4. Religion doesn't address the problem of the existence of God. This is a materialist pursuit and irrelevant to religion.
5. "The God of the Gaps" isn't a god of religion

Wholly ineffective is pretty bang on the nail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 02:26 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(09-11-2010 01:24 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  4. Religion doesn't address the problem of the existence of God. This is a materialist pursuit and irrelevant to religion.

So religion doesn't care whether or not its central claim is true?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 03:04 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Religion cannot know if it's central claim is true. The point is the choice to believe. Without choice there would be no religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 03:19 PM
 
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(09-11-2010 01:24 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Hey 2buckchuck

Collated knowledge = take the bible for xtianity

Ghost has already quite eloquently made the argument pointing out the futility of using the scientific method when examining a supernatural subject. I can't do it as well as he does, so I'll let his explanation stand. Kudos to you Ghost/ Matt.

1. The BOP lies with anyone that makes the claim, and not just believers, as discussed.

Says you.

(09-11-2010 01:24 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  4. Religion doesn't address the problem of the existence of God. This is a materialist pursuit and irrelevant to religion.

Interesting viewpoint ... but ... likely that of a small minority of religious people.

(09-11-2010 01:24 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  5. "The God of the Gaps" isn't a god of religion

Wholly ineffective is pretty bang on the nail.

You're entitled to your opinion ... odd though it might be.
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 03:58 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Says logic

A small minority - the mainstream Christian church

An appeal to popularity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 04:30 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(09-11-2010 07:30 AM)2buckchuck Wrote:  
(08-11-2010 09:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, 2buckchuck.

I will not be the butt of your jokes.

Why not?

Why are you being a dick?
[/quote]

When are you going to stop beating your wife?
[/quote]

I misspoke. You're not being a dick after all. Turns out you're being an outright asshole. My comment was directed at the fact that you seem to enjoy "picking on" Ghost, for lack of a better term. (Not that I feel he needs defending) Disagree with him as much as you like, but what are you accomplishing by being obnoxious?
I get your whole, "you made a random insult towards me, so it's ok if I do it back" thing, but my comment wasn't random. Intentionally being obnoxious to someone is acting like a dick. That's exactly what you are doing. I guess it threw me, since I thought you were bigger than that. Saying I beat my wife (even if it was simply a joke in extremely poor taste) elevates you to asshole status in my book.

Grow up.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 05:26 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(09-11-2010 03:04 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Religion cannot know if it's central claim is true. The point is the choice to believe. Without choice there would be no religion.

So that's a "yes", then?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: