Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Unfogged,

Real atheism, which means 'naturedidit' not Goddidit.


Quote:Sorry, your definition is not the only one and you aren't the arbiter of the language. I am an atheist because I do not accept the claim "a god exists". That's it. Everything else is only tangentially related at best.

Fine, is a dictionary a valid source to define a word?

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Irregardless of how you define atheism the upshot is if atheism is true we owe the existence of the universe and life to mindless forces that didn't intend life or the universe to exist. Or do you lack belief in that claim as well? We can compare that to whether the universe and life was caused intentionally by a personal intelligent agent commonly referred to as God.

Quote:Whereas theism claims that a conscious mind always existed or somehow bootstrapped itself into existence and deliberately created the universe we see.

Some theists do for sure. I'm not making any claims about the nature of God, that's for theologians to do.

Quote:Besides, if life and sentience are produced naturally then they are not utterly unlike their source. Your incredulity is showing.

The only known repeatable observable source of life and sentience is life and sentience. Its alleged by atheists that life and sentience arose from non-life and non-sentience.

Quote:What is the effective difference between magic and supernatural causation? How do you distinguish one from the other? And it is an extraordinary claim, pretty much by definition.

The fact of our existence and the existence of the universe is an extraordinary event it shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is in order. From our frame of reference a transcendent being would be considered magical just as I mentioned our technology of today would appear magical to folks from 200 years ago. But you don't consider today's technology to be magical correct?

Quote:Theists are the ones who refuse to accept that perhaps these things happened without supernatural intervention.

Not at all. Again the notion a Creator caused our universe to exist is only supernatural from our frame of reference. I don't reject the notion its natural mechanistic causes all the way down, I see it as the second best explanation.

If we were to find life on some other planet or moon I think that would be a feather in atheists cap. If the theory of everything pans out. If scientists can actually replicate the way they say life occurred, if scientists can demonstrate this is one of a huge number of variable universes. Those things which might happen in my life time would be good arguments in favor of atheism.

Quote:So you are saying that until you are shown natural causes for things we don't currently know you will continue to assume supernatural ones. How is this not a god of the gaps argument again?

I'm appealing to facts we do know. Of the 5 facts I cited in favor of theism not one atheist has denied they are facts. If new facts come to life shouldn't that be reason for me to re-evaluate my claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
ar·cha·ic
ärˈkāik/Submit
adjective
very old or old-fashioned.
"prisons are run on archaic methods"
synonyms: obsolete, out of date, old-fashioned, outmoded, behind the times, bygone, anachronistic, antiquated, superannuated, antediluvian, old world, old-fangled; More
(of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor.
of an early period of art or culture, especially the 7th–6th centuries BC in Greece.
"the archaic temple at Corinth"

Yep, the dictionary is your friend.

pro tip - look at the definitions that aren't archaic

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
25-07-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Stating a fact doesn't justify anyone conclusion in any direction. It's merely a fact unconnected and doesn't mean much.

You don't actually know what is extraordinary if your data is limited. The facts don't always add up to answers. You have to accept that you can't always get answers from the certain amount of facts you have.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 11:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I still can't get over that this Theist has the balls to say they were banned because atheists censor their opponents. The people on that forum were QUITE clear about the reasons for the banning, after numerous warnings. Again, I recommend everyone go to the link I provided and see the discourse for themselves before engaging Drew in any kind of discussion, so you can see the dishonest tactics he is willing to employ.

While I think anyone who is reasonable and honest and really trying to have a meaningful discussion should be debated freely, and that's indeed one of my favorite pastimes, this individual theist is only here to use smarmy "lawyer-tactics" and ignore everything that shows the argument is illogical or ill-founded, if it would fool a layperson because the counter-rhetoric required to debunk it is too complex. I'm not saying don't engage it, but please, please familiarize yourself with his tactics before engaging.

Rocket,

I'm not doing anything differently in this forum than I did in that forum. Am I doing anything in here that calls to be banned from this forum? That forum I was on doesn't tolerate dissent, hopefully this one encourages dissent and debate and freethinking. If not I'll be banned from here also...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 01:11 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Unfogged,

Real atheism, which means 'naturedidit' not Goddidit.


Quote:Sorry, your definition is not the only one and you aren't the arbiter of the language. I am an atheist because I do not accept the claim "a god exists". That's it. Everything else is only tangentially related at best.

Fine, is a dictionary a valid source to define a word?

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Irregardless of how you define atheism the upshot is if atheism is true we owe the existence of the universe and life to mindless forces that didn't intend life or the universe to exist. Or do you lack belief in that claim as well? We can compare that to whether the universe and life was caused intentionally by a personal intelligent agent commonly referred to as God.

Quote:Whereas theism claims that a conscious mind always existed or somehow bootstrapped itself into existence and deliberately created the universe we see.

Some theists do for sure. I'm not making any claims about the nature of God, that's for theologians to do.

Quote:Besides, if life and sentience are produced naturally then they are not utterly unlike their source. Your incredulity is showing.

The only known repeatable observable source of life and sentience is life and sentience. Its alleged by atheists that life and sentience arose from non-life and non-sentience.

Quote:What is the effective difference between magic and supernatural causation? How do you distinguish one from the other? And it is an extraordinary claim, pretty much by definition.

The fact of our existence and the existence of the universe is an extraordinary event it shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is in order. From our frame of reference a transcendent being would be considered magical just as I mentioned our technology of today would appear magical to folks from 200 years ago. But you don't consider today's technology to be magical correct?

Quote:Theists are the ones who refuse to accept that perhaps these things happened without supernatural intervention.

Not at all. Again the notion a Creator caused our universe to exist is only supernatural from our frame of reference. I don't reject the notion its natural mechanistic causes all the way down, I see it as the second best explanation.

If we were to find life on some other planet or moon I think that would be a feather in atheists cap. If the theory of everything pans out. If scientists can actually replicate the way they say life occurred, if scientists can demonstrate this is one of a huge number of variable universes. Those things which might happen in my life time would be good arguments in favor of atheism.

Quote:So you are saying that until you are shown natural causes for things we don't currently know you will continue to assume supernatural ones. How is this not a god of the gaps argument again?

I'm appealing to facts we do know. Of the 5 facts I cited in favor of theism not one atheist has denied they are facts. If new facts come to life shouldn't that be reason for me to re-evaluate my claim?

You mention that the Creator is only supernatural to our way of thinking. But there have been many "creators" or "gods" from all kinds of religions throughout time (and new religions being created every day). How do we know which creator is the right supernatural being to be following? All religions have "plausible" supernatural creation claims if you are willing to forgo reality.

You also mention that it is not your job to try and figure out the true nature of God. However, if the Bible was truly inspired by God--don't you think God's true nature would be easy for anyone to figure out (without the use of theologians)? Especially since God makes it clear that He does not like false prophets. It would seem humans deciphering God's Word for the masses could breed false prophets.

Why would God want anyone deciphering His Word when He could just tell us himself? Why would God do the whole Tower of Babel thing (confounding of language) which makes it even HARDER to figure out His Word since we now need to translate His Word across numerous cultures?

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2015 01:15 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Irregardless of how you define atheism the upshot is if atheism is true we owe the existence of the universe and life to mindless forces that didn't intend life or the universe to exist.

The 4 fundamental forces are incapable of intention. They behave deterministically and are entirely predictable. No intent necessary. And yes this does imply that we find ourselves in this strange place purely by accident and happenstance. Don't bother me none.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
25-07-2015, 01:20 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2015 01:23 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Irregardless of how you define atheism the upshot is if atheism is true we owe the existence of the universe and life to mindless forces that didn't intend life or the universe to exist. Or do you lack belief in that claim as well? We can compare that to whether the universe and life was caused intentionally by a personal intelligent agent commonly referred to as God.

Irregardless is not a word.

Everything we observe to happen, and I mean everything, has proven to be explainable by natural, mindless forces, except that the actions of living beings are by definition "by mind", even though those minds themselves are operating by mindless forces. Our brains are biological computers, not transcendent supernatural effects. That's why The Human Brain Project is mapping this computer, so we understand it better.

The universe works by mindless chaos, ordered by the laws of physics, which cause chemistry to happen, which causes biology to happen, which causes what you call "mind" to happen. There is nothing anywhere in there, in anything I said above, or in anything with which I am familiar, which suggests or requires a transcendent, supernatural explanation.

Quote:The only known repeatable observable source of life and sentience is life and sentience. Its alleged by atheists that life and sentience arose from non-life and non-sentience.

It is also alleged by Theists who are scientists; they simply think that everything natural, which occurred after the First Mover set up the parameters for the universe's phyiscal laws, was part of the intent of God for our natural world. If you were arguing from this basis, maybe you would have a basis for a conclusion of Theistic Deism, but anything beyond that is your own invention, and is a "god of the gaps" argument, whether you want to claim the term or not. Life-making-life remains a 100% natural, physical phenomenon, just like every other natural, physical phenomenon we observe.

No amount of rhetoric on your part can change that fact without a special pleading, "Sure, everything ELSE is natural, but what about this one we haven't fully solved yet?" You've repeatedly tried to shift the burden of proof to us, to say "Since you haven't explained 100% of this phenomenon, how can you say it's not magic?" But we don't have one single reason to suspect that magic exists in your special pleading, where it is found nowhere else, and doesn't even seem likely to be required-- what about abiogenesis is it that you find requires intervention by the Deity reaching down to "meddle in the universe", so to speak?

Quote:The fact of our existence and the existence of the universe is an extraordinary event it shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is in order. From our frame of reference a transcendent being would be considered magical just as I mentioned our technology of today would appear magical to folks from 200 years ago. But you don't consider today's technology to be magical correct?

You said it yourself: appear magical. We might have thought it was magic, once upon a time, but now we know better, like we now know that Germ Theory says disease is caused by germs, not by magic, so there's no longer a need to "bless" our food to hope the invisible spirits within don't poison us. So even if we saw technologies or powers that we didn't recognize/understand, there'd be no reason now to suppose it was magic. That's the rise of rationality in the human race via the Scientific Method.

Quote:Not at all. Again the notion a Creator caused our universe to exist is only supernatural from our frame of reference. I don't reject the notion its natural mechanistic causes all the way down, I see it as the second best explanation.

You're welcome to see it that way, but there's no reason to jump to a special pleading that supposes some other force is at work, when it is not required at all the other places we have managed to exclude the prior supernatural explanations.

Quote:If we were to find life on some other planet or moon I think that would be a feather in atheists cap. If the theory of everything pans out. If scientists can actually replicate the way they say life occurred, if scientists can demonstrate this is one of a huge number of variable universes. Those things which might happen in my life time would be good arguments in favor of atheism.

Actually, none of those things would be proof for atheism, since the same arguments now saying "Goddidit" would apply equally to those things. That's what makes your argument a "God of the Gaps" argument, since God disappears in your argument once the holes in knowledge are filled in.

Quote:I'm appealing to facts we do know. Of the 5 facts I cited in favor of theism not one atheist has denied they are facts. If new facts come to life shouldn't that be reason for me to re-evaluate my claim?

They don't get to be called "facts" simply because you call them that. They are jumped-to conclusions of special pleading. Many of those conclusions are baseless or simply wrong, as the previous posters (and the ones at the other forum) have pointed out to you time and again.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-07-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 01:20 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Irregardless of how you define atheism the upshot is if atheism is true we owe the existence of the universe and life to mindless forces that didn't intend life or the universe to exist. Or do you lack belief in that claim as well? We can compare that to whether the universe and life was caused intentionally by a personal intelligent agent commonly referred to as God.

Irregardless is not a word.

Everything we observe to happen, and I mean everything, has proven to be explainable by natural, mindless forces, except that the actions of living beings are by definition "by mind", even though those minds themselves are operating by mindless forces. Our brains are biological computers, not transcendent supernatural effects. That's why The Human Brain Project is mapping this computer, so we understand it better.

The universe works by mindless chaos, ordered by the laws of physics, which cause chemistry to happen, which causes biology to happen, which causes what you call "mind" to happen. There is nothing anywhere in there, in anything I said above, or in anything with which I am familiar, which suggests or requires a transcendent, supernatural explanation.

Quote:The only known repeatable observable source of life and sentience is life and sentience. Its alleged by atheists that life and sentience arose from non-life and non-sentience.

It is also alleged by Theists who are scientists; they simply think that everything natural, which occurred after the First Mover set up the parameters for the universe's phyiscal laws, was part of the intent of God for our natural world. If you were arguing from this basis, maybe you would have a basis for a conclusion of Theistic Deism, but anything beyond that is your own invention, and is a "god of the gaps" argument, whether you want to claim the term or not. Life-making-life remains a 100% natural, physical phenomenon, just like every other natural, physical phenomenon we observe.

No amount of rhetoric on your part can change that fact without a special pleading, "Sure, everything ELSE is natural, but what about this one we haven't fully solved yet?" You've repeatedly tried to shift the burden of proof to us, to say "Since you haven't explained 100% of this phenomenon, how can you say it's not magic?" But we don't have one single reason to suspect that magic exists in your special pleading, where it is found nowhere else, and doesn't even seem likely to be required-- what about abiogenesis is it that you find requires intervention by the Deity reaching down to "meddle in the universe", so to speak?

Quote:The fact of our existence and the existence of the universe is an extraordinary event it shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is in order. From our frame of reference a transcendent being would be considered magical just as I mentioned our technology of today would appear magical to folks from 200 years ago. But you don't consider today's technology to be magical correct?

You said it yourself: appear magical. We might have thought it was magic, once upon a time, but now we know better, like we now know that Germ Theory says disease is caused by germs, not by magic, so there's no longer a need to "bless" our food to hope the invisible spirits within don't poison us. So even if we saw technologies or powers that we didn't recognize/understand, there'd be no reason now to suppose it was magic. That's the rise of rationality in the human race via the Scientific Method.

Quote:Not at all. Again the notion a Creator caused our universe to exist is only supernatural from our frame of reference. I don't reject the notion its natural mechanistic causes all the way down, I see it as the second best explanation.

You're welcome to see it that way, but there's no reason to jump to a special pleading that supposes some other force is at work, when it is not required at all the other places we have managed to exclude the prior supernatural explanations.

Quote:If we were to find life on some other planet or moon I think that would be a feather in atheists cap. If the theory of everything pans out. If scientists can actually replicate the way they say life occurred, if scientists can demonstrate this is one of a huge number of variable universes. Those things which might happen in my life time would be good arguments in favor of atheism.

Actually, none of those things would be proof for atheism, since the same arguments now saying "Goddidit" would apply equally to those things. That's what makes your argument a "God of the Gaps" argument, since God disappears in your argument once the holes in knowledge are filled in.

Quote:I'm appealing to facts we do know. Of the 5 facts I cited in favor of theism not one atheist has denied they are facts. If new facts come to life shouldn't that be reason for me to re-evaluate my claim?

They don't get to be called "facts" simply because you call them that. They are jumped-to conclusions of special pleading. Many of those conclusions are baseless or simply wrong, as the previous posters (and the ones at the other forum) have pointed out to you time and again.

Irregardless, your post was fucking awesome Big Grin

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like jennybee's post
25-07-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 11:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When you get old enough, and mommy lets you out of the basement to go to school, you may take a Logic course, and learn that a negative cannot be proven.

It can be proven under a Closed-world assumption.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 01:06 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I'm not doing anything differently in this forum than I did in that forum. Am I doing anything in here that calls to be banned from this forum? That forum I was on doesn't tolerate dissent, hopefully this one encourages dissent and debate and freethinking. If not I'll be banned from here also...

You'll be okay here as long as you don't go full-blown asshole.

#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: