Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2010, 12:27 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Funny BnW. I think you 'ran out of time' last time too! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 05:01 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Hey, ThinkingNorseman.

Quote:Ghost Wrote:
Fourth question: If you encountered a people whose beliefs were based entirely on things that you knew were demonstrably false but their society was a model of harmony, within the group, with other groups and with the rest of the planet, what would your opinion of them and or their beliefs be?

I would pity their ignorance and be envious of their society. But where would you find such a community? And what belief system would work like that?

Why the pity?

As for where and what belief system, you could have found such a thing with pretty much every single aboriginal people that the Europeans encountered then promptly enslaved, assimilated, crammed into reservations or wiped out because they felt their way of life was better and that the aboriginals were pitiable and needed to be saved from their ignorance or that they were so lesser that it was fine to enslave and kill them.

Personally, for the record, I have a fundamental issue with anyone that says another people are lesser. I'm not accusing you of that, just sayin.

Hey, No J.

Quote:I would disagree with them, but I wouldn't have a problem with them because they wouldn't be pushing their beliefs on others, changing the science and history curriculums in schools, waging holy wars, pushing their views through the government, indoctorinating children, creating prejudices, murdering and assaulting non-believers etc.

Genral statement: Life is not a zero sum game. Anyone who makes it so deserves contempt.

While there are absolutely religious people that do the things you mention, there are secular counterparts that do the same. But it will take people to say, "no, this isn't zero sum, I will turn the other cheek when you slap me and we will find a way to live together." We don't need anyone else saying, "we gotta get them before they get us."

Hey, BnW.

Quote:Personally, I have no idea. I think this question is impossible to answer, too. Why are they this way? Is it because of their beliefs, in spite of their beliefs or does it have nothing to do with their beliefs? Do they repress the rights of individuals to maintain their society? I just don't know how to tackle this question as it's written.

They are that way, as stated, because of their beliefs; beliefs that you know to be demonstrably false.

I'll try again. What would your opinion be of a harmonious people who's entire culture was based on demonstrably false ideas?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2010 05:11 PM by BnW.)
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 12:27 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Funny BnW. I think you 'ran out of time' last time too! Big Grin

Wrong again. Seems to be a pattern.

I found where you posted the link and I found where I posted one link in rebuttal but I'm still looking for where I responded to the book in particular. I'll look again after dinner.

To be continued.

Ghost

Quote:I'll try again. What would your opinion be of a harmonious people who's entire culture was based on demonstrably false ideas?

Pity? Apathy? I've no idea. I live in the real world. I can deal with hypotheticals to a point, but not one so far fetched an idea. No thriving society can be entirely based on false ideas and if some ideas are true then it is impossible to say why they are harmonious. Maybe it's because of their belief in god or maybe it's because they lack natural resources that anyone would attack them to get or maybe some other reason.

Sorry, I'm happy to play along on some of these but this one just does not work for me.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 05:39 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Hey, BnW.

So don't waste my time. If you can't answer the question, then don't in the first place.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 05:51 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 05:39 PM)Ghost Wrote:  So don't waste my time. If you can't answer the question, then don't in the first place.

I think this is a little unfair. BnW did answer your question. His answer was that he doesn't think that such a society is possible.

"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
15-12-2010, 05:52 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Hey BnW

Here's the book: http://tinyurl.com/23d7vya

Your summation is way off the mark, so I can't see how it relates. Over to you tho'.

(12-12-2010 03:14 PM)Ghost Wrote:  ON EDIT: Fourth question: If you encountered a people whose beliefs were based entirely on things that you knew were demonstrably false but their society was a model of harmony, within the group, with other groups and with the rest of the planet, what would your opinion of them and or their beliefs be?
Can I play?

Thanks for the question...

I'd struggle to understand how they arrived at their beliefs, trying to live in harmony with them the best I could. I need to know how people tick, and work on the understanding that people act on justification.

It'd be like tying a cymbal to my scratching hand, and then giving me an irresistible itch on my forehead. In the end I'd probably learn to quietly accept it Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 06:02 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(14-12-2010 07:53 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  I didn't insult him.. I was attacking his position. Like I said.

If "I'll be waiting when you decide to be an adult" is "attacking your position", then I'm the Queen of Pluto.

Quote:Yes I have presented very thorough evidence, which you chose to completely ignore. There is no "assumption". You should check the evidence. There is detailed and very well backed up evidence.

You have presented none. Saying that you haven't doesn't change this. If you have presented any evidence at all, link to the post in question.

Quote:The 'truth' of the bible never concerns scientific fact. A lot of it is based on supposed historical event

Which means it concerns scientific fact. Your two sentences are contradictory.

Quote:I certainly don't believe that the creation story is literal at all.

And you have no evidence supporting your belief that it is allegory rather than a "historical" account.

Quote:It's like I think of the big bang theory... it fits with the evidence and and we can think around that.

The Genesis account does not fit with the evidence. Neither does the parting of the Red Sea, the Noachian flood, the collapse of the walls of Jericho, or anything else that I listed.

Quote:If you're calling the bible 'false' because you don't think the world was ever completely flooded, for example, then you should re-check your perspective and try to understand what is really being said, rather than what you know can be dismissed scientifically, but stands allegorically.

Except that there is absolutely no reason to think that it is allegory rather than a "historical" account. You still haven't presented any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that it is allegorical.

Quote:That's not to say that the literal interpretation has to be dismissed. The supernatural by it's very nature lies outside the scope of science. We have no evidence of a bush which infinitely burns. We could suppose many phenomena which might naturally bring about such an event. But if it were genuinely a supernatural event then there should be no explanation.

Even if there can be no explanation, you still need evidence that it happened, or you're doing nothing but asserting with no evidence. We've been over this before.

Quote:Of course this frustrates scientific enquiry, if it didn't, like with many scientific debunks of phoney spiritualist claims, then science has proven those claims to be false.

Yep. But disproving something scientifically is not the only way to show that it is false - or, at the very least, entirely baseless. All your claims about the Bible and your god entirely fail to meet the burden of proof. Thus, we dismiss them as false until you can meet that burden.

Quote:By "you" I meant this site (regarding the creation accounts).

TTA does not post here. No one on this forum is directly associated with TTA. Do not assume that we all agree with what he says. In many cases, we do, but this is not always true. I will withdraw my accusation of strawmanning, but try to be more clear.

Quote:Those reasons for people not spotting the differences are very unconvincing.

Well, they wouldn't be, because I didn't give reasons that people didn't spot the contradiction. I said that people might spot the problem and not care or prefer to attempt post hoc rationalizations.

Quote:It's obvious to anyone reading your obsession with hurling insults.

I haven't insulted you. Stop lying.

"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
15-12-2010, 06:38 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If "I'll be waiting when you decide to be an adult" is "attacking your position", then I'm the Queen of Pluto.
My queen *bows* Wink

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Yes I have presented very thorough evidence, which you chose to completely ignore. There is no "assumption". You should check the evidence. There is detailed and very well backed up evidence.
You have presented none. Saying that you haven't doesn't change this. If you have presented any evidence at all, link to the post in question.
Yes I did. See the book link above that I've posted a few times now. It's a very thorough and well backed up piece on the subject.

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The 'truth' of the bible never concerns scientific fact. A lot of it is based on supposed historical event
Which means it concerns scientific fact. Your two sentences are contradictory.
'a lot' is not 'everything' - so it's not contradictory.

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I certainly don't believe that the creation story is literal at all.
And you have no evidence supporting your belief that it is allegory rather than a "historical" account.
I do. See the book: http://tinyurl.com/23d7vya

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's like I think of the big bang theory... it fits with the evidence and and we can think around that.
The Genesis account does not fit with the evidence.
It's not scientific knowledge, it's allegorical. See the book.

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:If you're calling the bible 'false' because you don't think the world was ever completely flooded, for example, then you should re-check your perspective and try to understand what is really being said, rather than what you know can be dismissed scientifically, but stands allegorically.
Except that there is absolutely no reason to think that it is allegory rather than a "historical" account. You still haven't presented any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that it is allegorical.
See the book

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:That's not to say that the literal interpretation has to be dismissed. The supernatural by it's very nature lies outside the scope of science. We have no evidence of a bush which infinitely burns. We could suppose many phenomena which might naturally bring about such an event. But if it were genuinely a supernatural event then there should be no explanation.
Even if there can be no explanation, you still need evidence that it happened, or you're doing nothing but asserting with no evidence. We've been over this before.
The bible references actual things. We don't question those because they are beyond question. Things that don't exist now we question.

Say we take the creation story as a claim (I'm not claiming it, just supposing). We have this reality as evidence of it. So you have the evidence, and suppose its origin. Is that not the same thing?

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Of course this frustrates scientific enquiry, if it didn't, like with many scientific debunks of phoney spiritualist claims, then science has proven those claims to be false.
Yep. But disproving something scientifically is not the only way to show that it is false - or, at the very least, entirely baseless. All your claims about the Bible and your god entirely fail to meet the burden of proof. Thus, we dismiss them as false until you can meet that burden.
None of my claims meet the burden of proof because they don't invoke it. If you can show me how they do, I will gladly oblige.

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:By "you" I meant this site (regarding the creation accounts).
TTA does not post here. No one on this forum is directly associated with TTA. Do not assume that we all agree with what he says. In many cases, we do, but this is not always true. I will withdraw my accusation of strawmanning, but try to be more clear.
Gratz. Thanks for the info.

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Those reasons for people not spotting the differences are very unconvincing.
Well, they wouldn't be, because I didn't give reasons that people didn't spot the contradiction. I said that people might spot the problem and not care or prefer to attempt post hoc rationalizations.
Fair enough.

(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's obvious to anyone reading your obsession with hurling insults.
I haven't insulted you. Stop lying.
Lying is a very emotive term (to me). I take it as an insult, just so's you know. Nuff said on that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 06:58 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
Ghost

Quote:So don't waste my time. If you can't answer the question, then don't in the first place.

As UB said, I did answer your question, you did not like my answer and provided a follow up ... directed specifically at me no less .. and then complain that I've wasted your time? Seriously?

You had two options here and, sadly, you chose for the douchebag option. I'm not shocked, though, as it's not the first time. Fortunately for me, I'm not particularly bothered either.

Fr0d0

This is not the link you had previously posted. The previous link was an article on the heuristic approach to biblical interpretation. You had mentioned a book before, and I recall a comment about it "convincing young earth creationists" or words to that effect (and I believe I responded with "want to bet?"). I explained previously why your view of heuristics was wrong but, to summarize, you seem to reach the conclusion that it means that any biblical accounts that can't withstand scrutiny are metaphors or allegories, whereas heuristics says there are metaphors and allegories in the bible but the basic accounts are absolutely real.

I can't specifically comment on this book because I've not read it. I did some Googling and, from what I can see, the author is basically just doing classic back-pedaling about how the bible does not really mean the world was created in 6 days or that the whole of the Earth was flooded. These are, at best, minority opinions amongst the faithful and created to rationalize the bible with the overwhelming evidence that it's just not true. The supernatural may be outside science but something like a worldwide flood is going to leave evidence of it's occurrence in the natural world, and it has not. The total lack of historical, archaeological, or geological evidence of this flood is proof that it did not happen.

You're argument seems to be that god exists and his holy book, to the extent it is contradicted by modern science, is metaphors. So, on what do you base your faith? What plausible reason do you have to believe god exists? Because you want to believe it? I'd like to believe it too, but that does not make it so.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2010, 07:22 PM
RE: Why choose atheism, over agnosticism?
(15-12-2010 06:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The 'truth' of the bible never concerns scientific fact. A lot of it is based on supposed historical event
Which means it concerns scientific fact. Your two sentences are contradictory.
'a lot' is not 'everything' - so it's not contradictory.

Yes, it is. The truth of the Bible requires that the things that it says are true. It says things which can be proven or disproven scientifically. Thus, it concerns scientific fact.

Quote:I do. See the book: http://tinyurl.com/23d7vya

No, you don't. That book is exactly what I said in my previous posts: it starts from the assumption that the Genesis chapter is allegory. It does not attempt to prove that it is so. It is not evidence that the Bible is true. It relies on the assumption that one already accepts the Bible as true.

That is not evidence.

EDIT: Expanding further, the book starts by saying that God attempted to explain cosmology to the Israelites in a way that they could understand. That starts from the assumption that this is divine knowledge meant to be interpreted allegorically. It is not actually evidence that this is so.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Even if there can be no explanation, you still need evidence that it happened, or you're doing nothing but asserting with no evidence. We've been over this before.
The bible references actual things.

Yes.

Quote:We don't question those because they are beyond question.

What are you talking about?

Quote:Say we take the creation story as a claim (I'm not claiming it, just supposing). We have this reality as evidence of it. So you have the evidence, and suppose its origin. Is that not the same thing?

No. The existence of the universe is not evidence for Genesis' accuracy. It is evidence that, at some point, the universe came into existence. It is not evidence that it was constructed over six days in discrete periods wherein each broad category of life was brought into being.

Quote:None of my claims meet the burden of proof because they don't invoke it. If you can show me how they do, I will gladly oblige.

You have claimed that the Bible is entirely true, rather than inerrant. You have to prove that.

You have claimed that the Bible is allegorical, rather than literal. You have to prove that.

You have claimed that you have evidence for God, rather than illogical abortions of logic. You have to prove that.

Quote:
(15-12-2010 06:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's obvious to anyone reading your obsession with hurling insults.
I haven't insulted you. Stop lying.
Lying is a very emotive term (to me). I take it as an insult, just so's you know. Nuff said on that.

If you take it as an insult, that's on you, not me. I am simply stating facts as I see them.

"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: