[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Not true.. almost every religious argument starts with "Science can't explain this therefore my personal ABC God exists" and that NOT a "Small portion" of a religious community,in fact i'd even say that majority of the theists are just are blind to facts which disproves their beliefs.[/quote]

I've already addressed this at length.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:16 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm as aware of the pluriformity of atheism as I am of that of religion, but I have never come across an atheist opponent of alcohol.
Do you think that your personal experience is representative of the atheistic population as a whole?

Your claim no longer holds true in any case because I'm an atheist who is opposed to all hallucinogenic drugs.

(06-01-2014 10:16 AM)maklelan Wrote:  The number is around 4 billion theists who oppose it for religious reasons, and how many self-identifying atheists?
(06-01-2014 10:16 AM)maklelan Wrote:  True, but the majority of all humans on the planet, as a direct result of religion, do.
Do you care to explain how you arrived at that number?


Other than that, I'd still like an answer to this question:

(06-01-2014 09:46 AM)Vosur Wrote:  How, exactly, does atheism "broadly justify" the consume of alcohol? Blink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
06-01-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 11:40 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm not blaming atheism for alcoholism, I'm concerned that priorities are misplaced and people aren't being entirely honest when they express deep moral concern and outrage for the putative dangers of religion and then no concern at all for a demonstrably more dangerous phenomenon, or even defend the value and necessity of that phenomenon.

Who says we're not worried about alcohol ? We don't have idiots saying 'you *must* drink', 'you are evil if you don't drink' running around. We don't have ancient books written by twits with frothing-at-the-mouth condemnations of people who don't drink contained therein, which are read and believed by a large majority of the population. We don't have powerful lobbies of people trying to spread misinformation about alcohol, or at least not on the scale of for example, the Creationist movement. Therefore we don't feel the same need to address the arguments of the alcohol pushers.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
06-01-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 11:40 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm not blaming atheism for alcoholism, I'm concerned that priorities are misplaced and people aren't being entirely honest when they express deep moral concern and outrage for the putative dangers of religion and then no concern at all for a demonstrably more dangerous phenomenon, or even defend the value and necessity of that phenomenon.

...and thus illustrating my objection to formal philosophy. Big Grin

There's a link. Sobriety confers a stable and consistent identity upon its adherent, which echoes the theistic proposition of monotheism. I drink - I intake chemicals like a processing plant - and god cannot have identity because Johnny is not always John.

But if we're talking disease rather than symptom, I feel it behooves us to further investigate the nature of faith or at least the component of which is inherent.

At the same time, faith is a very dangerous phenomenon. Buncha atheists wanna disparage "belief without evidence," lemme tell you about things that do not exist. And let's start with future.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
06-01-2014, 12:02 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 12:03 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 12:09 PM by joben1.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Plenty of people who drink in moderation have still unintentionally caused death and suffering. On the other hand, who the hell are you to tell me that my practice of my religion is bad when it neither does me nor anyone else any harm?

Name one. And when did I tell you that?

(06-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  No, you don't know anything about me.

But I know all the arguments.

(06-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Then there are 2.5 millions deaths a year that are preventable. All it takes is people stopping those people from drinking. Is that a campaign you're going to undertake, or are you just going to ignore it?

I'm well aware of this and do take steps to prevent it when I see it, do you?

And that's one of them by the way. It seems I DO know you.

(06-01-2014 11:43 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Now I'll say good for you.

Yes it is thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
06-01-2014, 12:06 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 11:44 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 10:59 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  Not true.. almost every religious argument starts with "Science can't explain this therefore my personal ABC God exists" and that NOT a "Small portion" of a religious community,in fact i'd even say that majority of the theists are just are blind to facts which disproves their beliefs.

I've already addressed this at length.
Yes you have addressed, but unsuccessfully.

You seem to think if the gap is unlikely to be filled by scientific knowledge (e.g. the cause of the universe) then it gives the theists an exemption from the burden of proof and the god of the gaps (argument from ignorance, non sequitur and begs the question).
It's akin to saying "If the truth is unlikely to be objectively discovered then you are free to just make shit up". I'm glad this isn't part of the scientific method so at least I have one method of knowledge discovery that I can personally trust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
06-01-2014, 12:09 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 12:13 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 11:44 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I've already addressed this at length.
i've only read this thread till page 20 so please quote me where you've stated how only small percent of religious community follows a "theological" perspective,most of the religious arguments i've heard are just that so it definitely isn't a small percentage as you make it out to be.

and also i'd like to know which God/religion you personally adhere and why.Consider

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
06-01-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Mak seems to think that only academics who know its origin can use the phrase "god of the gaps". I have found that it perfectly describes what I mean when I use it, and that those who hear me use it know exactly what I mean. Strange that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
06-01-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 12:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm glad this isn't part of the scientific method so at least I have one method of knowledge discovery that I can personally trust.

Says the non-scientist. Angel

(06-01-2014 12:09 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  ...where you've stated how only small percent of religious community follows a "theological" perspective...

The vast majority do not know wtf they're talking about. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: