Convince me, please.
- Thread starter Cronin
- Start date
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Too weak, baseless
Teg, where did I put words in peoples mouths? Quote and cite.
Ok, where do they show up to refute me on the idea that atheism at least contains some negativism?
Let's look at the proof shall we?
I mentioned atheism and not atheists. Why don't you answer the question? You argued against that statement and started mentioning...
Futher more...
Ok, that's good that you do not hate.
It is also a tool for goodness.
I can't and you very well know it. I can only believe so.
Infinite means without beginning and without end. Now what do you think finite would mean? You can't prove the case for infinite either, show me evidence?
Unsubstantited claims? I showed many unsubstantiated claims made by you and I refuted almost all your claims and assumptions of me.
Now you resort to more patheticness, I did not call you any names. I just feel sorry for you Teg, you think you cannot be wrong in this argument, correct? You assume and make baseless claims without evidence, so to me that is pathetic.
That assumption is mines? Okay, where did I explicitly state: Because it gives my life meaning it must be true.??
You could find? Where's the proof, quote it instead of making such a claim.
I had to go from formal to informal. Because assumptions of another person in a debate is informal, baseless, and weak. You assumed and typing in such way would help you see your errors, but you never do accept them.
The ass is the one who assumes, I am trying to show to you that you assume and you should stop doing so.
Then answer the points that I made. They are in red.
Let's go back to basics.
Atheism contains some negativism.
Correct or incorrect?
Every last word? I pointed out where you avoided and ignore parts of the argument. You sure have a very baseless mouth.
I used Hawking, Einstein, and etc. to support me also. Does that mean you can immediately assume that I have fondness for them?
What if I hated them? How would you know? No where have I mentioned I have fondness for James R. You refuse to admit to your mistake, you go continue down a road of lies.
Once again, I look at things intellectually and not emotionally.
Proof of where I "invented that one." I did not want to substantiate my belief, I only wanted to give reasons to why I believe.
You are misinterpreting things Teg.
You missed the point of that specific argument. "Overwhelming evidence"? Where? Quote and cite it.
Here is an example:
Statement: Atheism contains some negativism.
2) Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
According to this definition of negativism, that statement does not flow.
1) A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
According to this definition of negativism, the statements does flow.
My conviction lies on the 1st definition. And if someone else's conviction lies on the 2nd definition and goes to me and tells me my statement is flat out wrong, without asking me what negativism explicitly meant in that statement, then that someone is the errorneous one.
I did not say you were wrong on your conviction.
Matter exists in four forms: Plasma, liquid, solid, and gas.
If matter is a solid, and it is destroyed into none of those four forms, would you say it still exists? Yes or no?
As I mentioned earlier, light is not matter, and when anti-matter and matter collide, the result is not plasma, liquid, solid, or gas, the result is pure energy/light.
You still fail to substaintiate your claims. So where did I fail to find your opposing assertions?
Your position is the one that is actualy not much to be proud of.
You are looking not at the point of why I call you that. What does ad hocism mean?
You are not arguing the points Teg, that is pathetic.
Sure you did Teg, that is why you avoided, assumed, make baseless claims, and et al.
Maybe I should brainwash myself and follow the lead of all the atheists here.
So if I am lacking good company, am I wrong?
You twisted the definition of negativism, look at the text in red. You are denying it has any meaning at all if you make the definition suit your own personal needs.
Yes, that was back in grade school, however new experiments are made and theories, laws, are being updated. What about entropy?
Proof that it is not possible? Proof that the universe is infinite? You have yet to answer Teg.
You re-evaluate yours Teg.
You really really need to.
Teg, where did I put words in peoples mouths? Quote and cite.
Ok, where do they show up to refute me on the idea that atheism at least contains some negativism?
- Cris: But I am uncomfortable to some degree that atheism is a negative position, I’d much rather stand for something than against something. The perception that Chosen expressed somewhere today that atheists never have anything good to say is a valid point. They don’t of course because the whole of atheism is to be negative. I’d much rather fight theism with a positive philosophy like Objectivsm for example, but even there the need will come to show what is wrong with theism, and that takes us back to negativity.
- Raithere: Perhaps some cites would help clarify what Atheism is, hopefully, for some atheists as well as you Tiassa. I'll get to your reply when I have some more time. - Raithere links what I linked to you earlier, atheist definition from [Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", p. 463. Temple University Press, 1990.]
- Tinker683: Click on the link and see what he mentions on my debate with him.
- Godless: Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense. "Atheism" is a private term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. If we use the phrase "belief-in-god" as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is "no-belief-in-god"--or, in "without theism" or the absense of belief in god.
- Xev: This does not make it "negative" in the sense of being pessimistic. It is only "negative" in the way that a doctor, when removing a cancerous tumour, is negating the effects of said tumour.
Let's look at the proof shall we?
I mentioned atheism and not atheists. Why don't you answer the question? You argued against that statement and started mentioning...
Futher more...
Ok, that's good that you do not hate.
It is also a tool for goodness.
I can't and you very well know it. I can only believe so.
Infinite means without beginning and without end. Now what do you think finite would mean? You can't prove the case for infinite either, show me evidence?
Unsubstantited claims? I showed many unsubstantiated claims made by you and I refuted almost all your claims and assumptions of me.
Now you resort to more patheticness, I did not call you any names. I just feel sorry for you Teg, you think you cannot be wrong in this argument, correct? You assume and make baseless claims without evidence, so to me that is pathetic.
That assumption is mines? Okay, where did I explicitly state: Because it gives my life meaning it must be true.??
You could find? Where's the proof, quote it instead of making such a claim.
I had to go from formal to informal. Because assumptions of another person in a debate is informal, baseless, and weak. You assumed and typing in such way would help you see your errors, but you never do accept them.
The ass is the one who assumes, I am trying to show to you that you assume and you should stop doing so.
Then answer the points that I made. They are in red.
Let's go back to basics.
Atheism contains some negativism.
Correct or incorrect?
Every last word? I pointed out where you avoided and ignore parts of the argument. You sure have a very baseless mouth.
I used Hawking, Einstein, and etc. to support me also. Does that mean you can immediately assume that I have fondness for them?
What if I hated them? How would you know? No where have I mentioned I have fondness for James R. You refuse to admit to your mistake, you go continue down a road of lies.
Once again, I look at things intellectually and not emotionally.
Proof of where I "invented that one." I did not want to substantiate my belief, I only wanted to give reasons to why I believe.
You are misinterpreting things Teg.
You missed the point of that specific argument. "Overwhelming evidence"? Where? Quote and cite it.
Here is an example:
Statement: Atheism contains some negativism.
2) Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
According to this definition of negativism, that statement does not flow.
1) A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
According to this definition of negativism, the statements does flow.
My conviction lies on the 1st definition. And if someone else's conviction lies on the 2nd definition and goes to me and tells me my statement is flat out wrong, without asking me what negativism explicitly meant in that statement, then that someone is the errorneous one.
I did not say you were wrong on your conviction.
Matter exists in four forms: Plasma, liquid, solid, and gas.
If matter is a solid, and it is destroyed into none of those four forms, would you say it still exists? Yes or no?
As I mentioned earlier, light is not matter, and when anti-matter and matter collide, the result is not plasma, liquid, solid, or gas, the result is pure energy/light.
You still fail to substaintiate your claims. So where did I fail to find your opposing assertions?
Your position is the one that is actualy not much to be proud of.
You are looking not at the point of why I call you that. What does ad hocism mean?
You are not arguing the points Teg, that is pathetic.
Sure you did Teg, that is why you avoided, assumed, make baseless claims, and et al.
Maybe I should brainwash myself and follow the lead of all the atheists here.
So if I am lacking good company, am I wrong?
You twisted the definition of negativism, look at the text in red. You are denying it has any meaning at all if you make the definition suit your own personal needs.
Yes, that was back in grade school, however new experiments are made and theories, laws, are being updated. What about entropy?
Proof that it is not possible? Proof that the universe is infinite? You have yet to answer Teg.
You re-evaluate yours Teg.
You really really need to.
Last edited:
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
More baseless claims...
Where am I incapable of logic? Quote and cite it.
Where am I ignoring what is presented? Where do I rely on assumptions and generalizations?
Quote and cite. You do realize I quoted everything word for word, that is the debate way, so kindly show me where I completely ignored what is presented.
Great, you have to prove that I am such a person first instead of making baseless claims.
Where am I incapable of logic? Quote and cite it.
Where am I ignoring what is presented? Where do I rely on assumptions and generalizations?
Quote and cite. You do realize I quoted everything word for word, that is the debate way, so kindly show me where I completely ignored what is presented.
Great, you have to prove that I am such a person first instead of making baseless claims.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Cronin
They are all convictions, so to say one's is correct over another's is erroneous.
They are all convictions, so to say one's is correct over another's is erroneous.
Jan,
Before anyone can believe something they must first be introduced to the idea. The default condition is to have no belief of that idea until it is introduced. Atheism is such a lack of a belief; therefore everyone begins life as an atheist, even you.
Cris
Please read my post more carefully. I said they are capable but that does not imply that they will exercise such abilities, some will and some won’t.
At least a basic grasp of logic.
You could say it but it would be meaningless. Demonstrate how a human baby at birth has an understanding of theism?
Before anyone can believe something they must first be introduced to the idea. The default condition is to have no belief of that idea until it is introduced. Atheism is such a lack of a belief; therefore everyone begins life as an atheist, even you.
Cris
A belief is something that must be borne out of observation and reason. Evaluate the preponderance of evidence in any scenario and make your choice. It is a far better thing than all those indicisive, J. Alfred Prufrock's out there skating along with the agnostics. Also be careful to avoid the imposition of a beleif system.
Theists like Christians will say that they do it frequently. In fact they only enable this behavior. No confession and a prayer to the lord will turn a murderer into an average joe. Often we are born with such instincts. That might sound overly fatalistic, but it is, from the best of my observations, what often seperates the reasonable from the criminal.
In the case of lying and thievery, these are looked down upon by most regardless of belief. As these are probably open to all, the only way to control them is by use of law. The amounts of cash stolen in collection plates should be called thievery. These ministers live in posh mansions and beach houses and drive mercedes. Lying is also something familiar to theists. The priest that covers up for his child molesting brother and Mr. Jesse Jackson should be familiar with that. In fact catholics like lawyers are ethically bound to lie to some. Everyone lies to a degree. This has more to do with personal conviction.
People don't behave a certain way because of a creed alone. It requires character. You can't transform a turd into a butterfly. Unless you start messing with the mind through surgical means. You either have it or you don't.
Originally posted by Cronin
Although the debate is lively, nobody has presented their beliefs in a way that might convince me to take the same path.
If you were so easily convinced I would have serious doubts as to whether your conviction was sincere, as from my own experience one has to “realise” God. Maybe you should do a little more study as to what and who God is via a religion that suits you, then you would understand that it is not about being convinced.
Can anyone prove that the path they have taken is the correct one?
No more than you can prove you love your mother.
Originally posted by Cris
Jan,
Please read my post more carefully. I said they are capable but that does not imply that they will exercise such abilities, some will and some won’t.
Fair enough, but my question still stands regarding the ones that will.
You could say it but it would be meaningless. Demonstrate how a human baby at birth has an understanding of theism?
How could a baby at birth have understanding of atheism,
atheism… The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Have you ever seen a baby deny the existence of God?
The default condition is to have no belief of that idea until it is introduced.
I disagree, the default condition is to experience life then make decisions based on those experiences.
Atheism is such a lack of a belief; therefore everyone begins life as an atheist, even you.
belief Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.
atheism… The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Disbelief…. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan,
Here is a Quote from “Atheism – The Case Against God – by George H Smith – page 8”. This book is one of several primary readers for atheists and is considered by most informed atheists to be an authority on atheism.
The problem with dictionary definitions for atheism is that they are still evolving. It was not so long ago that atheism was simply described as being wicked. In some dictionaries this is still included although noted as archaic. Other simply say a denial of god. The definitions of ‘disbelief’ (weak atheism), and ‘denial’ (strong atheism), are certainly definitions that I have commonly used here, and are also offered at some atheist web sites. Smith’s approach offers a broader definition, which I have used in this particular debate.
I will admit that I have interchanged ‘disbelief’ and ‘lack of belief’ without giving the issue any real consideration. Certainly, as you point out, ‘disbelief’ appears to be a conscious action, and not something that a child would be capable. But a child certainly has no theistic belief at the beginning, or in fact beliefs in anything.
If atheism were considered a positive denial or disbelief then that is not a natural state, as you are suggesting, in which case I would agree with you.
But if atheism is also an absence of belief as Smith maintains then that form of atheism is certainly a natural state even for newborn babies.
In the absence of any other authority I will adjust my future usage of atheism to include, absence of belief, along with disbelief and denial, to be consistent with Smith.
But how to get the dictionaries up to date with modern atheism is another issue.
However, you have my thanks for making me consider the issue more carefully.
In that light I continue to maintain that atheism is a natural state and that theism is added later and can cause a change to that natural state.
Cris
Here is a Quote from “Atheism – The Case Against God – by George H Smith – page 8”. This book is one of several primary readers for atheists and is considered by most informed atheists to be an authority on atheism.
The points you make I think are good, but I have been following Smith’s definition of atheism so my argument is consistent with that definition.
The problem with dictionary definitions for atheism is that they are still evolving. It was not so long ago that atheism was simply described as being wicked. In some dictionaries this is still included although noted as archaic. Other simply say a denial of god. The definitions of ‘disbelief’ (weak atheism), and ‘denial’ (strong atheism), are certainly definitions that I have commonly used here, and are also offered at some atheist web sites. Smith’s approach offers a broader definition, which I have used in this particular debate.
I will admit that I have interchanged ‘disbelief’ and ‘lack of belief’ without giving the issue any real consideration. Certainly, as you point out, ‘disbelief’ appears to be a conscious action, and not something that a child would be capable. But a child certainly has no theistic belief at the beginning, or in fact beliefs in anything.
If atheism were considered a positive denial or disbelief then that is not a natural state, as you are suggesting, in which case I would agree with you.
But if atheism is also an absence of belief as Smith maintains then that form of atheism is certainly a natural state even for newborn babies.
In the absence of any other authority I will adjust my future usage of atheism to include, absence of belief, along with disbelief and denial, to be consistent with Smith.
But how to get the dictionaries up to date with modern atheism is another issue.
However, you have my thanks for making me consider the issue more carefully.
In that light I continue to maintain that atheism is a natural state and that theism is added later and can cause a change to that natural state.
Cris
Jan...
That is so true. It is all up to the individual to decide.
It's all up to presonal belief. It's just that some views are more disgusting than others. And yet why some retarded sciforummers try to proselytize will always be a mystery to me.
So? Jan, you prove absolutely nothing here. Just because a baby has no notion of atheism does not mean that a baby has the notion of a god. Same thing the other way. The logical explanation is that a baby has no knowledge of either atheism or theism until they learn about it.
You're saying the same thing, Jan. What are you when you are "experiencing life"?
I do believe that everyone starts out agnostic. You don't know what to think until you form your own opinion and view (or until you get brainwashed).
"Love
Jan Ardena. "
Cool Jan, I love you too
That is so true. It is all up to the individual to decide.
It's all up to presonal belief. It's just that some views are more disgusting than others. And yet why some retarded sciforummers try to proselytize will always be a mystery to me.
"You could say it but it would be meaningless. Demonstrate how a human baby at birth has an understanding of theism?
How could a baby at birth have understanding of atheism,
atheism… The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Have you ever seen a baby deny the existence of God?
So? Jan, you prove absolutely nothing here. Just because a baby has no notion of atheism does not mean that a baby has the notion of a god. Same thing the other way. The logical explanation is that a baby has no knowledge of either atheism or theism until they learn about it.
You're saying the same thing, Jan. What are you when you are "experiencing life"?
"Atheism is such a lack of a belief; therefore everyone begins life as an atheist, even you.
belief Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.
atheism… The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Disbelief…. The act of disbelieving;; a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
I do believe that everyone starts out agnostic. You don't know what to think until you form your own opinion and view (or until you get brainwashed).
"Love
Jan Ardena. "
Cool Jan, I love you too
Hello Everyone.
To be clear, I'm not looking for a belief system. I'm already convinced. However, I am curious as to what convinces other people to believe the way they do.
From the responses, it sounds like we are all groping in the dark and relying on our own personal experiences/observations to formulate our belief system. I'll buy that but, if that's the best we can do, then why do we criticize each other's beliefs so forcefully given that our personal experiences can be diametrically different?
I've heard of many liars, thieves, adulterers and murderers who have claimed to have been transformed by finding God. I've never heard of such people being transformed by atheism or agnosticism so I'm still wondering what atheism and agnosticism offer in this regard.
Thanks.
To be clear, I'm not looking for a belief system. I'm already convinced. However, I am curious as to what convinces other people to believe the way they do.
From the responses, it sounds like we are all groping in the dark and relying on our own personal experiences/observations to formulate our belief system. I'll buy that but, if that's the best we can do, then why do we criticize each other's beliefs so forcefully given that our personal experiences can be diametrically different?
I've heard of many liars, thieves, adulterers and murderers who have claimed to have been transformed by finding God. I've never heard of such people being transformed by atheism or agnosticism so I'm still wondering what atheism and agnosticism offer in this regard.
Thanks.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Cronin
We trust ourselves the most.
Who are the "we" that you are talking about, that criticize each other's beliefs?
Yes, I thank religion for that, for saving the immoral people. Religions help to solve certain problems - this is a positive outlook and I accept it.
That is why I gave up my atheism, most atheists have a negative outlook on religions, they look at it so negatively that they gain nothing from such an outlook. Nothing is perfect in this world and it takes goodness to forgive and help; instead of criticizing and belittling, they should be helping to direct the "weak-minded" into becoming "strong-minded."
This is why I usually respect agnostics more than atheists, they usually aren't so negative about religion. If you do notice, atheists on this board have barely anything good to say about religion (it's for fools and "misguided" people right?), because if they DO say something good, their other "fellow" atheists are most likely going to criticize them for it, thus, I believe, that atheism offers very very very little, or in fact nothing.
I also don't look at atheism in only a negative outlook, I look positively and thank how it opened my mind about many things...I was an atheist for a good while.
We trust ourselves the most.
Who are the "we" that you are talking about, that criticize each other's beliefs?
Yes, I thank religion for that, for saving the immoral people. Religions help to solve certain problems - this is a positive outlook and I accept it.
That is why I gave up my atheism, most atheists have a negative outlook on religions, they look at it so negatively that they gain nothing from such an outlook. Nothing is perfect in this world and it takes goodness to forgive and help; instead of criticizing and belittling, they should be helping to direct the "weak-minded" into becoming "strong-minded."
This is why I usually respect agnostics more than atheists, they usually aren't so negative about religion. If you do notice, atheists on this board have barely anything good to say about religion (it's for fools and "misguided" people right?), because if they DO say something good, their other "fellow" atheists are most likely going to criticize them for it, thus, I believe, that atheism offers very very very little, or in fact nothing.
I also don't look at atheism in only a negative outlook, I look positively and thank how it opened my mind about many things...I was an atheist for a good while.
The Chosen........
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Jan
No, I never mentioned that atheists are the strong-minded ones. Everything lays on the individual himself and his perspective/open-mind.
Judging from what I know, mostly everyone on this earth is religious. So most likely more religious people will be weak-minded. And some do outright reject science.
Not all religious people are weak-minded, in no means will I say that. But on the population percentage, they take up a HUGE piece of the pie, and most people are weak-minded, why else the need for leaders?
And not all atheists are strong-minded, either, they wish.
If a thiest thinks with the right view, he is as logically capable as any atheist.
An theist is no better than an athiest and an atheist is no better than a theist. I don't favor either.
No, I never mentioned that atheists are the strong-minded ones. Everything lays on the individual himself and his perspective/open-mind.
Judging from what I know, mostly everyone on this earth is religious. So most likely more religious people will be weak-minded. And some do outright reject science.
Not all religious people are weak-minded, in no means will I say that. But on the population percentage, they take up a HUGE piece of the pie, and most people are weak-minded, why else the need for leaders?
And not all atheists are strong-minded, either, they wish.
If a thiest thinks with the right view, he is as logically capable as any atheist.
An theist is no better than an athiest and an atheist is no better than a theist. I don't favor either.
Cronin
That fear of death is often what motivates those sort to join. Really they weren't too intelligent to begin with. Any who partake in those activities must ignore the inherint self destruction in those behaviors.
Also we must realize how difficult it is to break these patterns of behavior. Often they just become Christian offenders. Christians think they are infecting them with a belief system when really the offender is infecting the Christian community.
You ignore the more rigorous, secular reform institutions. Obviously prison isn't the best help to these. In this manner the state takes the same fatalistic view to criminals. And why not considering that the mass majority of released convicts commit the acts again. So the state aims only to hold these people as long as possible. There ae those who find alternate means of self-sufficiency in jail though. State run halfway houses are the only real hope of transformation.
Of course you can always have the criminal state a belief in God. That most assuredly removes all desire to commit criminal acts...
Keep in mind that all of those categories are inclined to being at least a liar. You just choose to believe them when they say God changed their mind. People don't change that easily and most of the time they "find God" three days before being executed. Isn't that curious? Why go through your whole life without a belief in a deity only to believe right before death? They are motivated by a fear of death. You attach some kind of transformation and they are only playing it safe.
That fear of death is often what motivates those sort to join. Really they weren't too intelligent to begin with. Any who partake in those activities must ignore the inherint self destruction in those behaviors.
Also we must realize how difficult it is to break these patterns of behavior. Often they just become Christian offenders. Christians think they are infecting them with a belief system when really the offender is infecting the Christian community.
You ignore the more rigorous, secular reform institutions. Obviously prison isn't the best help to these. In this manner the state takes the same fatalistic view to criminals. And why not considering that the mass majority of released convicts commit the acts again. So the state aims only to hold these people as long as possible. There ae those who find alternate means of self-sufficiency in jail though. State run halfway houses are the only real hope of transformation.
Of course you can always have the criminal state a belief in God. That most assuredly removes all desire to commit criminal acts...
Re: Jan
Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Judging from what I know, mostly everyone on this earth is religious.
Because someone says they are religous doesn't mean they are.
So most likely more religious people will be weak-minded. And some do outright reject science.
Thats looking at it too generally, you don't know any of that for sure. Some of the greatest scientists and philosophers were, are and will be, theists, and the same goes for atheists.
Weak-minded
Having a weak mind, either naturally or by reason of disease;
feebleminded; foolish; idiotic.
Not all religious people are weak-minded, in no means will I say that.
My question is, why do you have to label? If a person has a weak mind then they will have a weak mind whether theist or atheist, is this not so?
But on the population percentage, they take up a HUGE piece of the pie, and most people are weak-minded, why else the need for leaders?
What do you think religion is?
If someone says they are religous, then go out and murder, are they still religous?
And not all atheists are strong-minded, either, they wish.
I think your definitions of atheist and theist needs a little more real 3d insight, instead of the 2d official descriptions, it is not as straight foreward as you seem to think.
If a thiest thinks with the right view, he is as logically capable as any atheist.
There you go again.
Do you think Isaac Newton was as logically capable as any theist, or did he not quite make the grade due to his belief in a Supreme Creator?
An theist is no better than an athiest and an atheist is no better than a theist. I don't favor either.
How do you measure this?
Love
Jan Ardena.
Cris,
In that light I continue to maintain that atheism is a natural state and that theism is added later and can cause a change to that natural state.
In that light, we should still be pooing our pants.
I understand where you are coming from Cris, but I don’t agree as I believe “we” are not our (natural) bodies.
Zero,
And yet why some retarded sciforummers try to proselytize will always be a mystery to me.
Retarded???
So? Jan, you prove absolutely nothing here. Just because a baby has no notion of atheism does not mean that a baby has the notion of a god.
I was not trying to prove anything, i simply made a point.
Same thing the other way. The logical explanation is that a baby has no knowledge of either atheism or theism until they learn about it.
Exactly!
And humans have a great capacity to learn, so learning is the natural state.
I do believe that everyone starts out agnostic. You don't know what to think until you form your own opinion and view (or until you get brainwashed).
I believe that is correct, except the “until you get brainwashed” bit
I believe we are constantly brainwashed until we understand our real position and identity.
Love
Jan Ardena.
In that light I continue to maintain that atheism is a natural state and that theism is added later and can cause a change to that natural state.
In that light, we should still be pooing our pants.
I understand where you are coming from Cris, but I don’t agree as I believe “we” are not our (natural) bodies.
Zero,
And yet why some retarded sciforummers try to proselytize will always be a mystery to me.
Retarded???
So? Jan, you prove absolutely nothing here. Just because a baby has no notion of atheism does not mean that a baby has the notion of a god.
I was not trying to prove anything, i simply made a point.
Same thing the other way. The logical explanation is that a baby has no knowledge of either atheism or theism until they learn about it.
Exactly!
And humans have a great capacity to learn, so learning is the natural state.
I do believe that everyone starts out agnostic. You don't know what to think until you form your own opinion and view (or until you get brainwashed).
I believe that is correct, except the “until you get brainwashed” bit
I believe we are constantly brainwashed until we understand our real position and identity.
Love
Jan Ardena.
Jan
Let's do a hypothetical experiment. Isolate ten children from birth. No influences. Will they be atheists or theists? Without the introduction of a deity the chance that they would invent one would be infintesimile. Even if you introduce language, they chance does not rise. Theism is only universal when it is introduced. Therefore it is an inherintly weak idea. There are nophenomena that might lead a thinking person to it as an explanation. Most deities came about as a lack of understanding. In the human effort to know its world they fabricate fairy tales.
That is not to say that a lack of influence might not lead to the fabrication of more fairy tales. That is just to say that they would not be the same fairy tales. Not everyone has the same religion. That's with the potential for influence.
Is that a riddle? Or was it actually supposed to make sense?
Let's do a hypothetical experiment. Isolate ten children from birth. No influences. Will they be atheists or theists? Without the introduction of a deity the chance that they would invent one would be infintesimile. Even if you introduce language, they chance does not rise. Theism is only universal when it is introduced. Therefore it is an inherintly weak idea. There are nophenomena that might lead a thinking person to it as an explanation. Most deities came about as a lack of understanding. In the human effort to know its world they fabricate fairy tales.
That is not to say that a lack of influence might not lead to the fabrication of more fairy tales. That is just to say that they would not be the same fairy tales. Not everyone has the same religion. That's with the potential for influence.
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
Cronin:<br><table><tr><td bgcolor="fcfcff">Hello Everyone.
Thanks for your participation in this topic.
Although the debate is lively, nobody has presented their beliefs in a way that might convince me to take the same path.
Can anyone prove that the path they have taken is the correct one?</td><tr></table>
At this point in time there is no philosophical proof or empirical evidence that provides a resolution to this question so resoundingly that it might be called proof.
It seems to me that you are asking to two separate questions:
1) What is the correct path?
2) Which should I take?
I'd answer the questions differently. I'd very much like to believe in a omni-benevolent God watching over me, an eternal afterlfe and that moral rules have been flawlessly determined by a perfect being. Of course, the problem is that logic and scepticism start laughing derisively everytime I consider the idea.
Since the answer can not be proven deductively, we must take the best guess. The most parsimonious and the most coherent option is that there is no God or Gods, and that there is nothing not entirely materialistic.
Thanks for your participation in this topic.
Although the debate is lively, nobody has presented their beliefs in a way that might convince me to take the same path.
Can anyone prove that the path they have taken is the correct one?</td><tr></table>
At this point in time there is no philosophical proof or empirical evidence that provides a resolution to this question so resoundingly that it might be called proof.
It seems to me that you are asking to two separate questions:
1) What is the correct path?
2) Which should I take?
I'd answer the questions differently. I'd very much like to believe in a omni-benevolent God watching over me, an eternal afterlfe and that moral rules have been flawlessly determined by a perfect being. Of course, the problem is that logic and scepticism start laughing derisively everytime I consider the idea.
Since the answer can not be proven deductively, we must take the best guess. The most parsimonious and the most coherent option is that there is no God or Gods, and that there is nothing not entirely materialistic.
Hello Teg.
I know many people who have transformed their lives for the better after "realizing God" (as Jan puts it). None of them have been on death row so I don't buy the "fear of death" argument. Many times, people who "realize God" learn how to love themselves and their fellow human beings through their relationship with God.
I also know many who never spent time in state-run halfway houses who have been transformed after realizing God so I don't agree with your conclusion that state run halfway houses are the only real hope for transformation.
I know many people who have transformed their lives for the better after "realizing God" (as Jan puts it). None of them have been on death row so I don't buy the "fear of death" argument. Many times, people who "realize God" learn how to love themselves and their fellow human beings through their relationship with God.
I also know many who never spent time in state-run halfway houses who have been transformed after realizing God so I don't agree with your conclusion that state run halfway houses are the only real hope for transformation.