Because it's a science forum... duh!
In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is quite all right for you to believe that you are somehow different.
But there's a big difference between a personal belief and an assertion based in reality.
We, here, are arguing reality. You have no need to defend your beliefs - as long as they stay that way.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Of course not.
Every time he does that though, a little part of him realizes he's run out of any rational arguments.
He's a grown-ass adult, and he knows that "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I-I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" shouts don't work anywhere but the grade school playground. They just make him look more foolish with every iteration.
He will eventually go back to having his personal beliefs unchallenged by rationality. As is his right. Personal beliefs should not be exposed to rationality without careful consideration of the consequences.
I like this and other threads in the total forum
I am able to answer ANY question thrown in the thread or direct to me
The question is do I want / need or care to?
If I expect I will learn from others in what they post I generally answer
Posters may not like the answer and / or it might well be wrong
If it is a subject I am following and learning from I will follow up on others answers
Should I think they are mistaken I will quote their post
explain why I think they are incorrect and
if I have found a quality reference post a link
In order words DEBATE
I reserve the right to draw the line at being requested to debate a photocopy answer generator
There is no benefit
I know ANY answer will be changed and / or distorted and the goal post moved
MY answer will be re defined with the definetion shoehorned into the photocopiers subjective understanding of the words
The photocopier then complains
the answer is wrong
gives a unsupported by evidence photocopy answer
before deflecting off to another question
PING PONG
DEBATES should be about learning from each other and / or at least understanding each other's point of view
From my extremely humble prostrate position opinion the photocopier has a touch of Dalek
The EXTERMINATE loop being replaced with another stuck loop
Run Forest run
I am able to answer ANY question thrown in the thread or direct to me
The question is do I want / need or care to?
If I expect I will learn from others in what they post I generally answer
Posters may not like the answer and / or it might well be wrong
If it is a subject I am following and learning from I will follow up on others answers
Should I think they are mistaken I will quote their post
explain why I think they are incorrect and
if I have found a quality reference post a link
In order words DEBATE
I reserve the right to draw the line at being requested to debate a photocopy answer generator
There is no benefit
I know ANY answer will be changed and / or distorted and the goal post moved
MY answer will be re defined with the definetion shoehorned into the photocopiers subjective understanding of the words
The photocopier then complains
the answer is wrong
gives a unsupported by evidence photocopy answer
before deflecting off to another question
PING PONG
DEBATES should be about learning from each other and / or at least understanding each other's point of view
From my extremely humble prostrate position opinion the photocopier has a touch of Dalek
The EXTERMINATE loop being replaced with another stuck loop
Run Forest run
You have so much more patience than me
I don't mind my hair being grey from age but to loose it from pulling it out would be to much
Your right I do detect a subtle shift
Maybe running out of paper or toner???
gmilam:
Here was JamesR's post (regarding my KSM post), based on DaveC's recommendation to start a new thread:
karenmansker:
That question would be more appropriate for a different thread. It's more of a science question than a question about atheism.
James R, Yesterday at 4:20 AM
Here's your (gmilam)post:
karenmansker said: ↑
James, then why is the atheist side of this long argument being argued on such restrictive "scientific" (Method) grounds?
Click to expand...
Because it's a science forum... duh!
gmilam, Today at 3:59 PM
Perhaps we should determine whether 'In regards to atheism' (the Thread title) is a scientific or nonscientific endeavor. JamesR seems to think NOT, You seem to think 'duh'. This discrepancy of thought may be one root of the disagreements produced within the thread. So which is it (atheism) . . . . . . scientific? or nonscientific? Can one credibly apply the Scientific Method to a nonscience (likely philosophical) discussion?
Atheism is a neither scientific or non scientic
It's a non position
No scientific research is being done on a non position
I guess it (atheism) can be be likened to a cousin twice removed from philosophy
But it's hard to be philosophical about a non belief
What I understand the thread has morphed into (if it has morphed) into Does god exist
Which appears to back up it is hard to be philosophical about a non belief
There may be grades of atheism (if it atheism can be graded)
ie you don't believe in a anthropomorphic god but
do believe in some sort of spirit higher power
To the scientific side I contend EVIDENCE would be required to to settle the existence or non existence of god
Since no evidence is available to either side science defaults to UNKNOWN
Unfortunately thesist default UNKNOWN into
since you can't prove gods NON EXISTENCE my position holds true
Atheists default UNKNOWN into
OK science will keep looking but
not with any fervor since thesist contend
they have evidence but have not produced any
Why should Atheists do Thesist work for them?
UNKNOWN means UNKNOWN
And I contend Scientist do not expect to to find any for Thesist (guess that's why they are not looking)
Also contend Scientist are not looking on behalf of Atheists and Atheists couldn't care less
karenmansker:
As to your question here (Why is this "atheist side" being argued on restrictive scientific grounds?), I am wondering what kind of discussion you'd like to see instead. What other way do you think atheists might argue their case?
Most of this long argument, by the way, has come from Jan Ardena's apparent inability to distinguish subjective from objective reality.
Sorry. Maybe it wasn't clear what I was replying to. I was replying to your post where you wrote:
That's a science question, not a question about atheism - even assuming that so-called scientists are in fact willing to accept that "everything came from nothing". If they do accept that, it will be on scientific grounds, presumably, at least to some extent.karenmansker said:
As to your question here (Why is this "atheist side" being argued on restrictive scientific grounds?), I am wondering what kind of discussion you'd like to see instead. What other way do you think atheists might argue their case?
Most of this long argument, by the way, has come from Jan Ardena's apparent inability to distinguish subjective from objective reality.
Given Jan clearly struggles with issues of subjectivity and objectivity, perhaps we need to map Jan's assertions to something more understandable...
"God is" becomes "My subjective worldview is that God is"
"You are without God" or "For you there is no God" or "God does not exist as far as you are aware" becomes "you do not share my worldview"
"Atheist" becomes "someone who does not share my worldview"
Any claim by him that his worldview equates to reality then need defending by him.
It is an ontological position in response to another (theism), and is thus philosophical, at least until such time as someone asserts that their view equates to reality. As Jan has done repeatedly (with claims that "God is", that one is "without God" - when he defines "without" as only applying to something that exists, thus asserting that God exists).
Perhaps if the theist constrains their assertions only as relating to their subjective worldview...?
I already told you that idea is a non-starter. It would only work if atheists were always atheists and theists were always theists, but I know of atheists who were formerly under the impression that god was real, who changed their minds, accepting this impression as a delusion.
Prepare for the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
This thread is neither - it was a troll from post one. It deserved no comments. But people came along and asserted that God (whatever that word means - hard to get a definition) does in FACT exist. They are rightfully asked for evidence of this "fact". So far, none has been offered.
Do you find it odd that readers of a science forum request scientific evidence for this (or any other) claim?
Atheists are always atheists, and theists are always theists, until they change.
If you are atheist, it doesn't mean you can't be religious. It means you don't accept that God Is. Or you only accept a particular religious concept. This can be very comforting (which is why most atheists will Cite comfort as a reason people believe).
But what tends to happen is a lot of these religious types soon get fed up with this false, idealistic, way of life, and claim they no longer believe. That it is all based on delusion.
The thing is, they are correct. Their so called devotion to God was based on an ideology.
Those institutes that claim they are the true religion, and all other religious are false. Or God will only bless their religious faith, and any other worship is not of God, but some dark force masquerading as God, are IMO atheistic.
Now let's look at certain characteristics of atheist who post here. They believe that their position is the correct position, and the opposing position is delusional.
They're right, and we're wrong!
Now lets look at the theist characteristics, who post here. We haven't (to my knowledge) stated that the opposing position is wrong, or delusional.
I myself, have said on numerous occasions, that your position is correct, because there truly is no God, currently, for you. You can't believe in something that you are totally oblivious to.
So to summarise, it is my opinion that most religious institutes are atheistic by nature, and that is due to specific, subconscious characteristics.
There are Catholic priests who are atheist, but perform their job as priests.
"WHEN I WAS ORDAINED IN 1976 A PRIEST I KNEW INVITED ME TO DINNER IN HIS HOUSE ONE DAY. AT THE END OF THE DINNER HE SHOCKED ME BY SAYING: "PAT, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD ANYMORE. I AM AN ATHEIST"...
http://wisecatholic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/some-catholic-priests-are-atheists-some.html?m=1
That should tell you something, unless you decide to hide behind this" no true Scotsmen nonsense.
So while people may profess theism, they are only theist if they are actually theist. And not so because they say so.
Jan.
Last edited:
That's okay Sarkus. You're atheist. If God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. You have a choice. Either accept that you are not able to comprehend God. Or that you are correct in your thinking, because as far as you can see, everything you have read, and all your effort (if that is correct), you have yet to comprehend God.
Jan.
So, can atheists or agnostics be morale?