You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 02:14:52 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Elliquian Atheists  (Read 35653 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #250 on: July 29, 2012, 12:02:43 PM »
But they aren't understood, we still don't know what happens to sentience when a being dies and we still don't know what created everything.

All evidence strongly suggests that all thoughts are generated within the brain. A person's memories, personality and capabilities can all be diminished or permanently destroyed by intoxicating substances or brain damage. The unfortunate implication is that the complete destruction of the brain (inevitable at or soon after death), is the complete destruction of self.

And on the contrary, we know exactly what created every single thing that our ancestors explained with religion. The origins of trees, rocks, the blue of the sky, stars, comets, disease, earthquakes, air, water and people are all known now. Trying to claim now that the God presupposed by these people exists in the fraction of a second 13.7 billion years ago that we're just in the process of unravelling now (unthought of by the people who wrote our religious texts) seems a rather cosmic stretch from their original theory.

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #251 on: July 29, 2012, 01:03:35 PM »
Wrong. We don't simply say "There is no God, and we can prove it" then neglect to present evidence. That really baffles me. I'm not the one making a claim here, I have no need to present evidence for something someone else believes in. I'm the one having an idea proposed to me, and not only do I find absolutely zero evidence in favour of the claim, everything I do find points me to the conclusion that the claim is false. And every piece of information someone does send me that could possibly point to a God is either misinterpreted, misrepresented, or outright false, and more often then not, doctored.

My belief that a God, or Gods, of any kind described to me as Anthropmorphic, or even characterized at all, do not exist, is because of my review of presented evidence. It is not my blind assertion.

And really, I think this whole God of the Gaps nonesense is just a fear to admit we don't know. Where do we go when we die? We don't know. We really don't. What's a soul? We don't know. Can we make some stuff up to feel better? Of course! But say goodbye to any chance of finding out the real answer, since we'll have an assuring lie.

And maybe we won't like the answer. Maybe we're just a bunch of electrical impulses that can form complex responses to stimuli received by organs that are the process of millions of years of selective genetic mutations, and upon our bodies expirng we simply stop existing in this personal form we have come to know as ourselves.

And if that really is the answer, then the fact someone don't like it won't change it. That is why I am an Atheist. I give a damn about the truth.

The belief that there is no god is just as much filling in the gaps as theism and you are the one making a claim here as well, your claiming by being an atheist is that god does not exist. I have zero evidence to support the claim god does not exist and to my knowledge so has the whole of all organized science for that matter.


All evidence strongly suggests that all thoughts are generated within the brain. A person's memories, personality and capabilities can all be diminished or permanently destroyed by intoxicating substances or brain damage. The unfortunate implication is that the complete destruction of the brain (inevitable at or soon after death), is the complete destruction of self.

Personally I don't prescribe to the existentialist belief system, I believe that the residual energy of the neural impulses of the mind can in some form carry over into a subsequent after life as some form of energy as it cannot be created or destroyed only changed. Though I can't say that form is as conscious or competent as this one.


And on the contrary, we know exactly what created every single thing that our ancestors explained with religion.

No we haven't.


The origins of trees, rocks, the blue of the sky, stars, comets, disease, earthquakes, air, water and people are all known now.

I was speaking of reality and the multitude of existence as a whole when I said everything not the view from a the back yard of an LA hospital.


Trying to claim now that the God presupposed by these people exists in the fraction of a second 13.7 billion years ago that we're just in the process of unravelling now seems a rather cosmic stretch from their original theory.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying here but the way I see it is the big bang, as I like to call it, only explains the start of this universe, it in no way explains where the singularity came from, nor the energy which caused its expansion and if it is an infinitely repeating cycle of expansion and collapse then what created that because an infinite cycle cannot will itself into existence by magic, a reasonable hypothesis would in fact be god but were are as yet unable to technologically explore such a possibility. Personally I believe god is beyond our current concept of reality and existence as a whole, we need to advance technologically, physically, and metaphysically if we ever hope to truly understand the nature of existence but until we can find those answers I find god quite a deal more plausible in my opinion then nothing at all or no god.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #252 on: July 29, 2012, 01:11:09 PM »
The belief that there is no god is just as much filling in the gaps as theism and you are the one making a claim here as well, your claiming by being an atheist is that god does not exist. I have zero evidence to support the claim god does not exist and to my knowledge so has the whole of all organized science for that matter.

Yes, ignore my entire post and simply restate that I insist there's no God out of blind assertion.

I believe there is a giant orange duck on a boogeyboard made of stars somewhere in space. His name is Rhubarb Frankfurter, and his beak is the collective matter of all past universes, and all future ones, and it his will that guides the natural forces we observe in science. He created all life and continues to guide this planet in ways we cannot trace back to him. Rhubarb Frankfurter is all.

Disprove me.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 01:15:15 PM by Sabby »

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #253 on: July 29, 2012, 01:26:00 PM »
Yes, ignore my entire post and simply restate that I insist there's no God out of blind assertion.

I'm sorry could you simplify your post and explain it better. I really didn't see you make a point that atheism was different from theism in the aspect I mentioned just that you claimed to have found evidence against theism and didn't say what it was.

Offline Will

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #254 on: July 29, 2012, 01:27:09 PM »
I'm sorry could you simplify your post and explain it better. I really didn't see you make a point that atheism was different from theism in the aspect I mentioned just that you claimed to have found evidence against theism and didn't say what it was.

Being skeptical about a claim is not a claim in itself.

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #255 on: July 29, 2012, 01:28:27 PM »
Yes, ignore my entire post and simply restate that I insist there's no God out of blind assertion.

I believe there is a giant orange duck on a boogeyboard made of stars somewhere in space. His name is Rhubarb Frankfurter, and his beak is the collective matter of all past universes, and all future ones, and it his will that guides the natural forces we observe in science. He created all life and continues to guide this planet in ways we cannot trace back to him. Rhubarb Frankfurter is all.

Disprove me.

Well Rhubarb is a goose name not a duck name so.... disproved. Glad we haven't devolved into petty trolling.  ;)

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #256 on: July 29, 2012, 01:29:32 PM »
Being skeptical about a claim is not a claim in itself.

Being skeptical is agnosticism, making a contrary claim against one in existence is atheism. Do you agree?

Offline Will

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #257 on: July 29, 2012, 01:37:44 PM »

Well Rhubarb is a goose name not a duck name so.... disproved. Glad we haven't devolved into petty trolling.  ;)

It isn't trolling.  If you would prefer it explained another way, look up Russel's Teapot.

Being skeptical is agnosticism, making a contrary claim against one in existence is atheism. Do you agree?

Skepticism is not the same as agnosticism.  You might even offend some skeptics by claiming it is.

If you say there is a god, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Otherwise we all have to believe in Abraham's God, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot, Sabby's Frankfurter, Ancient Aliens, etc, etc, etc.  There is no difference between any of those, except for how successful they have or have not been as memes.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #258 on: July 29, 2012, 01:48:17 PM »
I was very clear. To simply it would be to repeat my post in pretty much the same form. I'd suggest you read it again, but I'll try and boil it down.

I have seen no compelling evidence for a characterized God.

What evidence I have been presented from Theists only suggests poor research, dishonest representation, or hidden agenda.

Present me with actual evidence for the existence of any God you could describe. Until that happens, I am completely justified in my lack of belief.

"I do not believe" and "I believe this is false" are two different statements. I think that's a major problem when it comes to this. I can say that all evidence leads me to the strong belief that this claim is false, and people hear "You think God don't exist! Ah'll pray fer you..."

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #259 on: July 29, 2012, 01:55:30 PM »
It isn't trolling.  If you would prefer it explained another way, look up Russel's Teapot.

Skepticism is not the same as agnosticism.  You might even offend some skeptics by claiming it is.

If you say there is a god, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Otherwise we all have to believe in Abraham's God, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot, Sabby's Frankfurter, Ancient Aliens, etc, etc, etc.  There is no difference between any of those, except for how successful they have or have not been as memes.

Will you please define agnosticism, atheism, and theism then because from what I understand atheism is a claim that theism is wrong (a claim which has its own burden of proof), theism is the claim god exists (which has it's own burden of proof as well), Agnosticism is skeptical of both claims (which requires no burden of proof). I believe your saying that only theism has a burden of proof because it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt atheism.


I was very clear. To simply it would be to repeat my post in pretty much the same form. I'd suggest you read it again, but I'll try and boil it down.

I have seen no compelling evidence for a characterized God.

What evidence I have been presented from Theists only suggests poor research, dishonest representation, or hidden agenda.

Present me with actual evidence for the existence of any God you could describe. Until that happens, I am completely justified in my lack of belief.

"I do not believe" and "I believe this is false" are two different statements. I think that's a major problem when it comes to this. I can say that all evidence leads me to the strong belief that this claim is false, and people hear "You think God don't exist! Ah'll pray fer you..."

Thank you. Most of what your saying such as the possible physical attributes of god I was not talking of and this is where I was lost. I have made and make no claim to have any evidence to support the existence of god and do not believe there is any against gods existence either. You are entitled to your beliefs and I was only pointing out in lieu of true evidence that the only real deciding factor is a matter of faith and personal belief.

Offline Will

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #260 on: July 29, 2012, 01:59:21 PM »
Will you please define agnosticism, atheism, and theism then because from what I understand atheism is a claim that theism is wrong (a claim which has its own burden of proof), theism is the claim god exists (which has it's own burden of proof as well), Agnosticism is skeptical of both claims (which requires no burden of proof). I believe your saying that only theism has a burden of proof because it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt atheism.

There is no difference for me in my day to day life between agnosticism and atheism.  I act as if there is no god.  Do I know for sure?  Obviously not.  I never said I did, and I don't think anyone else has either.  But I am just as much certain that there is no god as I am that aliens didn't build the pyramids.  Is there a chance that's true?  Of course.  Literally anything is possible.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #261 on: July 29, 2012, 02:07:12 PM »
Thank you. Most of what your saying such as the possible physical attributes of god I was not talking of and this is where I was lost. I have made and make no claim to have any evidence to support the existence of god and do not believe there is any against gods existence either. You are entitled to your beliefs and I was only pointing out in lieu of true evidence that the only real deciding factor is a matter of faith and personal belief.

While there is no evidence that proves a God cannot exist, there is plenty of evidence that strongly supports my belief that a God can't exist. It was said before God was put in to explain clouds and lightning. Now we know. So God can't have credit for that. The origin of man. Now we now. Can't have that either. And so on and so forth, and what does God have now? A painfully archaic moral system, held up by a criminal organization, actively trying to retard society, and about the only monopoly the big guy has left is yet another unknown that we could answer in our life times, the scary dark tunnel we see when our brain fails.

So no, there is no evidence that God can't exist, just like there's no evidence that there wasn't an elephant on top of the Falafel Tower. What? The Falafel Tower? What's that? It was built right next to the Eiffel Tower in 2002 by trained pigeons. What? There's absolutely no evidence such an event occurred? Well, that certainly doesn't prove that the elephant didn't exist! Just that you don't believe the tower he lived on did.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 02:10:15 PM by Sabby »

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #262 on: July 29, 2012, 02:12:24 PM »
There is no difference for me in my day to day life between agnosticism and atheism.  I act as if there is no god.  Do I know for sure?  Obviously not.  I never said I did, and I don't think anyone else has either.  But I am just as much certain that there is no god as I am that aliens didn't build the pyramids.  Is there a chance that's true?  Of course.  Literally anything is possible.

"Then I don't think were really arguing anything at all......" slowly backs out the door. "I always thought atheism meant a certainty in no god are you sure your not agnostic not that there's anything wrong with leaning towards a possibility, I just have trouble making a debate when the line is blurred for a perspective."

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #263 on: July 29, 2012, 02:15:46 PM »
Honestly, I sympathize with you ^^' the whole atheist/agnostic thing does tend to confuse. I'm still not certain on the textbook definition, and even then I hear complaints constantly that many dictionary listings for the word Atheism are outdated and list it as a belief that God does not exist. And I only know that because I watch The Atheist Experience, so I have no idea how someone who was curious to learn would find out for themselves if the definition really is outdated.

Offline Will

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #264 on: July 29, 2012, 03:06:37 PM »
"Then I don't think were really arguing anything at all......" slowly backs out the door. "I always thought atheism meant a certainty in no god are you sure your not agnostic not that there's anything wrong with leaning towards a possibility, I just have trouble making a debate when the line is blurred for a perspective."

Honestly?  I don't even like the term "agnostic."  But it is far more acceptable to be agnostic than atheist where I live.  So yeah, most of the time, I identify as such.  Even though I accept the practical certainty that there is no big guy in the sky.  That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything at all, though.  I do.  But an all-knowing, omnipresent, all-powerful entity is not a part of it.

Offline vtboy

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #265 on: July 29, 2012, 03:56:02 PM »
I am close to sure there is no god, but....

Since I cannot rule out the possibility of realms insensible and inconceivable to me, my own disbelief stops short of out-and-out certainty. Perhaps that makes me an agnostic rather than an atheist, though such semantic niceties would probably gain me little purchase in the graces of that demanding and punishing bastard I was taught to fear in my youth. I  prefer to think of myself as more of a  "who gives a fuck-ist" since, if there is a god, I trust each of us has better things to do than to obsess about the other.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #266 on: July 29, 2012, 04:37:13 PM »
Quote from: Sabre
I don't see why we should, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter that politics and war in the ancient world was heavily mired in religious augury and belief.  The above examples are remembered because they weren't common throughout the history of western Eurasia.  It's why they acquired special names to differentiate these events from every other act of war and mass slaughter of the time of which there were many.  Religion was always a big deal for human civilizations, and regularly found its way into everything we did including warfare.  Only with the rise of the great Abrahamic monotheistic religions did the size and scale of this fact become epic.

We may be mostly on the same page here.  Religion has and continues to be heavily mingled with politics and war.  I really do not see a difference here between Polytheism and Monotheism.  If anything, the capability of the human species to inflict death upon one another is the real game changer.

Quote from: Sabre
The point is the early Middle Age was exactly the period where the church wielded little to no political power and regularly strong-armed by the nearest warlord.

Only in so far as every secular authority was in exactly the same position.  They were all squabbling for control.  Why did Charlemagne need the church if he had so much power?  That is a rhetorical question.

Quote from: Sabre
And the perfect example of the lack of political power and influence of the pope.

You and I must have different definitions of 'lack of political power'.  I concede the church was not omnipotent (thank god).  They exercised just as much political power as the secular authorities.

Offline Saria

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #267 on: July 29, 2012, 05:48:54 PM »
No, that's Averroism, not actually Averroes himself in his views on unicity.  What you're describing is how one branch of Averroists centuries later defined their views of Aristotelianism.  Still, he did mention two ways to the truth.  He did not say this was divided between evidence and religion however but prophesy (revelation) and rationality.  Both of which leads to faith.
Actually, that is what Averroes himself said. The problem here is that you're translating his arguments using a different definition of faith than I am (sometimes; your definition is shifting occasionally, as I'll show in a bit). You're using faith as a synonym for "religious belief". As in "my faith is Islam". (Or possibly, as confidence, as in "I have faith in the teachings of Islam".)

I'm using the definition of faith as a method of believing, not as a belief. Faith is not the end point, it is how you get there. This is why I can contrast it with considering observations, and taking conclusions from reasoning - all of them are methods to get to a belief, not beliefs themselves. I am not contrasting "beliefs" with "ways to believe"; that would make no sense, right?

As I've been saying, there are only 3 ways - methods - by which you can come to a belief:
  • Evidence - observing things in the natural universe with our senses. (This is what science largely relies on.)
  • Reason - using our reasoning faculties to figure things out rationally. (This is what philosophy largely relies on.)
  • Faith - believing by 'feeling'... just 'knowing' something is true, without relying on observation or reason. (This is what religion largely relies on.)

Back in the days of Averroes, they didn't differentiate between 1 and 2 - everything was "philosophy". Much later philosophy was split into philosophy and "natural philosophy", or science, but at the time, when people like Averroes referred to "philosophy" and "reason", they're actually lumping 1 and 2 together. So to Averroes there was only:
  • Evidence/Reason - observing things in the natural universe with our senses or using our reasoning faculties to figure things out rationally.
  • Faith - believing by 'feeling'... just 'knowing' something is true, without relying on observation or reason.

So when you say "prophesy (revelation) and rationality are two separate things but both lead to faith", I would say there are several things wrong with that sentence. The first is that faith is not something that gets "led to". Faith is a method, not a destination. "Religious belief" is a (possible) destination, but "faith" can't be. So first off, I would correct that sentence to "prophesy (revelation) and rationality are two separate things but both lead to religious belief".

But the second thing wrong with that sentence is that you're comparing apples and oranges. One the one hand you talk about rationality as a method to religious belief... but you contrast that with "prophecy (revelation)". That's not a method for believing something, it's a source; once you've been given a prophecy or revelation, you then have to use some method for deciding whether to believe that prophecy/revelation or not. But which method? The answer's right there in what you've written; it's being contrasted with reason (and, remember that at the time they lumped reason and observation together). So, what are you really trying to say when you say "prophesy (revelation) and rationality are two separate things but both lead to religious belief"? You're actually saying "faith and rationality are two separate things but both lead to religious belief", which is what Averroes meant, and what I said he meant.

If you want to use "faith" as a synonym for "belief" - rather than as a method of believing, as I have - then a lot of what you've been saying is actually incoherent. Like saying philosophers talk about "Faith versus Reason". If faith is a belief, and reason is a way to believe, then that makes no sense - it's like saying "Home versus Bus", where "home" is the destination and "bus" is the way to get there.

But if faith is a method for believing something, and the only other method Averroes knew about was reason/evidence (ie, rationality), then it's obvious what he was saying, in modern terms: "reason/evidence and faith are two different things, but both lead to 'truth'".

If you don't like the terms I'm using, that's fine; they're not the only way you can talk about these things. But you should clearly define the terms you're using, then, and stick tightly to those definitions, because you have been using some terms vaguely, with shifting definitions, and leading to incoherence when the various things you've said are all put together. Once the terms are clearly defined - whatever they are, we should end up with the same conclusions. All the problems are really arising from confounding the various definitions of faith (and, earlier, of reason).

Offline Caehlim

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #268 on: July 29, 2012, 07:08:26 PM »
Personally I don't prescribe to the existentialist belief system, I believe that the residual energy of the neural impulses of the mind can in some form carry over into a subsequent after life as some form of energy as it cannot be created or destroyed only changed.

I'm sorry, but energy doesn't work that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Firstly, that's like grabbing one of the electrons that's moved through the circuitry of my computer and asking it what's on C-drive. It's the circuitry that holds the information, not the energy.

Secondly, the energy of our brains hasn't slipped away into a parallel universe or the twilight zone. It's all still there, bound up in atomic bonds if its chemical potential energy, our brain's height above the ground if it's gravitational potential energy, our brain's speed if you're talking about kinetic energy, its temperature if you're talking about thermal energy and its mass if you're talking pure E=MC2 goodness.

Quote
I was speaking of reality and the multitude of existence as a whole when I said everything not the view from a the back yard of an LA hospital.

Yes, you were. The inventors of religion were not. That was kind of my point.

Allow me to paraphrase the centuries of scientific and theological development as a conversation between two anthropomorphized figures.

Religion: "Where does mankind come from, why do people get sick, why do they have to die, why do people do nasty things to each-other, what made the animals exist the way they are?"
Science: "Geez, you sure ask a lot of questions. But okay... here you go."
Religion: "Ummm, you didn't mention God in there at all."
Science: "That hypothesis wasn't necessary to explain any of the things you mentioned."
Religion: "Oh okay then, what are you still working on?"
Science: "Well, we just discovered this big bang thing like 50 years ago. We've got some really promising leads and we just built the Large Hadron Collider to explore it. It's really exciting because we're only just starting to solve these mysteries."
Religion: "Have you explained that yet."
Science: "Well, mostly but the first fraction of a second of space-time we're still trying to figure out because it was an environment totally unlike anything that exists at the moment. That's why CERN built ATLAS and we're goin...
Religion: "Okay, God did that bit"
Science: "Sigh"

Quote
but until we can find those answers I find god quite a deal more plausible in my opinion then nothing at all or no god.

So you think. "God just exists because that's the way gods work and then he created the universe" is a better explanation for anything than "The universe just exists because that's the way universes work".

Occam would disagree.

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #269 on: July 29, 2012, 07:45:56 PM »
I'm sorry, but energy doesn't work that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Firstly, that's like grabbing one of the electrons that's moved through the circuitry of my computer and asking it what's on C-drive. It's the circuitry that holds the information, not the energy.

Secondly, the energy of our brains hasn't slipped away into a parallel universe or the twilight zone. It's all still there, bound up in atomic bonds if its chemical potential energy, our brain's height above the ground if it's gravitational potential energy, our brain's speed if you're talking about kinetic energy, its temperature if you're talking about thermal energy and its mass if you're talking pure E=MC2 goodness.

Until we develop a unifying theory I wouldn't put much stock in our universe being limited to only the forms of energy we are currently aware of.


Yes, you were. The inventors of religion were not. That was kind of my point.

Allow me to paraphrase the centuries of scientific and theological development as a conversation between two anthropomorphized figures.

Religion: "Where does mankind come from, why do people get sick, why do they have to die, why do people do nasty things to each-other, what made the animals exist the way they are?"
Science: "Geez, you sure ask a lot of questions. But okay... here you go."
Religion: "Ummm, you didn't mention God in there at all."
Science: "That hypothesis wasn't necessary to explain any of the things you mentioned."
Religion: "Oh okay then, what are you still working on?"
Science: "Well, we just discovered this big bang thing like 50 years ago. We've got some really promising leads and we just built the Large Hadron Collider to explore it. It's really exciting because we're only just starting to solve these mysteries."
Religion: "Have you explained that yet."
Science: "Well, mostly but the first fraction of a second of space-time we're still trying to figure out because it was an environment totally unlike anything that exists at the moment. That's why CERN built ATLAS and we're goin...
Religion: "Okay, God did that bit"
Science: "Sigh"

Steve: "Sup?"
Daryl: "Hay bro, you catch the game last night?"
Steve: "Nah man, I was busy talking to some guy about making straw man arguments with gross over simplifications and then attacking his own gross over simplification in a conversational format much like our discussion."
Daryl: "Well I did."
Steve: "Dude why do we even hang out?"
Daryl: "Nobody asked you to!"
Steve: "Shut up you can't tell me what to do! Your not my real dad!"
Daryl: "I know that but I'm trying!"
Steve: "Shut up! Just shut up! You don't understand me!"
Daryl: "Don't you walk out that door!"
Steve: "I wish I were dead!" Slam.


So you think. "God just exists because that's the way gods work and then he created the universe" is a better explanation for anything than "The universe just exists because that's the way universes work".

Occam would disagree.

Straw man again but "The universe just exists because that's the way universes work" isn't an explanation its an admission of ignorance and Occam's razor applies to hypothesis not admissions.


Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #270 on: July 29, 2012, 08:38:01 PM »
Whenever presented with a logical argument and thusly backed into a corner, the defensive theist usually screams "STRAW MAN" or "WHERES YOUR PROOF?!"

It does them no good -.- Best to just be reasonable and admit that they have no more to add and bow out.

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #271 on: July 29, 2012, 08:57:35 PM »
Whenever presented with a logical argument and thusly backed into a corner, the defensive theist usually screams "STRAW MAN" or "WHERES YOUR PROOF?!"

It does them no good -.- Best to just be reasonable and admit that they have no more to add and bow out.

Straw man is a tool to put people on the defensive so yeah if they point it out its probably because of that. I make no claim to proof either. Do you have a question you'd like to converse with me over?

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #272 on: July 29, 2012, 09:01:43 PM »
No, because anything we say in response will either be ignored or called a strawman. You haven't properly addressed any point put to you by the other members, and almost every response I've seen to your questions have been reasonable.

Offline Braioch

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #273 on: July 29, 2012, 09:06:04 PM »
Not a strawman since that is the viewpoint of several theists in a nutshell, and at the very least the ballsy ones are quite capable of admitting they don't know. At least they're bloody honest about it rather than coming up with a half-cocked story that balks against anything resembling logic or rationality.

Sorry Jebble, but you seem to lack an understanding of where the evidence of a claim should come from. We do not claim that god or the supernatural does not exist perse, we state that the evidence supporting the claim is sorely lacking. Theists on the other hand make the claim, even so far as to say, "I know that God exists." This is a claim and yet there is no evidence to support this.

If you really wanted to push it, "there is no evidence of god or the supernatural," is actually proven. As there is none.

Though I agree the lines between agnosticism and atheism can be blurred, best to research it a bit more. There are more than enough resources on it if it interests you enough.

Also a strawman is used to try to feel a personal sense of victory, constructing a poorly made and false summation of the opponents point to knock it down. As I said earlier, that wasn't a strawman, a bit simplistic, but it wasn't a false summation of what many theists think like.

Offline Jebble212

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #274 on: July 29, 2012, 09:10:41 PM »
No, because anything we say in response will either be ignored or called a strawman. You haven't properly addressed any point put to you by the other members, and almost every response I've seen to your questions have been reasonable.

If we had set definitions on the terminology we have all been using, it would be easier but the problem is a lot of the points put to me were somewhat confrontational and you might not have noticed but I did my best to explain myself and tried not to offend when I wasn't being talked down to. I have atheist friends and this isn't a hard issue to discuss if all parties are open minded to new thought.