Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

How . . . what?  Denial . . . it's regardless of the facts.  I can deny the sky is red, and I can say it as a fact.  The fact that it is blue supports this and I am just in saying it.

Right, there fact to deny. There something there to deny.

If you deny that there is a god, the only thing backing you up is the lack of evidence, and it can only be stated as a belief, not a fact. 

I cannot deny fairies. I cannot deny russel teapot. There nothing to deny. Denying implies that there something there.  I could deny global warming as there something there.

To retort the statement about dragons having six limbs, if you read the book you would see the more realistic explanation.  There are lizards with wing-like fins formed from their rib cages, and these can be folded against the lizards body.  They use these wings to glide and control direction.  That is what dragon "wings" would be.  As to why there wouldn't be proto-dragons, maybe the hydrogen-producing bacteria came first in a species of dinosaur that could be considered similar in appearance to a dragon.  Also, Read The Book.  What I say is From The Book. I have only stated summaries, as I said before.  I cannot retype the whole thing.  Read it and then we can talk.  To help, it is The Flight of Dragons.  I'd give the author if I could find my copy of it, but anyone who doesn't get all their info about dragon myths from D&D and other recent fantasy games should know what I'm talking about anyway.  It is the predecessor for just about every book that goes into how dragons could exist.

Anyway, the point is that, like the dragon, there is no evidence of it, but there's nothing outright denying it.  Like God/gods.

I suppose. Sure, why not. But since its absent from the fossil record means no dragons. Just because a dragon can be made conceivable doesn't make it reality. You aren't aloud define things into reality.

A god could be made conceivable but since there no evidence for itself where then that means no god.

I'm willing to amend the fact of lack o god with evidence.

With this mindset of never being able to say stuff doesn't exist would be wasteful. Your essentially asking for proof of negatives. Which is impossible.

Things exist with its proof. Without proof, it doesn't exist. No one can say it never ever exist. At its most technical you have to say, for now, or until proven else wise.

However it lack of evidence make it operationally the same of it not existing. It lack of evidence and standing it doesn't exist, doesn't stop evidence from coming in.

If a science text book must make for allowance for all things that could be right, then it would be unending. We can never prove that Lamarkian evolution is wrong. Even if Natural Selection was never put forth, this doesn't mean we always treat Lamarkian with the curtsey of could be right. It doesn't provide anything.

[MrWiggles]

It was to illustrate that lack of belief was the simplest alternative with the least amount of assumptions.

That chart showed the change of the ideas. It only shows atheism hasn't evolved one bit. Tell me why a long paper on quantum physics and general relativity to explain a phenomena as autonomous is simpler than "God did it". All theism has according to that chart is a more complex history, not necessarily idea.

Um. You totally can. That the vary reason why Occosm razor exist, to eliminate other possibilities for the time being. It gives us focus, and reduces wasted effort.

We'd still have the plum pudding model if that were always the case. Occam's razor says what you should lean towards for focus. It proves nothing and so can reject and eliminate nothing. If you used it to reject as you do with religion, we wouldn't be where we are today.

The negative position is the default.

Are you going to quote another famous philosopher by name for this, or is that just you?

That why we need such tools as Occosm razor to help guide us to truth/correct.

How? According to Occam's razor I we should have ditched most modern theories that we investigated and found to be true.

Evidence. Good ole empirical evidence.

[Idiom]

No one here should even suggest a statement by a philosopher disproves anything.

I think therefore LegoLord is not. Begone! 

With this mindset of never being able to say stuff doesn't exist would be wasteful. Your essentially asking for proof of negatives. Which is impossible.

there no evidence for itself where then that means no god.

It lack of evidence and standing it doesn't exist, doesn't stop evidence from coming in.

You're just sliding past a self contradiction there I think, but differentiating between a sort of temporary non-existence and an absolute makes that slide. Barely. I think you're implying that if it doesn't affect us or we don't deal with it then it might as well not exist. I don't really think it sounds right. General relativity didn't exist until it was proved by that, but it did exist before that and we just couldn't understand how it affected us.

[LegoLord]

You just denied dragons.  You said "there are no dragons" - yet there is no factual evidence stating dragons aren't real, just the lack of evidence.

Denial is not saying something that exists isn't real.  It's simply saying it's not real.

You cannot say that god is not there as a fact, because if you tried disproving it through the scientific method, you would not even get to the hypothesis stage from lack of evidence.  For something to be denied, there has to be evidence against it, not just a lack of evidence for it.

Evidence against it would be evidence for atheism, but since there is no evidence directly opposing the existence of a god, you cannot prove atheism.

You cannot say "There is no god.  This is fact.  Stop being Christian/Jewish/Muslim and follow my belief."  The entire time, on each thread that has any semblence of religious discussion, that is what you have been saying.  There has been no scientific test carried out to prove either side, nor is a test possible, so you cannot call out people on either side for believing what they believe.

[MrWiggles]

No one here should even suggest a statement by a philosopher disproves anything.

I think therefore LegoLord is not. Begone! 

With this mindset of never being able to say stuff doesn't exist would be wasteful. Your essentially asking for proof of negatives. Which is impossible.

there no evidence for itself where then that means no god.

It lack of evidence and standing it doesn't exist, doesn't stop evidence from coming in.

You're just sliding past a self contradiction there I think, but differentiating between a sort of temporary non-existence and an absolute makes that slide. Barely. I think you're implying that if it doesn't affect us or we don't deal with it then it might as well not exist. I don't really think it sounds right. General relativity didn't exist until it was proved by that, but it did exist before that and we just couldn't understand how it affected us.

Please point out all my contradiction. I dont mean to make any. But we're fallible.

Without the understanding of General Relativity we were fine. Admittedly, human still fucked, we still travel the world and still had triumphs and woe. Correct? We were always working with actual laws of reality, even if we didnt understand them. This doesn't stop us from living.

Once we did, we were able to take advantage of them. However the advantages of General Relativity weren't taken as tangible until proof was foster for its myriad's of claims.

Leolord position, that we should still use Newton Laws of Motion because it not proven wrong, even though the evidence for it working is now lacking.

[LegoLord]

Leolord position, that we should still use Newton Laws of Motion because it not proven wrong, even though the evidence for it working is now lacking.

Where did I say that, and if that is not in use, what was proven to be a better model?  Go.  Do research.  Provide us with exactly why that model was chosen over Newton's.  Then you will find how it was proven wrong.

My position is that if you cannot prove either side of a statement, either that there is/are god/s or that there aren't, then you should shut up and stop trying to convert other people to your personal view.

[MrWiggles]

I don't anyone to an atheist. Just crit thinkers.

[Idiom]

Please point out all my contradiction. I dont mean to make any. But we're fallible.

I'll try.

I say: There is nothing for or against. There is nothing on this idea at all. Therefore my position is nothing, neither accepting or rejecting but merely acknowledging it on a list of possibilities to be proven (if ever).
You say: There is nothing for or against. There is nothing on this idea at all. Therefore we reject it as wrong for now until it can be proven.

Firstly, I don't see the grounds on which to reject.

Secondly, in the case that the idea is proven to be true, I was never wrong because I never did say it was wrong. You would be wrong once it was proven right. In the case that it is proven wrong somehow, I'm not wrong still because I never exactly said it was right. Therefore I think the best position is agnostic. It's worthy of a politician.

Thirdly, you are claiming absolutes until you are contradicted. It's like walking without ever changing direction until you walk right into a wall. There are no absolutes. There is no 100% proof or disproof (take a statistics class, it's mind blowing).

Evidence. Good ole empirical evidence.

We don't trip over such evidence one day out of the blue. Only with solid pursuit into it could we prove something, which focusing on what to prove using Occam's razor would not allow. The razor isn't a rule of what is, but a rule of thumb on what is likely. It's generally fairly accurate, if mainly on the grounds that there are infinite complex and infinitely more complex solutions one could think of and limited simple ones.

I don't anyone to an atheist. Just crit thinkers.

You go about posting Epicurus (he was full of assumptions), Occam's philosophy on options (which can be interpreted by opinion), and "there is no God, period, that's stupid" and you create irritatingly hardcore Atheists who can only name other people's ideas as if they were religious commandments and never even stop to think critically about their own foundations.

Not that I have anything against critical thinking. The problem is when people take sides or fail to do their own critical thinking. That sides wrong in some aspects so this one must be right. Things are snapped to black and white and they never think any further but proceed to defend it to the death in the same manner as the other side.

[LegoLord]

I don't anyone to an atheist. Just crit thinkers.

And yet, you attack any propositions for how a god could work.  That is not trying to encourage critical thinking, that is denying all possibilities that don't agree with you.  No matter what anyone suggests, you come up with some way to attack it, often lazily pulling out the "there is no evidence" card.  Leave us be.  I, at least, haven't been attempting to convert you to Christianity, only to defend my reasons for my belief from your attacks on them.

[Idiom]

And yet, you attack any propositions for how a god could work.  That is not trying to encourage critical thinking, that is denying all possibilities that don't agree with you.  No matter what anyone suggests, you come up with some way to attack it, often lazily pulling out the "there is no evidence" card.

If something is true, then Wiggles would never know with this approach.

[Grek]

When you get right down to it, what exactly is the difference between Catholicism and protestantism aside from the church's hierarchy?

The major differences are:
- The Roman Catholic Church has a Pope and that Pope claims Papal infallibility ie., that the Pope is sometimes given infalliable Divine revelations which should not be questioned by any Christian. Protestantism rejects this claim.
- The Eucharist. What actually goes on during the Eucharist and whether t should even be given to people is a Big Deal in Christian Theology.
- Sacerdotalism vs. Preisthood of All Believers.
- Justification by Faith vs. Penitence and Confession
- Free will. Some protestant churches believe in predestination.
- Mormanism claiming Divine revelation independant of the Pope.

[LegoLord]

When you get right down to it, what exactly is the difference between Catholicism and protestantism aside from the church's hierarchy?

The major differences are:
- The Roman Catholic Church has a Pope and that Pope claims Papal infallibility ie., that the Pope is sometimes given infalliable Divine revelations which should not be questioned by any Christian. Protestantism rejects this claim.

Hierarchy.  And most of those other differences are small, at best.  Lack of free will seems to be rare.

I once had to right a hypothetical conversation between multiple religious leaders from the time of the reformation.  The setting; before the gates of heaven.  In mine, they bickered about who was right, because obviously the others weren't of the right religion to get into heaven, and then Saint Peter comes up and says "Buddha will see you now."  The point was that despite those tiny differences, they all still got there.  The fact that it was Buddha is irrelevant; it just needed to be a non-christian figure.

I do not assume that there is a heaven, but believe there is one because I would like there to be.

[Grek]

The claim that the Pope receives Divine revelations from God is pretty major claim. It's literally claiming that God talks to the Pope and tells him what he should do and that the Pope can talk directly to God and receive answers back.

[G-Flex]

When you get right down to it, what exactly is the difference between Catholicism and protestantism aside from the church's hierarchy?

The major differences are:
- The Roman Catholic Church has a Pope and that Pope claims Papal infallibility ie., that the Pope is sometimes given infalliable Divine revelations which should not be questioned by any Christian. Protestantism rejects this claim.

Hierarchy.  And most of those other differences are small, at best.  Lack of free will seems to be rare.

I once had to right a hypothetical conversation between multiple religious leaders from the time of the reformation.  The setting; before the gates of heaven.  In mine, they bickered about who was right, because obviously the others weren't of the right religion to get into heaven, and then Saint Peter comes up and says "Buddha will see you now."  The point was that despite those tiny differences, they all still got there.  The fact that it was Buddha is irrelevant; it just needed to be a non-christian figure.

Not to nitpick, but if you think Buddha would ever be greeting people up in Heaven... well, that's not how Buddha works. He isn't really intended to be a divine figure, or even anything more than anyone else, really.

The claim that the Pope receives Divine revelations from God is pretty major claim. It's literally claiming that God talks to the Pope and tells him what he should do and that the Pope can talk directly to God and receive answers back.

Yeah, and it's not just that; the Pope can claim things and the Church has to take it as absolute fact.

[LegoLord]

When you get right down to it, what exactly is the difference between Catholicism and protestantism aside from the church's hierarchy?

The major differences are:
- The Roman Catholic Church has a Pope and that Pope claims Papal infallibility ie., that the Pope is sometimes given infalliable Divine revelations which should not be questioned by any Christian. Protestantism rejects this claim.

Hierarchy.  And most of those other differences are small, at best.  Lack of free will seems to be rare.

I once had to right a hypothetical conversation between multiple religious leaders from the time of the reformation.  The setting; before the gates of heaven.  In mine, they bickered about who was right, because obviously the others weren't of the right religion to get into heaven, and then Saint Peter comes up and says "Buddha will see you now."  The point was that despite those tiny differences, they all still got there.  The fact that it was Buddha is irrelevant; it just needed to be a non-christian figure.

Not to nitpick, but if you think Buddha would ever be greeting people up in Heaven... well, that's not how Buddha works. He isn't really intended to be a divine figure, or even anything more than anyone else, really.

Well, you are nitpicking.  As I said, the point wasn't that it was Buddha.  Any none-christian thing would have fit.  The point was that they all bickered about how one or the other was right, without anything more than their own words, and in the end it turns out that none of them were right.  Ironically, those religious figures, in this discussion, represent those that are trying to argue that atheism is either right or wrong.  It doesn't matter if you have a religion or not, what you believe could be wrong.