Print

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

Socialist

17 (33.3%)

Green

8 (15.7%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (3.9%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (21.6%)

Libertarian

8 (15.7%)

Republican

2 (3.9%)

Constitution

2 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Osmosis Jones]

Again, there are compelling arguments and evidence against the existence of a higher power (including the complete and utter absence of evidence to the contrary). If there were not, it would be a matter of faith.

More, there are no compelling arguments FOR the existence of a higher power, rather than anything strongly against. Well, unless you count Occam's Razor, but even that's more a guideline than a hard and fast rule. As CoF says though, there are plenty of arguments against specific interpretations of a higher power.

[SalmonGod]

I really hate how religious discussion always revolves around the Abrahamic religions.  I consider myself not exactly agnostic, but very open-minded about religious/spiritual ideas.  I even have my own mishmash of beliefs that I wouldn't call a religious faith, but that I've simply put some thought into and makes sense to me.  I completely reject the Abrahamic religions, however, based on their glaring internal inconsistencies.  So anytime religion comes up in discussion, it's always within this Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc context where I find myself having to be really negative about things, when that's not my attitude towards religion otherwise...  Just a gripe I thought I'd throw out there as long as we're on the subject.  I'm guessing I'm not the only one here who gets annoyed with this.

[Osmosis Jones]

Yes, but this is predominantly a western message board, and the western world is predominantly Abrahamic, so it is kind of to be expected I would love to argue Hindu mythology, (or Eastern, or Sikh, or Shamanistic tribal faiths) but as far as I am aware, the only Hindu that frequents these boars is too smart to get drawn into these things. Also, quite frankly, none of us probably have the experience with the faiths to make or recognise valid points.
That's not to say we should give carte blanche to any non-abrahamic religion, merely that to an external observer, our arguments (because let's not lie, there's no such thing as a religious debate  ) would seem even more comical than usual.

So, lets get back to the frozen chicken loving

[Keita]

Holy crap this place 'sploded since my post...

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Allow me to explain the contradictions, then.

1. This has been discussed many times. Ever hear of such things as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Evolution is not proven 100%. For all we know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have done something and made it appear as though evolution is true. You have to understand that even gravity is still a theory, no matter what you may think. Evolution does have evidence in favor of it, but nothing completely and utterly irrefutable.

A matter of semantics. The abstract concept of evolution is demonstrably true. We can sit down and test the mechanisms and principles of it. It is evolution as the origin of modern life that is almost irrefutably proven, enough so that it is deeply irrational to go against it.

2. What, exactly, are those arguments? There are no definite arguments against any kind of god. You can argue all you like, but theists and atheists have zero completely irrefutable proof either way. There are certainly arguments against specific things about specific gods, but the overall idea of a god remains viable regardless.

Result of question 10: "Complete lack of evidence for A is compelling evidence against A."
Result of question whatever-the-fuck-number-it-was: "If there is not compelling evidence against B, then disbelief in B is a matter of faith."
Reason they don't contradict: "There is no evidence for B, therefore the lack of evidence is compelling evidence against its existence, therefore disbelief in it is not a matter of faith, but of reason."

3. Under such a system where a god could do such a thing (logical impossibilities), there ARE no underlying laws. With no underlying laws, then it is utterly ridiculous to even begin to discuss a god, much less the existence of it. Attempting to explain something illogical using logic is illogical in itself. By arguing that a god could be illogical, then you cannot logically say that you do or do not believe in such a thing. That is the position of ignosticism, by the way.

The concept of a deity is already irrational. Its very existence would already break logic, and were it all-powerful it could create things which violate those laws which you are familiar with.

[RedKing]

Allow me to explain the contradictions, then.

1. This has been discussed many times. Ever hear of such things as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Evolution is not proven 100%. For all we know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have done something and made it appear as though evolution is true. You have to understand that even gravity is still a theory, no matter what you may think. Evolution does have evidence in favor of it, but nothing completely and utterly irrefutable.

A matter of semantics. The abstract concept of evolution is demonstrably true. We can sit down and test the mechanisms and principles of it. It is evolution as the origin of modern life that is almost irrefutably proven, enough so that it is deeply irrational to go against it.

Newtonian mechanics are demonstrably true too...at a certain scale. At other scales (the subatomic and the cosmological), they break down. Does this mean that Newtonian mechanics are false? Not exactly. It's more accurate to say that Newtonian mechanics are a very close approximation of "reality" except at the extreme ends of the mathematical domain it resides in.

Likewise, Darwinian evolution--as we currently know and describe it--may be an accurate approximation, but could conceivably not hold true at the extremes.

[Leafsnail]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You may have just taken a direct hit!

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
Incorrect, there is irrefutable proof that the abstract concept of evolution is correct.

Why did you concede a hit?  If you think there's irrefutable proof for evolution, you should just bite the bullet instead.  That means that the authors think your view is odd, but consistent.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
Again, there are compelling arguments and evidence against the existence of a higher power (including the complete and utter absence of evidence to the contrary). If there were not, it would be a matter of faith.

It's actually completely irrelevant whether there are compelling arguments for atheism or not.  The question is asking what the case would be if there was no compelling evidence.  You said that a-Lochnessmonsterism is a logical view to take if there's an absence of evidence, but that atheism would not be a logical view to take if there was an absence of evidence.  That is a contradiction.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Allow me to explain the contradictions, then.

1. This has been discussed many times. Ever hear of such things as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Evolution is not proven 100%. For all we know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have done something and made it appear as though evolution is true. You have to understand that even gravity is still a theory, no matter what you may think. Evolution does have evidence in favor of it, but nothing completely and utterly irrefutable.

A matter of semantics. The abstract concept of evolution is demonstrably true. We can sit down and test the mechanisms and principles of it. It is evolution as the origin of modern life that is almost irrefutably proven, enough so that it is deeply irrational to go against it.

Newtonian mechanics are demonstrably true too...at a certain scale. At other scales (the subatomic and the cosmological), they break down. Does this mean that Newtonian mechanics are false? Not exactly. It's more accurate to say that Newtonian mechanics are a very close approximation of "reality" except at the extreme ends of the mathematical domain it resides in.

Likewise, Darwinian evolution--as we currently know and describe it--may be an accurate approximation, but could conceivably not hold true at the extremes.

The concept of evolution is a general, abstract principle, which can be tested and observed in a myriad of ways. Biological evolution is like a specific application of Newtonian mechanics, which is observable on the scale its describing. Memetics, for instance, are another specific application of the broader concept of evolution, and one completely distinct from the principles of biological evolution, we could say they're like quantum physics to biological evolution's Newtonian mechanics. How about genetic algorithms? Another application of the broader idea, and again something completely divorced from both memetics and biological evolution; astrophysics, perhaps? The overall concept of evolution is more like the mathematics that all the different fields of physics run on than any specific application.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You may have just taken a direct hit!

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
Incorrect, there is irrefutable proof that the abstract concept of evolution is correct.

Why did you concede a hit?  If you think there's irrefutable proof for evolution, you should just bite the bullet instead.  That means that the authors think your view is odd, but consistent.

I just copied the whole text, pre-choice.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
Again, there are compelling arguments and evidence against the existence of a higher power (including the complete and utter absence of evidence to the contrary). If there were not, it would be a matter of faith.

It's actually completely irrelevant whether there are compelling arguments for atheism or not.  The question is asking what the case would be if there was no compelling evidence.  You said that a-Lochnessmonsterism is a logical view to take if there's an absence of evidence, but that atheism would not be a logical view to take if there was an absence of evidence.  That is a contradiction.

If there's a lack of evidence for a concept, belief in it is a matter of faith. Lack of evidence in favor of something's existence is pretty compelling evidence against its existence. Therefore, disbelief in something for which no evidence exists isn't a matter of faith, because the lack of evidence in favor of it is compelling evidence against it. It's a semantic issue, really.

[Zangi]

Wait... so in trolling terms...  what are we talking about?

"If there is no evidence of 'God', he must exist."

So along that line of thinking... if there is no evidence of Cthulhu, it must exist!
Well, there is also bigfoot and the lochness monster...

Believe

[Darvi]

Of course Chtulhu exists.

[Zangi]

Of course Chtulhu exists.

Can't believe it, I forgot to mention the Blood God Armok.

[ECrownofFire]

Stuff

More stuff

Your logic is faulty, regardless of what you argue about. It is not about Nessy vs gods, or even evolution vs gods. It is about you attempting to apply different kinds of logic to different situations, when in fact, they are the same. You can replace Nessy with anything you like, gods, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot, aliens, anything similar. They all have zero proof either for or against, and it is therefore ridiculous to assume that it applies differently to each of them.

And again for the third one, you just really can't see it, can you? If a deity truly was irrational, then all logical discussion about it is completely worthless, and you would be stupid for trying to argue it either way. Because if such a deity existed, no logic could be applied to it, INCLUDING whether or not it exists or not. You are assuming that a deity would be irrational, which means that you couldn't use logic with it. By assuming that a deity is irrational and illogical, then you cannot use any sort of logic at all.

I really think that all of this stems from you simply assuming that gods cannot exist. It is completely ridiculous to assume anything exists or does not exist with no evidence either way. No evidence for it does not equal evidence against it by any means, no matter what you apply it to. You have as much of a bias against gods that theists have for gods.

[Christes]

It is completely ridiculous to assume anything exists or does not exist with no evidence either way.

Are you happy concluding that it makes as much sense for Russell's teapot (or any of the above examples) to exist as it does for it not to exist? 

From a purely abstract, logical point of view, a statement and its negation are on equal footing.  This is great in, say, math or philosphy.  But in real life, however, this is not how we operate.  I'm perfectly happy in concluding that things don't exist because there is a massive lack of evidence for their existence.  Obviously, we can't say anything with complete certainty - and maybe that's your point - but real life is really hairy.

And with the irrational deity thing - I don't see it as an issue if you are against the existence of such a deity.  A logical implication is true whenever the hypothesis is false.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Stuff

More stuff

Your logic is faulty, regardless of what you argue about. It is not about Nessy vs gods, or even evolution vs gods. It is about you attempting to apply different kinds of logic to different situations, when in fact, they are the same. You can replace Nessy with anything you like, gods, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russel's Teapot, aliens, anything similar. They all have zero proof either for or against, and it is therefore ridiculous to assume that it applies differently to each of them.

It's mostly a semantic issue here. Let me try to untangle what I'm trying to say there...

If there is no evidence for something, believing (in) it is a matter of faith, but the lack of evidence in favor of it is pretty compelling evidence against it. Therefore, believing that it doesn't exist isn't just a matter of faith, because the lack of evidence in favor of it existing forms a compelling argument against its existence. I believe the statement "In the absence of compelling evidence in its favor, atheism is a matter of faith rather than reason," is true, but also that there is compelling evidence in its favor, in the form of complete absence of evidence of the existence of the things it purports do not exist, therefore it is a matter of reason, rather than one of faith.

And again for the third one, you just really can't see it, can you? If a deity truly was irrational, then all logical discussion about it is completely worthless, and you would be stupid for trying to argue it either way. Because if such a deity existed, no logic could be applied to it, INCLUDING whether or not it exists or not. You are assuming that a deity would be irrational, which means that you couldn't use logic with it. By assuming that a deity is irrational and illogical, then you cannot use any sort of logic at all.

If something is all powerful, it wouldn't be constrained by any set of laws, at least none you are familiar with, otherwise it is not all powerful. Therefore, it could do things which contradict the laws you are familiar with. It is indeed pointless to postulate the existence of such a being, and thus we should disregard the possibility of its existence.

I really think that all of this stems from you simply assuming that gods cannot exist. It is completely ridiculous to assume anything exists or does not exist with no evidence either way. No evidence for it does not equal evidence against it by any means, no matter what you apply it to. You have as much of a bias against gods that theists have for gods.

Atheism is the state of disbelieving outrageous and groundless claims. Further, we know that people can and do make shit like that up, and we can observe dramatic shifts in the memetics of religions of the years. All this paints a pretty compelling picture against their claims, while they have exactly nothing except personal feelings and "but I was told this was true!" to back up their side.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Spoiler: I feel like I need to change the poll. (click to show/hide)

Your Alignment?
Lawful Good
 6 (5.8%)
Neutral Good
 19 (18.3%)
Chaotic Good
 16 (15.4%)
Lawful Neutral
 11 (10.6%)
True Neutral
 17 (16.3%)
Chaotic Neutral
 20 (19.2%)
Lawful Evil
 7 (6.7%)
Neutral Evil
 4 (3.8%)
Chaotic Evil
 4 (3.8%)

Total Members Voted: 104

Alright, the poll now reflects the outcomes of Strange New World.