This OP will be divided into few parts (prolly 3-4) because, for some very funny reasons (best known to me), i'm using a phone with really limited typing space. So ATM, pls bear with me. Here goes,
PART ONE
If theists take some certain kind of positions, atheists would cry fowl. After an encounter with some atheists on this forum, i've realized a lot of them seem be asserting the "no one knows" position of agnostics and probably want everyone to take the same stance with them. A true agnostic won't side either theists nor atheists for they both take a gnostic position.
Unfortunately, agnostics come here feigning atheism and use science as a bases to knock down theism. That aside, it is logically possible to find the truth if one desires. The position of "I don't know" seems to be a path of easy escape for anyone who refuse to exercise the use of simple logics.
to be continued...
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Chicken, Capon! What a goose! Don't mind me I am just crying fowl....
PART TWO
Let's pick some issues btw Atheists (A) & Theists (T)
1(a). T: God created the universe
1(b). A: The universe created itself
2(a). T: Universe has an origin
2(b). A: Universe always existed
3(a). T: The BBT shows universe is ~14 Billion years
3(b). A: Universe always existed as a gravitational singleton
4(a). T: Something from the outside initiated the change in state of gravitational singleton. Something = God
4(b). A: Universe could have been recurring as an infinite regression
5(a). T: Infinite regress is impossible. Must be a 1st cause. Thus, God
5(b). A: The 1st cause needn't be a being but a force/energy
6(a) T: The DNA is a kind of computer code requiring Intelligent Programmer
6(b). A: The program of the DNA came about by pure statistical accident of chemical reactions.
to be continued...
@reedemption:
1(a). T: God created the universe
1(b). A: The universe created itself
(FALSE DICHOTOMY - C: THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS EXISTED D: THE BIG BANG WAS JUST ONE OF MANY E: A STEADY STATE UNIVERSE F: ETERNAL INFLATION LEVEL ll UNIVERSE G: OSCILLATING UNIVERSE H: A COMPUTER SIMULATION UNIVERSE I; A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE J; A MULTIDIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE..... BLA BLA BLA.....
RE: 2(a). T: Universe has an origin 2(b). A: Universe always existed
STRAW MAN FALLACY - YOU CAN NOT KNOW EITHER ASSERTION. I THINK SCIENCE CURRENTLY LEANS TOWARDS THE UNIVERSE HAVING AN ORIGIN BUT THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE COSMOS. UNIVERSE IS LOCAL TIME AND LOCAL CREATION. FROM WHAT OR WHERE NO ONE CAN ACTUALLY SAY.
re: 3a and 3b ADDRESSED ABOVE - SAME bs.
re: 4A AND 4B ADDRESSED ABOVE - SAME BS
RE: 5a AND 5B ADDRESSED ABOVE - SAME BS.
RE: 6A. T: The DNA is a kind of computer code requiring Intelligent Programmer 6b. The program of the DNA came about by pure statistical accident of chemical reactions.
Atheist have no dogmatic opinion on DNA. You want to talk to a biologist. What can easily be discovered is this...... Any biological website can tell you the same.... DNA is a chemical reaction just like every other chemical reaction known to mankind.
"The core argument of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer."
https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code
This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premises: that DNA is a code that a computer instruction is a code, and that the term 'code' is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.
In short: you are making an EQUIVOCATION FALLACY: The word code is used one way for systems like computer programming or the Morris Code, and in a completely different way for biology.
https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code
As I said, you haven't even a basic grasp of informal logic if you're going to start with a false dichotomy fallacy.
That's an argumentum from incredulity fallacy. Nothing that contains known logical fallacies can be asserted as rational.
That's just hilarious...
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim to be using logic, then line up known logical fallacies end to end, and lie to misrepresent atheism in this way? And all in a thread where you have the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty, just because they are properly interpreting words like agnosticism and atheism, and you're not. Or because they have a basic grasp of epistemological burden of proof a claim incurs, and know that whilst a belief is the affirmation of a claim, not holding a belief is not a contrary claim.
It's also worth noting that in that collection of erroneous fallacious bilge you've not offered one shred of objective evidence for any deity, I shan't even feign surprise.
PART THREE
7(a). T: Given infinite number of arrangements of the alphanumeric characters, can a computer code be created?
7(b). A: ???
8(a). T: Consciousness/Awareness is a kind of computer AI programming on the biological hardware.
8(b). A: Consciousness is not well understood but it is just chemicals acting on the brain.
9(a). T: Consciousness/Awareness require the personality to be able to feel both discomfort and pleasure and volition. Chemicals cannot cause this.
9(b). A: ???
By number 5, the atheists that there could be something (but not God). Until atheists can answer 7 and 9 convincingly, God is established as the source.
to be continued...
@reedemption: T: Consciousness/Awareness require the personality to be able to feel both discomfort and pleasure and volition. Chemicals cannot cause this.
Have you never seen people turn aggressive under the influence of alcohol or drugs? When I drink, I become more intelligent, good looking, and great at singing, but some people turn nasty. A drunk guy once punched me in the mouth in the middle of a beautiful rendition of "Funiculi Funicula". I think the chemicals affected his consciousness and his ability to enjoy great music.
@reedemption
Atheism doesn't make claims, all you're doing is using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies or god of the gaps polemic to try and dishonestly reverse the burden of proof. What's more we know for an objective fact that natural phenomena occur, you're adding unexplained magic from an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition, just how anyone can keep a straight face and claim this represents a more likely or probable scenario only you can know.
The probability that natural phenomena exist is 100%, you can't even show that a deity is possible, let alone "more" probable than natural explanations.
@reedemption
That's just another list of questions using argumentum ad ignorantiam, and black and white or false dichotomy fallacies.
You can keep banging your tambourine all you want, you're still holding an empty bag. All you've espoused are logical fallacies, and god of the gaps polemic. We've seen literally dozen of apologists come here and trot out the same ignorant nonsense, and like you try to redefine the dictionary.
I can only you're trolling.
42!
PART FOUR
I. A Design needs a designer until it can be shown that the converse is possible. In a design, we see interrelated systems that can't exist without the other e.g. Key and padlock, house and roof
II. You don't need to believe in anything other than, "there is a Prime Mover/Source of everything."
III. There are indeed many gods but one creater. And it is understandable the position of science since science is in 3 dimensions while gods are in higher dimensions.
An agnostic should be a seeker of the truth and must refrain from taking gnostic positions. No more "atheists in agnostics clothing"!
END
@reedemtion:
"I. A Design needs a designer until it can be shown that the converse is possible. In a design, we see interrelated systems that can't exist without the other e.g. Key and padlock, house and roof"
Do you recognize design by comparing it with something not designed?
I."A Design needs a designer" And things that occur naturally do not. What's your point? You are also making a "Begging the Question fallacy." Design does not need a designer, it may need an observer. Designs occur in chaotic systems but if no one is there to notice, who will call it a design?
ll. I don't need to believe in that either. Why in the world would I believe in such nonsense without evidence?
lll. There are many gods and one creator. How in the fuck would you know this?
IV. Gods are in higher dimension. How in the fuck would you know this?
An agnostic should be a seeker of the truth and must refrain from taking gnostic positions. No more "atheists in agnostics clothing"! (WTF????)
Just further evidence that you have no idea at all what you are talking about. People have explained to you the meaning of the word "Agnostic." You choose to ignore it and continue sounding like you are ignorant.... fine..... it's up to you.
An agnostic must refrain from taking Gnostic positions.....
You mean positions like.......
1. A design needs a designer?
2. You need to believe there is a prime mover? (A source for everything?)
3. There are many gods but only one creator?
4. Science has three dimensions but Gods live in higher dimensions.
This is the most idiotic drivel I have yet run across on the site. My IQ dropped three points by just sitting here next to it.
@reedemption
This has to be a windup, you seem to be trying to get as many things wrong as can.
A design needs a designer, is again fucking hilarious, you're assuming a design a priori, it's called a begging the question fallacy.
Another appeal to ignorance fallacy, this is fucking hilarious. The natural physical universe exists, and natural phenomena exist as objective facts, you're the one adding unevidenced magic from an unevidenced deity, so until you can demonstrate some objective evidence for those claims no one has show anything at all, least of atheists.
You sir are off your tits, but thanks for the belly laughs anyway.
@reedemption
We infer design from objective evidence, and in every single instance where such evidence exists, and there are countless examples, not once do those designed things occur naturally.
You can point at the sky, and scream magic dunnit, all you want, we'll just point at you, and laugh.
Oh kerist..the whole kit and caboodle of unfounded claims, faulty logic and unevidenced assertions.
As I said...what a goose. Actually my uttering of 'capon', a fat, pompous neutered cockerel is a much better picture of this posting. Fowl play indeed.
Not going to play here, all these idiocies masquerading as "argument" have been utterly destroyed in many posts here it hardly requires any research to find them. For instance:
Design requires designer...LOL....simplistic and stupid when talking about origins of the universe. For man made items sure, a great phrase...are you implying your "creater"(sic) is also man made?
Drivel, bunkum, nonsense. Foul indeed. .
Reedemption, I frequently describe myself as an agnostic atheist. This is because I both do not believe the assertion that gods exist AND I admit I have no way to know if they do or do not. Pay attention to my use of the words believe and know. They are different things. I, along with many others, define a/theism as a belief or lack of belief in gods. Additionally, a/gnosticism is about knowledge...knowing about the existence or nonexistence of gods.
In your serial OP, are you asserting that, despite the definitions I have provided above, I cannot be both atheist and agnostic?
Re: OP - "If theists take some certain kind of positions, atheists would cry fowl."
Shit-bird! Fuck-a-duck! Choking my damn chicken! Mother Fucking Goose! Flaming-finches assholes! Cocksucker!.... *looking around at everybody staring at me*.... Oh, my apologies, folks. Just brushing up a bit on my "fowl" language.
I realize that statement was just your attempt to assign a statement to atheists (a silly thing to do, imo); but I am curious about what you mean by singleton. That word has different meanings in different contexts.
@op
I would rather be honest and say I don't know, instead of lying and saying you know.
You are making the god claim, so what objective evidence do you have it is real?
An remember the bible is the claim, not the evidence.
@redemption: RE: Agnosticism --- YOU SAID " "no one knows" position of agnostics and probably want everyone to take the same stance with them."
Well there you go. Now we know your first big problem. You have no fucking idea at all what agnosticism is. If you go to the AR home page there is a nice little article on agnosticism. Agnostics are religious and atheist. Agnostic is about knowledge. A-without / Gnostic - knowledge. It says nothing at all about belief. A - without / Theist - belief in god. Atheists do not believe in gods. If they also have no knowledge about god or gods, they are Agnostic Atheists. A Christian who follows Pascal's Wager, (A doubting Thomas) is in fact an Agnostic Christian. Go to the Home Page of AR and look on the left hand side for the Agnostic Atheist diagram and discussion. You don't have to sound ignorant in these forums. It is a choice you are making.
re: YOU SAID: That aside, it is logically possible to find the truth if one desires.
It may be. We don't know. All we can seem to assert is that that truth may be out there. That's why we keep looking. (Well, some of us. Others are crouched on there knees in dark candle lit rooms, believing in and practicing magical rituals. )
re: YOU SAID: "I don't know" seems to be a path of easy escape for anyone who refuse to exercise the use of simple logics. (I think you mean "logic.")
You could not be more wrong. One of the only people on this site professing to know things that they can not possibly know is YOU. "I don't know." is the path to exploration, inquiry, mystery, and eventually "DISCOVERY." Pretending you know an answer is just delusion. Supporting your delusional answer with more delusion only succeeds in proving you are deluded.
"1(a). T: God created the universe
1(b). A: The universe created itself"
The way this simplistic argument is posed reveals an inherent weakness in the theist view, besides not understanding atheism.
Theist thought is so imbued by the idea of a god figure that even when expressing their version of the atheist view, they can not help but replace their god with another power image, in this case 'the universe'.
I do not recall ever hearing an atheist state the "universe created itself".
Creation is an act of a creator, like a person who makes watches.
The universe did not create itself.
The universe is not an entity, a personality, or a replacement for a god or even a god for that matter.
It is a material place, subject to elemental forces of nature, apparently immeasurable in dimension and in Newtonian time. It currently defies total and complete understanding by the practice of science, and especially religion, but as science has only been free to investigate reality for a mere four hundred years at best, it has revealed a great deal in a relatively short time just how and what those elemental forces have produced. Much is yet to be gleaned but this does not negate the value of what has so far been discovered.
Lemaitre, the talented Catholic priest who mathematically created the original concept of the 'big bang' pointedly warned the Vatican not to publicly use his theory as proof of the biblical creation. He understood one was a mathematical scientific theory and the other to be a belief.
Re: OP - "The Dishonesty of AR Atheists"
In the interest of full disclosure, I'll just be totally honest and tell you that the only time I am dishonest is when I am lying, cheating, or stealing. Otherwise, believe me, I pretty much almost always tell the truth..... (sometimes). Trust me, I ain't lyin'.
RE: OP I used to be dishonest but then I discovered that the theists could not tell the difference between an honest comment and a dishonest one. So..... what does it really matter? You have to go and do your own research. not listen to the inane ramblings of people on an AR forum. These are just the discussions that spark our interest into getting off your lame butt and doing a bit of research to find out what we know and what we do not know.
Awwwww.... Dang-it, shucks, and gosh-darnnit... Did Reedie-weedie give me a "Disagree" on my post?... *indignant look on face*... Well - okay - to be perfectly honest, I would probably be lying if I said my world is now crumbling into oblivion because of his rejection to my duplicitous candid remarks. Truth be known, though, if I were being totally honest with myself, I realize most folks would likely see through my veiled deception and perhaps consider me to be evasive in expressing the truth of my non-genuine intentions of questionable sincerity.
"A true agnostic won't side either theists nor atheists for they both take a gnostic position."
(1) no true scotsman fallacy (look it up)
(2) There is no such thing as 'a fake agnostic' .One is either agnostic about X Y or Z, or one is not. The word has a very simple meaning : It comes from the Greek ' gnosis' which simply means 'knowledge" ,,and "a' which means 'without . It has nothing to do with belief and is not restricted to religious knowledge . EG I am agnostic about alien visitation. IE I don't know,
(3) A person may be both atheist AND agnostic ,as indeed I am .By that I mean I do not believe in god .Greek again; 'a' without' 'theos ' god. BUT I do not claim to KNOW there is no god. That is I am agnostic about god.
(4) You have proven yourself to be an ignoramus, seeming to be lacking even the ability to use a DICTIONARY!
(5) Quad Erat Demonstrandum
Boredom rather than patience compels me to answer some of this. I am immobile, convalescing with a damaged knee. Send no flowers, I will live.
"PART ONE
If theists take some certain kind of positions, atheists would cry fowl."(<-- "fowl"= any bird, "foul" = bad, under-handed or awful...free vocabulary lesson, you're welcome, but Old Man was right to mock you)
-- when atheists state their single viewpoint, theists do more than cry foul, they insult, insinuate, preach and condemn. They have been known to wilfully distort the truth and they even declare atheists to be "dishonest" without reasonable explanation. You remain lower than a dog turd in my eyes until your apology is made.
"After an encounter with some atheists on this forum, I've realized a lot of them seem be asserting the "no one knows" position of agnostics and probably want everyone to take the same stance with them."
-- well yes, we would like everyone to give up the wishful imaginings of personal best friend gods as much as theists want everyone else to embrace the ludicrous idea.
"A true agnostic won't side either theists nor atheists for they both take a gnostic position."
-- this is your mistaken understanding of the terms "theism" and "gnosticism".
Theism has to do with faith, what one beleives.
Gnosticism has to do with knowledge, that which one unequivocally knows.
Theists and atheists can claim to be either gnostic or agnostic.
Many of both claim to be agnostic. Do you think this might be because of a lack of objective falsifiable evidence?
"Unfortunately, agnostics come here feigning atheism and use science as a bases (basis..write out 100 times) to knock down theism."
- -this is another mistaken generalisation. As far as I have witnessed for the past two years most people come here as atheists like myself and I don't use science to knock down theism if only because most professed theists do not understand how the scientific method works and seem impervious to any explanation. I prefer to use history. There are no contemporaneous historical records of Yeshua (Jesus, to you) and the greater majority of the Old Testament is based on mythical legends.
"That aside, it is logically possible to find the truth if one desires."
-- not at all true, better to say "it is logically possible to find the truth that one desires to be true."
"The position of "I don't know" seems to be a path of easy escape for anyone who refuse to exercise the use of simple logics."
- well thanks for sharing what you seem to think "I don't know" means. For me it means the speaker is probably being honest which does not require any prior knowledge about simple logics, which sounds so "intellectual" doesnt it? It only requires basic integrity.
Part 2 later, maybe
oh look, it's the usual strawman caricatures and misrepresentations of atheism and science from a supernaturalist. Quelle fucking surprise ...
I am (seed of being)
a gnostic: to know
agnostic: to acknowledge what is unknown
I am a gnostic agnostic:
what I know, I know,
what I do not know, I do not know,
and the rest is "belief" which,
being the agency required
to confuse evil with good,
is not so much a virtue
as knowing who/what/where/why/when/how
and/or if *not* to "believe" is.
So I know not to "believe" in any "belief"-based god knowing "belief" is the very agency required to confuse whatever is evil with whatever is good, and therefor abstain from "believing" to know good and/or evil by way of knowing that doing so (and being wrong) creates internal polarizations "lived out" (ie. suffered) by such a being. I find this equivalent to the mythological warning of not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil: if it is done, a "believer" will necessarily "believe" in some manner of good/evil such that they are firmly fixed on the side of "good" against "evil", despite their adversary "believing" the same, but inverted:
A: B is evil!
B: A is evil!
A and B are locked in perpetual conflict so long as the "belief" in (the other as) evil persists.
So "belief"-based religions need to stop persecuting "unbelievers" especially considering "belief" is the agency required to confuse evil with good. At least the "unbelievers" aren't in the devil's playground of "belief" and can't possibly f*ck up the good/evil problem. Only a "believer" can do that, thus eat from the tree, and bring evil into the world through their "believing".
"Belief" needs to be replaced with "knowledge". Of what?
Who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe".
"no one knows" "maybe" "could of" "probably" is always the end of the road answer in atheism big bang / evolution beliefs, There is obviously evolution to a certain extent and time frame, But the bible is the only source of "always was" "always is" "always will be" life & existence of different levels, It has all the answers to a certain point of our own understanding based on the time we put in the reading of scripture and asking the source of all through prayer as well as personal experience that you can base upon what the word says for verification. There is no absolute proof for any belief but evidence can be found in everything because of the 1+0 always = 1 source God who started everything.
Pages