Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 259

Thread: Darwin,Atheism and Religion

  1. #31
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    And you simply can't refute theism. Nothing is impossible with God. Try debating a Christian and you'll see what I mean.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cacian View Post
    what the evolution theory?
    between you and me, and I am not being rude, I would have worked it out myself is not a good idea.
    I would not have needed Darwin to point it out for me.
    It is obvious that inbreeding is unhealthy.
    All right, I also find very easy all that I discovered and that by accident, was just like what others knew.

  3. #33
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


    All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist. So the proposition "Married bachelors don't exist" is true.

    Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."
    Most atheists are those who find no reason to believe in God. When they argue against theists its not so much that they are saying "God cannot possibly exist," but more like "you have no good reason to believe that He exists."

    Again, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is it therefore reasonable to believe in them? It seems that you think it is.

  4. #34
    Existentialist Varenne Rodin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West
    Posts
    1,409
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    I didn't mean any ill-will, Varenne, really. I was serious. Do you have any arguments, logically-valid arguments? Three things are necessary for a sound argument: (1) clear and unambiguous terms (to avoid fallacies of equivocation), (2) plausible premises (if not obviously true), and (3) valid reasoning. Have you ever studied logic formally? (Again, not a pejorative question - most people nowadays haven't.)


    Yes, I figured that out.
    You are welcome to reread my comments. I don't speak vaguely.

    I will give you a new argument to pick apart, since you did not find the previous one to your liking. I can live and love without dogmas. As long as theists try to belittle or hinder love and kindness that happens without dogmas, I will defend free life and love. As long as people are divided I will hope for unity, and oppose clubs that support servitude to "higher" beings and individuals at the expense of club members and non-members.

    Now, what is your argument? What is your motivation? Do you understand mine? If not, I will move on to talking to people who don't find such difficulty in parsing through my sentences.

  5. #35
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by billl View Post
    I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?
    I was using a logical formula called modus ponens: if p then q; p, therefore q. I left the final "q" for the reader to draw. But it looks like I should've spelt it all out. And you've missed the point of the ad absurdum argument. The whole idea is that it's absurd to call inanimate things atheists. But given that definition, we would have to. Therefore, that definition is false.
    The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something.
    No, the point doesn't stand. An atheist is someone who makes the following knowledge-claim: "God doesn't exist." However, I'm happy to concede your point for conversation's sake. If we want to re-defing atheism for conversation's sake, I'll go along with that.
    (because they can't be sure he doesn't)
    Of course they can.
    . . . atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists.
    Maybe, maybe not. We're dealing with counterfactuals. New generations would be the problem. Some philosophers think theism is what they call "properly basic." And some evolutionary psychologists think that theism is "wired" into us.

  6. #36
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    It is incredibly unlikely that an all-powerful being would be passive and undetectable.
    That's a premise not an argument.
    It is philosophically indefensible to believe something without evidence or reason.
    Agreed.
    I don't have to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory.
    Well, that would be the way to refute theism.

  7. #37
    Existentialist Varenne Rodin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West
    Posts
    1,409
    Blog Entries
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by billl View Post
    This is maybe a little embarrassing, but I actually edited that a bit after you quoted it. No big deal, heh-heh.
    It happens to me all the time, Billl. Haha. Before and after edits, I liked what you said. I finally felt well represented and I appreciate it so much.

  8. #38
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    And you simply can't refute theism. Nothing is impossible with God. Try debating a Christian and you'll see what I mean.
    Yes, Darcy, you can. Prove it to be as incoherent as a four-sided triangle and you'll have done just that. Granted you'll never conquer someone who says that God can even do logically impossible things. But those people are loonies, anyway. And, yes, I've debated Christians before.

  9. #39
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    Most atheists are those who find no reason to believe in God. When they argue against theists its not so much that they are saying "God cannot possibly exist," but more like "you have no good reason to believe that He exists."

    Again, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is it therefore reasonable to believe in them? It seems that you think it is.
    I'll grant you all of this. Unicorns certainly are logically possible. But the analogy you're drawing is false, a category error. Moreover, not only are there no good arguments for unicorns, there are good arguments against unicorns. (For instance, we know that their supposed horns were narwhal tusks, etc.)
    Last edited by Climacus; 12-18-2011 at 06:03 PM.

  10. #40
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    I'll grant you all of this. Unicorns certainly are logically possible. But the analogy you're drawing is false, a category error. Moreover, not only are there no good arguments for unicorns, there are good arguments against unicorns. (For instance, we know that their supposed horns were narwhal tusks, etc.)
    A flying soda can is not logically contradictory. I'd say a flying soda can is no less likely than an all-powerful passive and undetectable being.

    Its not about logic. Its about what is reasonable. Make absolute certainty the standard which all assertions must satisfy and we enter into a world where almost anything is possible. Possible does not equal likely and likelihood ought to be a condition for belief.
    Last edited by Darcy88; 12-18-2011 at 06:13 PM.

  11. #41
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin View Post
    I will give you a new argument to pick apart, since you did not find the previous one to your liking. I can live and love without dogmas. As long as theists try to belittle or hinder love and kindness that happens without dogmas, I will defend free life and love. As long as people are divided I will hope for unity, and oppose clubs that support servitude to "higher" beings and individuals at the expense of club members and non-members.
    There are no formal arguments here. You seem to be having trouble understanding what a logical argument is, and that's OK. Again, most people haven't studied logic. Arguments, either deductive or inductive, move step by step, from propositions called premises, to a proposition called a conclusion. Here's an example of a syllogistic argument against God: "All that which exists is empirically verifiable. But God is not empirically verifiable. Therefore God doesn't exist." The conclusion follows deductively from the premises, so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well. This is the sort of thing I'm asking for. If you're having trouble articulating it, post it anyway and I'll formulate it to your satisfaction, if I can.
    Now, what is your argument? What is your motivation?
    That's a topic for another discussion. You said that you're an atheist. I've made no such metaphysical truth-claims. You don't know what I am.
    Last edited by Climacus; 12-18-2011 at 06:17 PM.

  12. #42
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    A flying soda can is not logically contradictory.
    It may be. We'd would have to unpack what sort of properties a flying soda can has. There may be an implicit contradiction there. Same thing with the unicorn, if it comes to that.

    I'd say a flying soda can is no less likely than an all-powerful passive and undetectable being.
    Well, again that's not an argument. Just a question-begging premise.

    Its not about logic. Its about what is reasonable.
    Logic defines what is reasonable.

  13. #43
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post

    Logic defines what is reasonable.
    No it doesn't. Belief in unicorns is not logically contradictory but is nonetheless unreasonable. I'd take Varenne's instinctive shyte-detector over your formal logic any day. Its about hard and proven facts, not abstract exercises. The ptolemaic model is not logically contradictory.
    Last edited by Darcy88; 12-18-2011 at 06:26 PM.

  14. #44
    Philosophaster Climacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    No it doesn't. Belief in unicorns is not logically contradictory but is nonetheless unreasonable.
    And how will you prove that it is unreasonable? With something other than logic?

  15. #45
    Registered User billl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    I was using a logical formula called modus ponens: if p then q; p, therefore q. I left the final "q" for the reader to draw. But it looks like I should've spelt it all out. And you've missed the point of the ad absurdum argument. The whole idea is that it's absurd to call inanimate things atheists. But given that definition, we would have to. Therefore, that definition is false.
    Originally, you said:
    The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God."
    What did you mean by "one"? You use the word "who" directly after it...

    If you want to use modus ponens, you can't just go changing what the p's and q's stand for. Your "reductio ad absurdum" was a mis-direction, ignoring that the discussion is about belief, and would rightly include only those with the capacity for belief. Varenne was, of course, saying that atheists are people who have no belief in god(s).


    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    No, the point doesn't stand. An atheist is someone who makes the following knowledge-claim: "God doesn't exist." However, I'm happy to concede your point for conversation's sake. If we want to re-defing atheism for conversation's sake, I'll go along with that.

    I, in the past, have been just as frustrated about this as you seem to be. But, in the end, it isn't just for conversation's sake. It is also for discussion's sake. In the end, if atheists and theists are going to debate/discuss/converse, then it is fair to not get confused about who is taking what position. The "traditional definition" might lead to arguments that interest some of us more, but it isn't the definition that people run up against too often these days, at least on LitNet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    Of course they can.
    Should I have said they "aren't" sure? No, really, their point in being agnostic-atheists/negative-atheists is that they "can't" be sure, though...

    Quote Originally Posted by Climacus View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. We're dealing with counterfactuals. New generations would be the problem. Some philosophers think theism is what they call "properly basic." And some evolutionary psychologists think that theism is "wired" into us.
    Yes, good points. Practically speaking, only the John Lennons might think that sort of result possible. I'm just trying to show their "angle" on this, and how it is different from the situation theists are in--and how these (now common) sorts of atheist might not want their position to be strictly about the existence of something, or the negation of it.
    Last edited by billl; 12-18-2011 at 06:31 PM.

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mysticism : A Truth , A Reality, a path
    By usman.khawar in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 224
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 04:19 PM
  2. Religion - Evolution in action?
    By Bii in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-18-2009, 09:37 PM
  3. A Truly Atheist Society
    By Sitaram in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 04:26 PM
  4. Evolution of religion
    By AimusSage in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-01-2005, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •