sqdfdsfqsdf - Page 7
Join Free Art WorkShopJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 270

Thread: sqdfdsfqsdf

  1. #181
    sve's Avatar
    sve is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 200 Times in 123 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think your analogy with an apples or hair is wrong because of this... you think that absence of belief in god is nothing, emptiness, but according to this analogy it will be another apple, a new belief, an apple of certain color in this cup. That's all.
    Why does the new apple meet all requirements of being belief I explained earlier. As I said it is sophism, play of words and terms. It looks truthful in the first sight but doesn't reflect situation.
    When you will be able to come up with a right analogy I promise to give you a credit. Those were sophisms. Sophism is not stupid, it is a deceit, it could be quite witty, but it is still a wrong comparison, sly change of one term with another.

    Last edited by sve; March 20th, 2007 at 11:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You're right ... I can't understand you because you're not making any sense any more. Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god. Can you understand that? It isn't the presence of anything. If a banana in the bowl is Christianity (belief in the Christian god), the absence of a banana makes you atheist towards the Christian god, if an orange in the bowl is Islam (belief in Allah), then the absence of an orange makes you atheist towards the Muslim god. If there is no fruit in the bowl then you are atheist towards all and any beliefs in god. Theists are atheist towards all gods but their own, atheists just go one god further. Buddhists are atheists but they are religious, communists are atheists but they have a dogma, young children are atheists because they don't hold any god beliefs yet (they haven't been brough the word yet so to speak).

    Last edited by LaPalida; March 21st, 2007 at 01:58 AM.
    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    245
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 59 Times in 20 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    [B]I think we can all agree that technically Atheism is not a religion, but it r

    In response to Rhynome, thanks for the crit, I'm always open to willing to find fault with my own ideas, - I've been so wrong in the past. But please read the posts very carefully before you reply. If you like I'll extrapolate why, but I'll leave that to your judgement (and re-reading of those posts) as to whether it's necessary. But, anyway, thanks for putting in another viewpoint, there's always space for self-improvement when people get together like this.

    I don't know if someone's already referred to the Oxford Dictionary - I concede I put faith in that book - maybe it will help clarify things.

    atheism
    /aythi-iz’m/
    • noun - the belief that God does not exist.
    — DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
    — ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

    agnostic
    /agnostik/
    • noun - a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

    religion
    • noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

    Like all things, especially contentious ones, it comes down to interpretation.

    To brand atheism as a religion is to enter a grey realm as to what degree of devotion, pursuit of truth or day-to-day practice, atheists pursue this belief (or faith) that a God does not exist.

    Superficially, Atheism does not resemble a religion, - there is no deity to believe in, no moral compasses, no laws or judgements, no standards, habits, traditions or customs, and each atheists viewpoint is, by virtue of the absence of a central "Atheists report here" controlling administration or common education or common indoctrination, more of a personal realisation.

    But Atheism, ironically, does resemble a religion in one very important way. It practices a stubborn-mindedness, and an un-openness (is that a word?)- that something does not exist.

    I think we can all agree that technically Atheism is not a religion, but it requires a dogged mindset that appears religious in its zeal.

    I thought I was an agnostic, but it seems even agnostics are not so impartial, and have a more pessimistic viewpoint than atheists do.

    Does anyone know what noun exists for someone who remains open to any possibility, come what may? Well, until someone can think of it, I'm "one of them ones".



    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    How about this revised fruit bowl analogy:

    There isn't just one fruit in the bowl, it's actually full of all fruits that could possibly be!

    A Monotheistic person pick one fruit (out of all the fruits) with his one hand.

    A Hindu person picks several fruits (out of all the fruits) with his many hands.

    An Atheist keeps his hands in his pockets.



    The counter argument to this analogy would be that our physical reality and scientific ideas concerning it are fruits aswell, and both atheists and theists are grabbing many off the same fruits here, such as the "I think" one.

    If we were to categorize the fruits, we would find that some are behind window and we and only do window shopping in our current state. However, the store owner promises to let us in once we're dead!

    Some of the fruits are kinda floating around, their position not decided upon yet. A person studying our physical reality, such as a scientist, would keep track of the floaty fruits, but not pick one until they're stabilized and moved into the bowl with tanglible fruits that we all share and eat on a daily basis, such as the gravity fruit or atom fruit. If a fruit starts to suddenly float away, it will have to be abandoned or less relied upon for the time being.



    ---

    Quote Originally Posted by Mungus
    But Atheism, ironically, does resemble a religion in one very important way. It practices a stubborn-mindedness, and an un-openness (is that a word?)- that something does not exist.
    Only because others stubbornly insist that their God does exist. It's a relationship. Atheists did not come up with the idea of Yaweh so they could stubbornly refute him and gloat. "Hey, what if we come up with a bearded kangeroo god, and then we just debunk the whole idea hardcore style!"

    If I were to insist, really insist, (like knock on your door 8 in the morning like Jehova's did to me recently) that you have an invisible dragon in your garage, would you call yourself religious in your reluctance to the proposition to go and search the garage thoroughly with them? Atheists give Yaweh special attention because he's common and thus functional as an example in a discussion.

    Also, it appears you are using the "Strong Atheist" definition:
    Strong atheists are atheists who accept as true the proposition, "god does not exist".

    An Agnostic-Atheist might say: All intangible gods are equal. The properties of these entities can not be known, therefore I can not define anything to believe in and follow, thusly I can not adapt my behaviour according to anything, and will continue to watch Dai Mahou Touge because it's the best animé ever!!!!!


    Edit: Actually, to attack my own position: if I claim that the properties of an entity is unknowable, I might run into a paradox, since I'm claiming knowledge about the entity. I will have to ponder this possibility and its implications on my stance (I'm assimilating some interesting material atm.).

    Last edited by emily g; September 28th, 2007 at 09:51 PM.
    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    But Atheism, ironically, does resemble a religion in one very important way. It practices a stubborn-mindedness, and an un-openness (is that a word?)- that something does not exist.
    I disagree with that. How can you be stubborn minded if you refuse to believe something without evidence. The onus is on the believer to prove that his god exists. Atheists aren't making any positive claims, theists come to them and tell them all about these wonderful creatures. Atheists simply demand proof otherwise it's just made up stories and why should they believe them? Don't we demand proof (at least those of us rational) in all aspects of our lives, why give a free pass to god? In fact agnostic atheists are open to possibilites they simply demand evidence for any claims made to accept something as an actuality. If someone claims that his medicine heals then they have to prove that it heals. Otherwise it's just snake oil. I think Prom said it pretty much as I would.

    Let's take for example: The flying spaghetti monster. Are you stubborn-minded if you don't believe in the existence of this creature? Are you credulous if you believe this creature exists without evidence? If you answer those questions... then replace the FSM with god and see if you get the same answers.

    The counter argument to this analogy would be that our physical reality and scientific ideas concerning it are fruits aswell, and both atheists and theists are grabbing many off the same fruits here, such as the "I think" one.
    I am not sure at what you're getting at here. Are you talking about scientific theories?

    Last edited by LaPalida; March 21st, 2007 at 10:04 AM.
    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    2,522
    Thanks
    438
    Thanked 437 Times in 209 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Lapalida - Prom is saying that religious ideas and scientific ones are comparable, so that the Christian choice to believe the bible is akin to the Atheist choice to believe in science and logic. At least that's how I understand it.... Prom?

    - d.

    Brendan Noeth

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Not really brendan, I thought someone would make that argument though.

    I just brought it up as a possible counter argument which could be investigated. If the fruits in the analogy are are beliefs, then some might argue from an epistemological standpoint that everything is belief in the end, deep at the roots of things. Even so, I would not mix all the fruits into the same bowl since they have properties (with quantities) which allows us to do a useful categorization. If the fruits were without properties, anonymous, equal in attractiveness, we'd have problems favoring those that allow us to efficiently operate in this reality and have a conversation at all. Negobr flargn tal dskrepop! Bazaang!

    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #188
    Elwell's Avatar
    Elwell is offline Sticks Like Grim Death Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,666 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan N
    Lapalida - Prom is saying that religious ideas and scientific ones are comparable, so that the Christian choice to believe the bible is akin to the Atheist choice to believe in science and logic. At least that's how I understand it.... Prom?

    - d.
    The difference between scientific ideas and religious ones is that every scientific theory, no matter how seemingly esoteric, can be traced back to some sort of observable, testable, repeatable phenomenon. There is an unbroken chain from, say, relativity or quantum mechanics back to the most basic grade school physics and chemistry experiments. Whereas religious ideas, when traced to their roots, always end up with personal experience or hearsay. Someone has a profound or mystical experience, and their force of will is enough to convince others of it's truth.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked 1,434 Times in 259 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mungus
    atheism
    /aythi-iz’m/
    • noun - the belief that God does not exist.
    — DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
    — ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.
    Check your dictionary, Moz. “Atheist” generally has *two* definitions: “one who holds a belief that there are no gods”, and “one who lacks a belief in gods”. Go meditate on the difference between those two things a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mungus
    I think we can all agree that technically Atheism is not a religion, but it requires a dogged mindset that appears religious in its zeal.
    zeal - fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor.

    A baby is born. For the first five or ten years of its life, it will have no religious beliefs whatsoever. That child is an atheist. That child lacks anything that could remotely be called “religious zeal”.

    A man from a Christian community quietly comes to the conclusion that the bible just doesn’t add up. He continues to occasionally go to church because his spouse and children are believers, and because even though his belief in God has degraded away, he still finds the community comforting, and because “coming out” would be awkward. This atheist lacks religious zeal.

    A woman holds the belief that religion is irrelevant and archaic. She calls herself an agnostic because she has been raised to believe that “atheist” is a dirty word, but the depths of her opinion of religion goes far beyond the polite “I can’t prove or disprove the Christian God” of the typical agnostic. She never speaks of religion to anyone, because of her conviction of the topic’s irrelevancy. Her “zeal” for atheism is as strong as her “zeal” for a play-dough castle on Mars.


    Care to revise that statement about what we can all agree upon, Moz?

    Last edited by emily g; September 28th, 2007 at 09:51 PM.
    I think you are awesome, and I wish you the best in your endeavors, but I am tired of repeating myself, I am very busy with my new baby, and I am no longer a regular participant here, so please do not contact me to ask for advice on your career or education. All of the advice that I have to offer can already be found in the following links. Thank you.

    Perspective 101, Concept Art 101, Games Industry info,Oil Paint info, Acrylic Paint info, my sketchbook.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wow. Okay, so I'm done here. No offense, but there's really no point.

    JoeBluhm.com
    RejectsTheBook.com
    joebluhm.blogspot.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I just brought it up as a possible counter argument which could be investigated. If the fruits in the analogy are are beliefs, then some might argue from an epistemological standpoint that everything is belief in the end, deep at the roots of things. Even so, I would not mix all the fruits into the same bowl since they have properties (with quantities) which allows us to do a useful categorization. If the fruits were without properties, anonymous, equal in attractiveness, we'd have problems favoring those that allow us to efficiently operate in this reality and have a conversation at all. Negobr flargn tal dskrepop! Bazaang!
    Ah! I see what you mean. Yes someone could make that argument. I, personally, don't take epistemology seriously though and I guess I should have clarified that not all beliefs are equal. Faith for example is a belief not based on evidence while the belief that the sun will rise the next morning is, which is based on evidence and reason. (Elwell put it pretty well)

    @ Seedling, although I agree with what you're saying... I don't think there is any need to be so hostile to Mozchopz.

    Last edited by LaPalida; March 21st, 2007 at 12:43 PM.
    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Posts
    2,258
    Thanks
    470
    Thanked 594 Times in 233 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think Mozchopz should have his (her?) name changed to Porkchopz... porkchopz are yummy.

    Sepulverture's Sketchbook Page 1 Page 19
    Sepulvertures Extended Studies Page 1
    page 2

    Tutorials Tips and Tricks needs you to stay alive!"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    969
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'd agree with Prom that atheists generally exhibit stubborn-mindedness. In a world where nearly everybody believes in the existence of a god, it seems to me nearly impossible to actively (and vocally) lack that belief without just a smidgen of a stubborn streak. Naturalist/realist atheism anyway. Regular new-born-child type atheism, Raelian or Buddhist type atheism not so much (not that I mean that those last two are comparable in any other way!). I don't find such stubbornness to be a bad thing.

    Art is long and time is fleeting

    Sketchbook
    Website
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #194
    sve's Avatar
    sve is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 200 Times in 123 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Here are my thoughts... atheist is not holing his hands in the pocket, he is holding a fruit (or an apple of distinguished color), a belief, because his unbelief is not based on facts, it is not knowledge. So his idea suits the requirements of belief.
    Holding hands in his pockets would be an analogy for dead brains, a moron or for the person who doesn't have any ideas at all, just doesn't think about it at all, not conscious. or the third possibility is the one who has a knowledge instead of belief. But in case of God the third variation is impossible because no one has any knowledge or facts which denied existence of God.

    Different fruit or apples with different colors are already categorized, so no need to give advantage to one belief and diminished the right to be in a cup for another.

    New born child or child until he starts to communicate with world around him is not an atheist in my opinion, because I really don't know his system of believes in the first place, he doesn't give a proper feed back. I suspect though that it has many fears, irrational fears, so I would think he is religious, in case if he has them. I don't have any proves though, the same as with animals... because there is no facts whathe or they might be thinking.

    A woman who thinks that religion is a bad... Two variations: her dislike of religion is irrational, in this case it is a faith, her dislike has some solid grounds, in this case it is a knowledge... but her attitude to existence of God is not identified in this case, but I can be sure though it is not a knowledge, so it is ignorance that there is a concept of God or belief that he doesn't exist...

    Man who goes to Church out of his habit or to please his wife or for comfort. Two versions are possible, in my opinion: 1. He doesn't think about idea of God at all. In this case it is a zero of ideas, he doesn't have any opinion about it, but it is not atheism, IMO because atheism includes certain relationship to God. Zero is not atheism.
    The second will be a belief that God doesn't exist, because he doesn't have any solid knowledge of God existence.

    Last edited by sve; March 21st, 2007 at 11:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tully
    I'd agree with Prom that atheists generally exhibit stubborn-mindedness. In a world where nearly everybody believes in the existence of a god, it seems to me nearly impossible to actively (and vocally) lack that belief without just a smidgen of a stubborn streak. Naturalist/realist atheism anyway. Regular new-born-child type atheism, Raelian or Buddhist type atheism not so much (not that I mean that those last two are comparable in any other way!). I don't find such stubbornness to be a bad thing.
    Maybe in the strictest definition of the term "close minded" atheists fall into that category, but accepting every idea as true?... doesn't that make you credulous? Not every idea merits holding... some of them are just plain bad. Refusing to believe something on the basis of lack of evidence or bad arguments is not closed minded in my opinion. Is the police closed minded when a criminal says that he's innocent and they have concrete evidence that shows otherwise?

    I think the question is: If you think that not believing in the toothfairy/leprachauns/santa claus is closed minded then I guess atheism/skepticism is closed minded by that definition.

    EDIT: Anyway... I listen and entertain other peoples ideas, if there is no merit in holding them (evidence, good arguments) then I reject them. I am not opposed to listening to the arguments. I always thought that closed minded meant: rejecting any idea before even hearing it out a priori or rejecting them even if they have evidence and good arguments for them because I simply refuse to let go of my current ideas.

    Last edited by LaPalida; March 21st, 2007 at 05:34 PM.
    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    But in case of God the third variation is impossible because no one has any knowledge or facts which denied existence of God.
    No one has knowledge or facts which denies the existence of a blue teapot that orbits the Pluto this very moment. So do you believe that there is no teapot orbiting the Pluto?

    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwell
    The difference between scientific ideas and religious ones is that every scientific theory, no matter how seemingly esoteric, can be traced back to some sort of observable, testable, repeatable phenomenon. There is an unbroken chain from, say, relativity or quantum mechanics back to the most basic grade school physics and chemistry experiments. Whereas religious ideas, when traced to their roots, always end up with personal experience or hearsay. Someone has a profound or mystical experience, and their force of will is enough to convince others of it's truth.
    I disagree with that comparison. Religion was created when there was little to no scientific knowledge. Taking the ancient Greeks for example, they beleived in gods who caused weather and other natural occurrence. When there was no other explanation they came up with one that made most sense to them. What could be so powerful as to create a lightning bolt? Why a god of course. So their religion was partly based on observation. They couldn't observe electrical charge differences between the earth and the clouds. So their knowledge was limited by their power of observation.

    The problem is that now that we do have the power to observe things as they are, a lot of things we once believed are 'wrong.' I think if ancient peoples would have known what we know now, religion would be a lot different. In the distant future, religion will have a new meaning. I also think that people of the future will look back on us and think "lolz they believed that?" Now with saying all this, I would like to state that I am a Christian and I do still believe in God. Why? Because I just cant not believe in it. Its a personal choice and its what I feel is right. Doesn't mean im not open to new ideas and scientific theory and law.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    2,522
    Thanks
    438
    Thanked 437 Times in 209 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus|ANJ
    Not really brendan, I thought someone would make that argument though.

    I just brought it up as a possible counter argument which could be investigated. If the fruits in the analogy are are beliefs, then some might argue from an epistemological standpoint that everything is belief in the end, deep at the roots of things. Even so, I would not mix all the fruits into the same bowl since they have properties (with quantities) which allows us to do a useful categorization. If the fruits were without properties, anonymous, equal in attractiveness, we'd have problems favoring those that allow us to efficiently operate in this reality and have a conversation at all. Negobr flargn tal dskrepop! Bazaang!

    Quote Originally Posted by Elwell
    The difference between scientific ideas and religious ones is that every scientific theory, no matter how seemingly esoteric, can be traced back to some sort of observable, testable, repeatable phenomenon. There is an unbroken chain from, say, relativity or quantum mechanics back to the most basic grade school physics and chemistry experiments. Whereas religious ideas, when traced to their roots, always end up with personal experience or hearsay. Someone has a profound or mystical experience, and their force of will is enough to convince others of it's truth.
    Ah thanks for clarifying, I feel so dumb... Prom, I honestly wasn't trying to make that argument though, I just interpreted it to be the counter argument you proposed. I agree 100% with you and Elwell, the fruits are too diverse in nature to group together and simplify as your proposed counter argument suggests.

    LaPalida - I'd also have to agree that Atheists are stubborn, however I think this makes us more open minded about other matters. I've read up on many a thing a half-decent Christian would close his ears to, and laughed my ass off at jokes that would infuriate the average church-goer.... but unfortunately you'll have to prove the Four Headed Man Eating Sea Turtle of Southern Somalia exists before I believe you .

    - d.

    Brendan Noeth

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #199
    sve's Avatar
    sve is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 200 Times in 123 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LaPalida
    No one has knowledge or facts which denies the existence of a blue teapot that orbits the Pluto this very moment. So do you believe that there is no teapot orbiting the Pluto?
    I chose not to believe... but I don't have any facts, any knowledge it doesn't exist. What's your point? That you have a right and it is useful in practice not to believe in God existence? I never that you should be a believer in his existence. Do as you wish, I don't care...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Islamtube.com

    Jewtube.com

    Somebody had to post it

    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The Fortress of Solitude
    Posts
    1,619
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 39 Times in 27 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LaPalida
    No one has knowledge or facts which denies the existence of a blue teapot that orbits the Pluto this very moment. So do you believe that there is no teapot orbiting the Pluto?
    WOW! this is stupid. Sorry to use the "s" word in a discussion like this, but with this kind of logic, your just saying that we shouldn't believe in anything we can't see, and you had to use a non-living piece off dining ware while you where at it (nice choice of color though). I can see this age-old arguement back in the caveman era.

    Caveman to Cavewoman: "I bet you there is not such thing of this "fire-sparky-sparky" you speak of. No one has seen such a ridicuolous thing, and since I know nothing of it, it doesn't exist.

    Lightning then strikes a dry tree, engulfing it in what we now have to pleasure to recognize as "fire".

    Cavewoman to Caveman: "... and you said I made it up."

    Blue Teapot, $15. Seeds for a new tree, $3.19. The fact that pluto and a blue teapot was used to summarize God, ... priceless.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    just to springboard off of the notion that if you can't see it or measure it then it can't exist, then how can anyone say that love exists, or that a mind, not a brain, but a mind and consciousness exists. you can't measure or see those either, but since we can see their effects, such as emotion or experience with love; and contemplation, reason and judgement with the mind, we can know that they do in fact exist.

    but with God, if you could "see" or measure the existence of such a being, then you're literally forced to believe.
    there's no free will [ or fun ] in that.

    real love is impossible if it's forced.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #203
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,250
    Thanks
    239
    Thanked 319 Times in 109 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Visions
    WOW! this is stupid. Sorry to use the "s" word in a discussion like this, but with this kind of logic, your just saying that we shouldn't believe in anything we can't see
    No, she's saying we shouldn't believe anything without any evidence whatsoever that it exists. What's so hard to understand about that?

    We have absolutely no reason to believe a blue teapot is orbiting Pluto. If someone claims that one is there, they'd better have some evidence to back it up or nobody in their right mind would believe them.

    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration
    just to springboard off of the notion that if you can't see it or measure it then it can't exist, then how can anyone say that love exists, or that a mind, not a brain, but a mind and consciousness exists.
    Sight isn't the only way to experience something. You can't see love but you can feel it. As for the mind: Cogito ergo sum, my friend.


    Eric

    www.WhereIsMyEyeball.com My portfolio! Go check it out!
    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    0kelvin,

    i think we're in agreement.
    "i think therefore i am" is kinda what i was getting at.

    also, evidence abounds for God's existence.
    the universe's existence cries out that an intelligence had a hand in it.
    look at the "scientific theory" of a big bang.
    an effect like that can't happen without a cause.
    God is the cause.

    an analogy for this is... how to do you know a painting has a painter, or how do you know a building has a builder?
    the painting or building itself is evidence for it.
    the same applies with the universe, earth, humanity, etc.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #205
    sve's Avatar
    sve is offline Registered User Level 16 Gladiator: Spartacus' Retiarii
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 200 Times in 123 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hmm, I don't understand why believers in God have to explain anything or prove anything to atheists. I don't ask anyone to convert or believe in somehting forcefully. I'm quite happy with whatever you believe now. I'm absolutely indifferent in what my opponent believes and I have no special requirements as long as he/she is interesting to talk and polite.
    You find my reasoning wrong... very nice, it will not change my life at all. Not happy with my explanation, search information for yourself or don't search, that's your own business.
    I really don't understand when and from where those new responsibilities came... No one owes you anything.
    If people took their time and explained their points to you, say "thank you for your time and efforts" and go about your own business. Who cares if you not satisfied with explanation. Do your own research or educate yourself.
    I don't remember asking anyone to believe in anything, I don't have any duties to fulfill for you. if you want information about something it is my courtesy to you when I give it to you, not my responsibility.

    Last edited by sve; March 21st, 2007 at 11:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #206
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,334
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Visions
    WOW! this is stupid. Sorry to use the "s" word in a discussion like this, but with this kind of logic, your just saying that we shouldn't believe in anything we can't see, and you had to use a non-living piece off dining ware while you where at it (nice choice of color though). I can see this age-old arguement back in the caveman era.

    Caveman to Cavewoman: "I bet you there is not such thing of this "fire-sparky-sparky" you speak of. No one has seen such a ridicuolous thing, and since I know nothing of it, it doesn't exist.

    Lightning then strikes a dry tree, engulfing it in what we now have to pleasure to recognize as "fire".

    Cavewoman to Caveman: "... and you said I made it up."

    Blue Teapot, $15. Seeds for a new tree, $3.19. The fact that pluto and a blue teapot was used to summarize God, ... priceless.
    It's ok to call something stupid, but first you have to prove that it actually is . By logic (and it isn't mine) we shouldn't believe something without evidence for it. I don't know what's the deal with you guys and picking apart analogies. You are aware that attacking an analogy does nothing to destroy the argument, right? Apart from defocusing the issue and concentrating on the analogy, your straw man example (a logical fallacy that means a simple representation of the opponents argument phrased so that it could be easily ridiculed and knocked down while not faithfully representing the original argument) fails because it misses the point of the original analogy. The woman in your example has evidence (which is anecdotal) that she saw with her own eyes, she didn't make it up, but because at the time something like this may have been so outrageous she has to prove it to her husband in order for him to believe it, his skepticism is reasonable given the time and place and the fact that all he had was her word for it. When he saw it he was convinced that it was true because she gave him tangible proof, something that theists fail to do over and over throughout the entire human existence. Denying the existence of what he saw after being shown the evidence for it would be unreasonable on his part. Besides we as audience know that fire exists while we don't know that god exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration
    just to springboard off of the notion that if you can't see it or measure it then it can't exist, then how can anyone say that love exists, or that a mind, not a brain, but a mind and consciousness exists. you can't measure or see those either, but since we can see their effects, such as emotion or experience with love; and contemplation, reason and judgement with the mind, we can know that they do in fact exist.

    but with God, if you could "see" or measure the existence of such a being, then you're literally forced to believe.
    there's no free will [ or fun ] in that.

    real love is impossible if it's forced.
    Ugh... somebody was bound to bring up this argument. Well looks like this one is gonna be a 9 pager .

    Before we begin - Let's define love first. What is the definition of love? Then let's define hate. Once we settle that I will be more than happy to continue with this argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by sve
    Hmm, I don't understand why believers in God have to explain anything or prove anything to atheists. I don't ask anyone to convert or believe in somehting forcefully. I'm quite happy with whatever you believe now. I'm absolutely indifferent in what my opponent believes and I have no special requirements as long as he/she is interesting to talk and polite.
    You find my reasoning wrong... very nice, it will not change my life at all. Not happy with my explanation, search information for yourself or don't search, that's your own business.
    I really don't understand when and from where those new responsibilities came... No one owes you anything.
    If people took their time and explain their points to you, say "thank you for your time and efforts" and go about your own business. Who cares if you not satisfied with explanation. Do your own research or educate yourself.
    I don't remember asking anyone to believe in anything, I don't have any duties to fulfill for you. if you want information about something it is my courtesy to you when I give it to you, not my responsibility.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.
    Plus it's not about converting someone, it's a philosophical matter. If you make a claim, any claim, then be prepared to provide evidence for it if you want others to take it seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration
    i think we're in agreement.
    "i think therefore i am" is kinda what i was getting at.

    also, evidence abounds for God's existence.
    the universe's existence cries out that an intelligence had a hand in it.
    look at the "scientific theory" of a big bang.
    an effect like that can't happen without a cause.
    God is the cause.

    an analogy for this is... how to do you know a painting has a painter, or how do you know a building has a builder?
    the painting or building itself is evidence for it.
    the same applies with the universe, earth, humanity, etc.
    Oh emilyg, I think you'll like this one (my bold).

    4 problems with that argument:

    1. If we assume (assumption1) everything has a cause and we assume (assumption2) the world had a cause, there is no proof that it was god that caused the big bang. You can't just assume that if other theories fail to explain the existence of the universe then the default explanation is god. You still have to prove that it was god that caused all this.

    2. If we assume (assumption1) everything has a cause and we assume (assumption2) the world had a cause, and if we assume (assumption3) that cause was god, then what caused god?

    3. If we assume (assumption1) everything has a cause and we assume (assumption2) the world had a cause, and if we assume (assumption3) that cause was god, this doesn't mean that god still exists. He could have died in making the universe.

    4. You assume (this one is a biggie) that everything that exists has to have a cause but reality shows different:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    The cosmological argument's scientific foundation is based in Newtonian physics and its earlier predecessors - the idea that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside source. However, while Newton's ideas survive in physics since they conveniently and easily describe the movement of objects at the human (that is, not cosmic or atomic) level, they no longer represent the most accurate and truthful representations of the physical universe. The later development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have severely weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.

    Modern physics is rife with examples of 'movement without any mover', seriously undermining the first premise of the cosmological argument, that every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying it is easily dismissed by the laws of conservation of mass and energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He quotes one of many examples - "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.[10]

    Another scientific rebuttal of the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into being, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effects so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[11]
    Quote Originally Posted by mwillustration
    an analogy for this is... how to do you know a painting has a painter, or how do you know a building has a builder?
    the painting or building itself is evidence for it.
    the same applies with the universe, earth, humanity, etc.
    Earth wasn't shaped by god, but by physics, planetary formation through nebular formation. Check out these theories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disc
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formati...e_Solar_System

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    ...nebulae slowly rotate, gradually collapsing and flattening due to gravity and eventually forming stars and planets.
    Humanity wasn't shaped by god, but by evolution. Check out these theories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    Last edited by LaPalida; March 22nd, 2007 at 01:26 AM.
    Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sve
    Hmm, I don't understand why believers in God have to explain anything or prove anything to atheists.
    They will have to provide proper reasoning when they want to have a say in matters of medical research, education and national politics. When I woke up this morning this was on the radio news:
    Poland conservative party

    But people should naturally be free to have the spiritual life and beliefs they desire. I fully support that notion. This is why we have to be careful with our education system and only teach things that are kinda neutral. My 4th grade teacher, which was a strict old conservative lady, violated this and forced us to read from the bible during lessons for a year before she was finally sacked (this was a public school (the goverment pays education here)). When I were even younger I spent some time at a christian daycare center aswell (we had bible classes). Needless to say, I find the nurture for my spirituality elsewhere.


    As for the fruits, you are right. I had something like this typed out, but deleted it to keep the post short. As soon as we touch the fruits they become a part of us. After that, we can do a number of things with them, such as forget, ignore without thought, reject or accept on rational and/or emotional and/or random grounds. An atheist would of course claim that he is rationally justified in his rejection of a particular non-disproveable concept, i.e. it's not his belief, but the cold conclusion of logic. I know you disagree there, but we don't seem to get anywhere on this point do we? People know different things and have different experiences. This makes it very hard for us to formally express our rationale, doesn't it?


    mwillustration>
    "God is the cause." in non-sequitur, especially if it reads "Yaweh is the cause." as Big Bang Theory fails to generate such an accurate definition of the cause... uh, non-cause, whatever. (Brahma or the FSM would work just aswell) Also, the Big Bang theory is not set in stone. We have many competing theories, such as bubble universes, etc.

    Beauty and complexity can be emergent. No one sculpted an ice crystal but we still find them pretty. A brief snippet of code can generate a beautiful Julia fractal. An exploding star can generate a gorgeous cloud of gas. Our preferences are also anthropical, relative to what we are in this environment. The designwork of a designer would have to be moved back to Big Bang, but like I said, we still don't know yet what happened, and perhaps we never will. We might have to accept that. Ascribing non-disprovable characteristics to the Big Bang instigator is not helpful to the theory.

    Last edited by Prometheus|ANJ; March 22nd, 2007 at 02:11 AM.
    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #208
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 432 Times in 156 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think some of you are confusing Nhilism with Atheism... I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Religion is just a belief in something that you cant find the answers to yet. Why do you have to go and complicate things?

    Actually. Religion has practices based around a community with the same philosphy about life. If you believe in something else you could label it yourself and it would still be a religion. That's all humans have to go by. Atheists still believe in things, just not gods. They could believe in themselves? Or science itself. Maybe even that wacky new age health science. Hell even scientologists could technically be called atheists because their belief resides around aliens and "spirits". Who's to say jesus wasnt an alien? Or maybe culture was influenced by aliens? Thing is you cant prove me wrong, even if the evidence states it was more likely not true. This conversation is really becoming circle talk.

    And the whole spaghetti monster, and making up your gods as a retort is starting to get old... Your belief in life is your own personal deal. It helps you get by either way. Why try so hard to convince others to join? Atheists complain about christians getting in their way, and vice versa. Basically it just comes down to hypocrisy. Just live your lives. Don't you hate repeating yourselves?

    Can't any of you agree to disagree? Without having to write college length essays thinking it's the newest or "hey look I'm smart, and your not" thing to do? To me it seems many of you hold religion and belief wayyyyy to much on a pedastal. As if it's going to answer anything...

    "It doesnt matter what faith you have, just as long as you have faith." -Serendipity from DOGMA

    Last edited by Costau D; March 22nd, 2007 at 04:30 AM.
    ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER
    "Amateurs look for inspiration; the rest of us just get up and go to work. " -Chuck Close


    DRUNKEN WASTREL SKETCH GROUP:
    [ Costau D ][ Cuervo ][ Braintree ][ Fumble ][ Ookchk ][ RoboMonkey ]
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Midwest. USA
    Posts
    414
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LaPalida

    4 problems with that argument:

    1. If we assume (assumption1) everything has a cause and we assume (assumption2) the world had a cause, there is no proof that it was god that caused the big bang. You can't just assume that if other theories fail to explain the existence of the universe then the default explanation is god. You still have to prove that it was god that caused all this.

    2. If we assume (assumption1) everything has a cause and we assume (assumption2) the world had a cause, and if we assume (assumption3) that cause was god, then what caused god?

    3. If we assume (assumption1) everything has a cause and we assume (assumption2) the world had a cause, and if we assume (assumption3) that cause was god, this doesn't mean that god still exists. He could have died in making the universe.

    4. You assume (this one is a biggie) that everything that exists has to have a cause but reality shows different:

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



    Earth wasn't shaped by god, but by physics, planetary formation through nebular formation. Check out these theories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disc
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formati...e_Solar_System


    Humanity wasn't shaped by god, but by evolution. Check out these theories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    for objection 1:
    if a consciousness is big enough to cause all matter with a "big bang" or some other means, that consciousness can only be described as a god-like entity.
    it would be the Creator. God is a generic term for supreme being in this case. not necessarily the God of the Bible, but one can make that case with more exploration.

    for objection 2:
    for this Creator to be able to cause all of matter as well as all laws of physics, time, etc. it only stands to reason that this being can not be constrained by the boundaries it sets forth for it's creation, since it is not a part of it, but completely outside of it altogether.
    nothing had to cause God, since he is the one that did the causing of all things. he is not bound by time or matter, since he thought it up in the first place and it didn't exist until he brought it into being.

    for objection 3:
    for this being to be able to have caused all of life, and for it to be outside of time and matter, ceasing to exist is an impossibility for it.
    if it had no beginning, it would have no end especially without the constraints of time or matter which are the very things which are necessary for death.

    for objection 4:
    this, in my opinion is simply scientific "theory" made up for the strict purpose of having a reason to deny causality from a creator.
    when scientists tried to speculate about a "big bang" they inadvertantly made up another proof for a creator.
    if this theory is in any way demonstratable then there may be something to think about.
    but at this point it's all heresay and hopefulness for those that want so badly to have a reason to deny God in their minds.

    as for the last two points i quoted above:
    if the earth was shaped by physics, then who made those laws?
    why is there not complete chaos?

    and for evolution, i won't agrue with micro-evolution, where things adapt in minute ways adjusting for environment, but macro-evolution, where one species turns into another, is quite ridiculous to me.
    all purported evidence for a missing link between man and apes have been found to be hoaxes.
    and with evolution, it's supposedly the survival of the fittest, right?
    but if man is more fit for survival than apes, and we we're supposed to have evolved from them, then why are apes still around?
    and if man evolved from apes, then why is there no evidence of a missing link that shows the progression?

    i'm not trying to convert anyone here, that's not my job.
    but when my faith is challenged, i'll certainly defend it.

    Last edited by mwillustration; March 22nd, 2007 at 04:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to mwillustration For This Useful Post:


  31. #210
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    223
    Thanked 432 Times in 156 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    And please guys (Christians and Atheists) understand the difference between Nhilism and Atheism.

    In the world of ethics, nihilist or nihilistic is often used as a derogatory term referring to a complete rejection of all systems of authority, morality, and social custom, or one who purportedly makes such a rejection. Either through the rejection of previously accepted bases of belief or through extreme relativism or skepticism, the nihilist is construed as one who believes that none of these claims to power are valid. Nihilism not only dismisses received moral values, but rejects 'morality' outright, viewing it as baseless.

    THAT is nhilism. The belief in nothing or no purpose. Atheists just lack a belief in God and may have beliefs towards something else. Like Buddhists...


    Mwillustration I like this one...
    or objection 2:
    for this Creator to be able to cause all of matter as well as all laws of physics, time, etc. it only stands to reason that this being can not be constrained by the boundaries it sets forth for it's creation, since it is not a part of it, but completely outside of it altogether.
    nothing had to cause God, since he is the one that did the causing of all things. he is not bound by time or matter, since he thought it up in the first place and it didn't exist until he brought it into being.
    Kind of reminds me when I played the sims one time. Or sim city. Hurray for disasters button. Muhahahaha. Black and white was fun too.

    ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER
    "Amateurs look for inspiration; the rest of us just get up and go to work. " -Chuck Close


    DRUNKEN WASTREL SKETCH GROUP:
    [ Costau D ][ Cuervo ][ Braintree ][ Fumble ][ Ookchk ][ RoboMonkey ]
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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