Mozza220559
Surmontil 50
Such my deck.
Such my deck.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's the fault of their habitus.
realitybites
making lemonade
Last edited:
1. Why don't you register, so that there is at least a fictitious sense of identity to the discussion? I hate discussing with anonymouses. They are so difficult to tell apart.
2. You are right that strictly speaking, it is not correct to say that a negative can't be disproven. You could easily formulate positive and provable claims in a negative way (such as by turning "my hand is empty" into "I am not holding an apple"), as you show above. Logically, you could always argue that theoretically, it cannot be ruled out that you are in fact not holding an apple, but are, say, employing revolutionary new technology that successfully provides a measurable illusion of one. But by such standards, it would not be possible to prove anything positive either. Also, any successful positive proof is by implication a number of successful negative proofs. Ie, if you prove that the water in this glass is liquid, you have also proved that it is not solid - which is a negative.
However, those are cases of simple observable and well-understood pheonomena where empirical obseravtion can be employed directly. Claims about what exists or does not exist is a different matter - for such claims, it is entirely valid to argue that negative proof is impossible. It is basically just the old problem of induction - just because you've never seen a white crow, that doesn't mean you've proven that none exists. The point is about the limitations of observation, with regard to a specific type of claim. And conversely and crucially - just because you can't prove from observation that no white crow exists, that does not make any sort of argument that they DO exist.
So, with regard to proing or disproving the existence of God, this completely misses the point. The point being a) that the nature of the claim is not amenable to either verification or falsification empirically b) that the lack of empirical evidence counts against the proposition, not in favour of it and c) It is not the case that anything is viably valid unless it can be decisively disproven.
3. You wrote: I've also seen people comparing the concepts of fairies and unicorns to the god concept. This is also not correct. Philosophically the god concept is reasoned, flowing from the following logical imparitive: if the universe was created then a creator must exist. Fairies and unicorns follow from no such logical imperative they are simply completely imaginary.
That is a ridiculous argument. What you quote is not a logical imperative, but a tautology. It is true in exactly the same way that "If all goodness in the world was created by unicorns, they must exist" is true. It presupposes that which is to be proved, namely if the world was indeed "created", in the sense posited by religion.
4. You make some fairly valid remarks towards the end, in that we currently lack a grand unifying explanation of Everything, that commands a wide consensus. However, the as always imperfect state of scientific knowledge has never been a good argument for the validity of traditional beliefs. And in any case, even if you would accept "the god hypothesis" as an option worth taking even remotely seriously in that regard, which I thgink very few would, that still leaves organised religions out in the lurch as superstition, given what even you state about the bible. Which would obviously also apply to all other traditional scripture.
Last edited:
realitybites
making lemonade
Also, who says the universe was created? Poverty of our imagination. Something from nothing, anyone? Claiming the universe was created and thus needs a more sophisticated creator becomes problematic right out of the gate when one realizes s/he must then answer the question: Who created the creator? That creator would need a creator. And so on, and so on.
God Fallacies
The comparisons of god to fairies and ghosts is correct.
All mythical creatures come from a logical imperative.
A
Anonymous
Guest
A
Anonymous
Guest
If "something" created "everything" you've ruled out the possibility of it having a creator. "Everything is everything."
"Something from nothing" doesn't sound very scientific. That sounds like religion.
If atheists would use their energy undoing the crimes religion has done to society instead of making boring arguments about hypotheticals, we'd be better off.
Why?
We can't all be saviours.
People should talk about ideas. This is a good thing.
So what if they sometimes get convoluted. That can be a good thing too.
You should get yourself a glass of water and a chill pill.
Last edited:
realitybites
making lemonade
Hi Peter. You lost me. Can you elaborate further?
Pink elephants and celestial teapots would come from a logical imperative? What logical imperative?
The way I see it is that anything we CAN imagine CAN exist. Or maybe it only exists in the mind as an idea.
Just because fairies and unicorns and gods occupy our imaginations does not mean they exist in the natural world. Even if every person has the idea of these things in their heads (a priori) does not mean they exist as something like Pluto's theory of Forms (even that is highly debatable). A gold mountain exists in my mind. I know what a mountain looks like. And I know what gold looks like. I put the two elements together. And can say to you I know a gold mountain exists. You say prove it. I cannot. The burden of proof lies with me, If I cannot show you empirical evidence for a gold mountain, then you should have no good reason to believe there is such a thing in the natural world. There is no evidence to suggest that a world outside of the natural world exists--a supernatural world. It can exist in your imagination. It can include fairies, unicorns, gods, pink elephants that fly, and gold mountains. So what? If god only exists as a logical imperative, an idea, then yes let's argue it. Let's describe it. But believe it to exist outside of our imagination? No. Why should we?
What does the notion that mythical things stem from a logical imperative have to do with the burden of proof lying with the claimant?
Even things we CANNOT imagine CAN exist. If we cannot imagine a universe without a creator or a beginning, does that mean that the universe exists without one? No.
Last edited:
realitybites
making lemonade
Well, the root of the problem is the 'god concept'. All religion starts there. You can take the bad out of religion and you are still left with belief in things without evidence. Which is the root of the problem, after all. Faith: claiming to know things without evidence. As long as you have faith, you will have religion. As long as you have religion you will have repression. Get to the root; excise god from the equation.
Build a foundation of morals and values without god. Base it on reason not faith. What is good behavior that causes the least amount of suffering and maximizes happiness for the most? Female genital mutilation surely is not one of those things. Neither is slavery. And yet, religion condones both. But there would be no religion without the god concept. Even religions without gods such as Buddhism have god-like supernatural elements such as Karma and Nirvana as their driving forces: knowledge claims about reality without evidence.
realitybites
making lemonade
Tonight on CNN (after Bourdain's Parts Unknown): Morgan Spurlock: Inside Man: The Book of Morgan.
Spurlock travels to Nashville to become a guest preacher at an atheist church, a controversial and growing movement in the US. He visits various other religious institutions and groups to find out why people need religion in their lives.
Spurlock travels to Nashville to become a guest preacher at an atheist church, a controversial and growing movement in the US. He visits various other religious institutions and groups to find out why people need religion in their lives.
A
Anonymous
Guest
You didn't address what I wrote at all. "The root of the problem"... um, what? You're just carrying on denouncing religion which...duh, yeah I get that. But what you wrote in the post I replied to doesn't seem any more logical than worshiping unicorns. It's just a different script. You really are proposing that "something came from nothing" and that this is not religious thinking? It's certainly not scientific. Your idiot friend read what I wrote and thinks I should calm down and be a "saviour." Jesus Christ (no pun intended) you people are tiresome.
The truth is that to stop the negative influence religion has had on society would require more effort than looking for shitty websites to crib from.
S
Skylarker
Guest
Would this be the same Morgan Spurlock who made a name for himself by crafting a documentary about how eating nothing but McDonald's for a month is unhealthy?
A real auteur.
File under "no shit, moron."
Last edited by a moderator:
realitybites
making lemonade
Why is it not scientific? Anything can and is studied using scientific principles. Just because YOU cannot get your head around the idea of 'something from nothing' does not mean that we will not have the tools to explain this one day. Do you even know the definition of religion? Try Wikipedia.
Even things we CANNOT imagine CAN exist. If we cannot imagine a universe without a creator or a beginning, does that mean that the universe exists without one? No.
Idiot friend? You people? You just lost cred with those lazy ad hominems. Stick to the issue buddy.
No one here is denying that activism is more effective at resulting in immediate measurable changes than theorizing and debating form the ivory tower. But both are needed. One can believe in god and be anti-religion. One does not necessitate the other. We were talking about belief/non-belief not about religion. But whatever.
- - - Updated - - -
Have you seen Inside Man? You might actually like it. Maybe check it out before you dismiss it outright based on preconceived notions.
Last edited:
S
Skylarker
Guest
God knows you do...
Yeah, buddy. LOL! Ad hominems! LOL!
You say "but whatever" as though there is even the remote chance you will not engage anyone who acknowledges your opinion in either a point OR counterpoint basis.
Posed detachment is cute.
CrystalGeezer
My secret's my enzyme.
ADD HOMINIMZ!!!!!!!!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
thank christ! finally someone voicing my exact same opinion about that over-hyped piece of DUH.
Hey Jehne,
I've gotten myself into a bit of a mess here.
First of all my post was in fact a response to Qvist who said:
"You wrote: I've also seen people comparing the concepts of fairies and unicorns to the god concept. This is also not correct. Philosophically the god concept is reasoned, flowing from the following logical imperative: if the universe was created then a creator must exist. Fairies and unicorns follow from no such logical imperative they are simply completely imaginary."
Secondly I used the term 'logical imperative' which is definitely a smart persons phrase.
However my point was that if people believe in god because they want to explain the creation of the universe, then they believe in other things for other reasons. Does that make sense? (It's early Monday morning and I'm barely conscious).
What do you mean 'idiot friend'?
How rude.
And whilst you understood the bit about chilling, you misunderstood the other bit. Why on earth would I ask you to be a saviour?
And your insistance that the belief in the big bang is 'religious thinking' is quite mad.
So you are pretty tiresome too!
