Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ratbarf wrote:
They still have rituals, what is the News or Science but a kind of ritualism that reveals the truth of one's surroundings?

You had to differentiate between 'truth' and 'revelation?'

 Ratbarf wrote:
Well if there is no Atheist world view then why do they spend so much time complaining about other peoples beleif in God?

Because:

1) Belief in god is factually false. It's just like any reasonable person would complain if 80% of the population believed that 1+1=5, or insisted on teaching flat earth theory in schools.

2) The religious majority is busy imposing itself on everyone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, telling them they're going to hell, passing theocratic laws, promoting a default belief in society that to be normal you have to have religion, and anyone who doesn't is lacking in morality/decency/whatever. If religion was entirely something you did in private and kept to yourself then atheists would be a lot quieter outside of debating communities.

If one is Atheist are they not then inclined to look into both science and philosophy as a way to explain their surroundings and how/why they act certain ways in given social situations?

Not any more than any person who wants to understand things would look into science and philosophy. If you want to get to the moon or cure a disease you get out a science textbook, not a religious text.

There is a lot that comes with it. All of a sudden you now have to justify every moral position using reason that isn't founded heavily influenced by the various religious texts.

No more than any religious believer has to. For example, just look at pretty much any ethical debate in society right now and you'll find christians quoting bible verses to support both sides of the debate. You clearly can't make your moral decisions based entirely on your religious text, so you have to have your own independently-justified sense of morality to tell you what parts of the religious text are the sacred word of god, and which parts are translation errors/advice for a different time and place/etc.

(I suspect other religions do it too, but christianity is the loudest majority around here.)

Also, you have to beleive that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system.

That's such absolute nonsense that it's bordering on delusional. If you genuinely believe that the laws of light are magically different then you have serious problems and should seek professional help.

 Ratbarf wrote:
That's what I meant.

Now accept that group is a subset of atheism, albeit a noisy one.

Well if there is no Atheist world view then why do they spend so much time complaining about other peoples beleif in God?

That question doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have a view to complain about someone else's view.

If one is Atheist are they not then inclined to look into both science and philosophy as a way to explain their surroundings and how/why they act certain ways in given social situations?

Not really. One can be an atheist and lurch of into all kinds of philosophical nonsense about a world full of superhumans and hateful looters - ask Ayn Rand about that one. Or one can use science, philosophy, or direct personal experience to figure out the best way to live.

There is a lot that comes with it. All of a sudden you now have to justify every moral position using reason that isn't founded heavily influenced by the various religious texts.

No, I don't. I can read as much or as little as I want. I think you might be surprised to know most people spend exactly zero hours of their life reading ethical and religious texts, they just take the default position of their parents, modify it for their personal experience and live their lives.

Also, you have to beleive that what the scientists are telling you is true.

No-one 'has to believe what the scientists are telling you'. Science isn't an argument from authority. It's an argument from evidence. The guy at NASA isn't listened to because he's been granted the position of NASA scientist, he's listened to because he's arguing from an informed position, and in the course of making his argument is presenting us with his information.

That's something that everyone does, whether they like to acknowledge it or not.

That said you don't have to do anything, though it would encourage you to do so.

Atheism encourages nothing. Nothing good, nothing bad. Various ideologies that include atheism, like communism, objectivism, or liberal humanism encourage all kinds of things, but atheism itself means nothing.

(Can one be a bad atheist?)

No. One can be a bad communist, or a bad objectivist, or a bad liberal humanist, but you cannot be a bad atheist.

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Belief in god is factually false.

Just because you can't prove god's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Belief in god is factually false.

Just because you can't prove god's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

You can't prove that you didn't torture and murder your mom, but it's still a factually false statement.


(I hope.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Belief in god is factually false.

Just because you can't prove god's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

You can't prove that you didn't torture and murder your mom, but it's still a factually false statement.


(I hope.)

You're right, because if something is a fact it needs to be verifiable and since you can't verify God's existence you can't say it's a fact that god exists, although you can say you believe god exists it just you have no facts to back up you claim.

Fact: Verifiable, believed by many.
Belief: Not verifiable, believed by many.
Opinion: Not verifiable, believed by some.
Preference: Not verifiable, not disputable, believed by one.

 Cheesecat wrote:
You're right, because if something is a fact it needs to be verifiable and since you can't verify God's existence you can't say it's a fact that god exists, although you can say you believe god exists it just you have no facts to back up you claim.

It's factually true because the default for an existence claim is that it is false until proven otherwise. God's existence has not been verified, and the overwhelming failure of every attempt so far is compelling evidence that it is unreasonable to expect that it ever will be verified. Therefore the factual truth is that there is no god.

It's just like with your history of torture: until the unreasonable claim is supported with convincing evidence the factual truth is that it didn't happen.

As well as not proving the existence of god, we also haven't managed interstellar travel or even getting along together as a species - As we've had a fair amount of time to look into it, does that mean we will never do it? If we extend this even further, then by now we should already know everything there is to know ever, so if we can't do it now, there's no point in trying.

There's the quote in Hitch Hikers Guide about god not proving his own existence because proof denies faith, without faith God doesn't exist so if you prove God exists he doesn't. God then disappears in a puff of logic. Man goes on to prove black is white and is killed on the next zebra crossing.

My point is - it's people's choice to believe in God and trying to convince them otherwise is almost cruel.
An atheist doesn't believe in god, therefore he is not affected by a lack of belief.
If you take a christians belief away, they miss it. It's why there are phrases like 'a crisis of faith'. This can be psychologically damaging.
I like the phrase 'live and let live'

And on topic - Christianity is a religion. It always has been.
Atheism is by definition not a religion - But it is a theological standing point. (by that I mean a place to stand to argue against religion)

The only thing I don't like is religions portrayal in the media.
Omid Djalili (the british/Iranian comedian) made a good point.
The mass media always quote the extremists. It's the equivalent of saying
"And now,speaking on behalf of the entire civilised western world, the KKK!"

 Peregrine wrote:

It's factually true because the default for an existence claim is that it is false until proven otherwise. God's existence has not been verified, and the overwhelming failure of every attempt so far is compelling evidence that it is unreasonable to expect that it ever will be verified. Therefore the factual truth is that there is no god.

What you meant to say is that the absence of evidence gives no reason for any human to make a faith-choice regarding God.

PredaKhaine wrote:
As well as not proving the existence of god, we also haven't managed interstellar travel

The difference is that we haven't managed interstellar travel for reasons that we understand very well: it takes a lot of effort to get there. We have a very good understanding of all of the principles involved, what kind of engineering obstacles need to be overcome, and the political reality that keeps a project to develop interstellar travel from ever being funded.

God, on the other hand, has none of that understanding. Every attempt to prove the existence of one has failed utterly, and we're just as lacking in proof as when we started. When you have nothing but failure, and not even the slightest clue about how you could change that failure, it's probably time to just admit that you're not going to succeed.

or even getting along together as a species

You're right on that point. Getting along together seems incredibly unlikely. However, there's one important difference: getting along together is speculation about the future, and there's no way to come to a definite answer until the future arrives. God, on the other hand, supposedly exists right now, so our utter failure to find god suggests that there just isn't one.

My point is - it's people's choice to believe in God and trying to convince them otherwise is almost cruel.

How exactly is it cruel? And by that reasoning shouldn't every religious person who ever tries to convert someone be considered equally cruel?

If you take a christians belief away, they miss it. It's why there are phrases like 'a crisis of faith'. This can be psychologically damaging.

If you take a white supremacist's racist beliefs away, they will miss it. It can be psychologically damaging, so should we just let them keep their beliefs if it's what makes them happy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
What you meant to say is that the absence of evidence gives no reason for any human to make a faith-choice regarding God.

No, I meant to say factual truth. Over and over again we apply the label "factual truth" to things which are merely overwhelmingly and beyond any reasonable doubt supported by evidence and reason, even when they aren't absolutely 100% beyond any conceivable doubt true. We don't hesitate to say that it's factually true that I had a waffle for breakfast this morning, so we shouldn't hesitate to say it about the nonexistence of god.

You had to differentiate between 'truth' and 'revelation?'

I'm not sure what you're getting at? "He later revealed the truth." "His statement was later revealed to be a lie." Using the the verb to reveal is usually joined together with a noun is it not?

Now accept that group is a subset of atheism, albeit a noisy one.

Agreed, fault me for pidgeon holing atheists. Much the same as when people say christians they usually mean someone whose actions would seem to be from the Westboro Baptist's Playbook.

That question doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have a view to complain about someone else's view.

A reason is generally required though. If atheism encourages nothing, does it discourage anything?

Not really. One can be an atheist and lurch of into all kinds of philosophical nonsense about a world full of superhumans and hateful looters - ask Ayn Rand about that one. Or one can use science, philosophy, or direct personal experience to figure out the best way to live.

I don't have a coherent argument for this yet. I'll touch on it when I manage to expand the inkling I'm currently exploring.

No, I don't. I can read as much or as little as I want. I think you might be surprised to know most people spend exactly zero hours of their life reading ethical and religious texts, they just take the default position of their parents, modify it for their personal experience and live their lives.

Would that not make one willfully ignorant?

It's an argument from evidence.

And I don't beleive much of the evidence.

To clarify that I beleive it within the make ups of their systems/paradigm. The fact that I subscribe to a different paradigm means that I don't beleive what they call to be evidence is evidence within my paradigm when I'm working within my paradigm.

To further clarify that, 5+5=10. But 5+5=13 is also a correct statement. Provided the latter equation is using base 7.

Atheism encourages nothing. Nothing good, nothing bad. Various ideologies that include atheism, like communism, objectivism, or liberal humanism encourage all kinds of things, but atheism itself means nothing.

It encourages a beleif in a universal lack of deities does it not? Would that not mean that it would also encourage the rejection of the teachings of those deities?

You can't prove that you didn't torture and murder your mom, but it's still a factually false statement.

Invisible Gardner argument.

Counter argument, one will discover the truth when one dies.

Every attempt to prove the existence of one has failed utterly, and we're just as lacking in proof as when we started. When you have nothing but failure, and not even the slightest clue about how you could change that failure, it's probably time to just admit that you're not going to succeed.

I would use our sentience as proof. And we do actually know how to prove the existence or inexistence of God, however the inability for those who know to transmit the information means that society at large still does not know the answer.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's factually true because the default for an existence claim is that it is false until proven otherwise. God's existence has not been verified, and the overwhelming failure of every attempt so far is compelling evidence that it is unreasonable to expect that it ever will be verified. Therefore the factual truth is that there is no god.

I'm not clear on your reasoning.

What is "factual truth?" And why is the failure to produce a sound argument for God's existence compelling?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

We don't hesitate to say that it's factually true that I had a waffle for breakfast this morning, so we shouldn't hesitate to say it about the nonexistence of god.

I have never heard anyone say "factually true". To my ear it sounds equivalent to "ain't."

 dogma wrote:
What is "factual truth?"

"I had a waffle for breakfast this morning".

"The earth is not flat".

"1+1=2".

See a pattern yet?

And why is the failure to produce a sound argument for God's existence compelling?

Because, like every existence claim, we start from a default of nonexistence and the burden of proof is on the person claiming existence. The more times you try and fail to meet that burden, the more likely it is that you aren't just making some kind of mistake in your effort and the less likely it is that you will ever find proof.

To put it in 40k terms:

If you play your chosen list and lose one game it's a bad sign, but there's still hope that you could win.

If you play ten times and lose ever time it's a very bad sign, but it's not entirely unreasonable to hope that you'll someday win.

If you play a million times and lose every time it's as conclusive as you can get that you're a bad player and/or your list sucks, and belief otherwise is simply delusion.


Belief in god is in the last category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
I have never heard anyone say "factually true". To my ear it sounds equivalent to "ain't."

The point is that we're talking about truths that are objectively true (or false) based on objective facts about the world. Not "true for me" or whatever other dodge religious people like to use to attack the idea that "does god exist" is a question that can be answered without resorting to faith.

See a pattern yet?

I beleive he is refferring to your use of a tautology.

If you play a million times and lose every time it's as conclusive as you can get that you're a bad player and/or your list sucks, and belief otherwise is simply delusion.

Or simply an event with astronomical odds.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Or simply an event with astronomical odds.

And that's exactly the delusion I'm talking about, the belief that somehow it's random chance instead of the overwhelmingly more likely explanation that you're just bad at the game.

So everybody playing the lottery is being delusional instead of just facing incredible odds?

 Peregrine wrote:

PredaKhaine wrote:

or even getting along together as a species

You're right on that point. Getting along together seems incredibly unlikely. However, there's one important difference: getting along together is speculation about the future, and there's no way to come to a definite answer until the future arrives. God, on the other hand, supposedly exists right now, so our utter failure to find god suggests that there just isn't one.
But you're stating as we can't do it now, we will never do it.

My point is - it's people's choice to believe in God and trying to convince them otherwise is almost cruel.

How exactly is it cruel? And by that reasoning shouldn't every religious person who ever tries to convert someone be considered equally cruel?
I said 'almost' cruel.It's somewhere between not nice and unfair to try to force it on people (I'm not saying you're doing this, just explaining my own standpoint ) - Christians have learned to use faith as an aid to help in the day to day, life if you take this away, they lose something. If someone has no religion, it's their choice entirely what they do. And forcing religion on someone is also unfair

If you take a christians belief away, they miss it. It's why there are phrases like 'a crisis of faith'. This can be psychologically damaging.

If you take a white supremacist's racist beliefs away, they will miss it. It can be psychologically damaging, so should we just let them keep their beleifs if it's what makes them happy?
Yes - as long as they don't act on it, it's only a belief and they are entitled to choose. They probably wouldn't be swayed by me anyway.

It's why I like 'live and let live'

I remember hearing about this, and then the fact that he defended himself.

I simply rolled over laughing.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That is not sola fide. I am refering to the concept of living by 'faith' as in living with a faith relationship with God.
The doctrine of sola fide 'faith alone' means that righteousness is granted by justification before God through faith, and is not influenced by human works. A completely different concept.

I see no distinction. If one lives with a faith relationship with God, then one is implicitly justified, regardless of works, by way of sola fide.

I'm not the only one either, sola fide is fundamental to the idea of a personal relationship with God.

Sorry, you misunderstand because both concepts include the word faith.

1. Justification by faith (sola fide) is the concept that one becomes saved and goes to heaven only because of faith in Jesus and not because of good deeds you do.
2. Living by faith means that religion is not necessary for your spiritual walk because you have come to an understanding that all the rituals are superfluous if you have a Holy Spirit based relationship with God and talk to Him.

 dogma wrote:

That isn't a religious choice. If it is, then any choice according to belief is religious.

Its a religious preference because its a choice directly related to religious principle.

So for example if you believed in aliens that choice is not religous. If you believed aliens would return to save your soul, that would be.

 dogma wrote:

This is beginning to seem like you only have a hammer, and you still have yet to answer the original question.

I am pretty sure I haven't missed out your questions, if you think I have missed one restate it here.
Hammer? My comments are mostly gentle, and I minimise offense caused, excepting only the offense some take if relgion is mentioned at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

"I had a waffle for breakfast this morning".

"The earth is not flat".

"1+1=2".

See a pattern yet?

The statements above, assuming you weren't lying about the waffle, are true. True statements are also known as facts. There is no such thing as a "factual truth" that is not encompassed by the word "truth".

 Peregrine wrote:

Because, like every existence claim, we start from a default of nonexistence and the burden of proof is on the person claiming existence. The more times you try and fail to meet that burden, the more likely it is that you aren't just making some kind of mistake in your effort and the less likely it is that you will ever find proof.

That is correct, but where you go awry is in the derivation of a positive conclusion. It is insensible to claim that X cannot exist because large group Y cannot demonstrate that it does. A sensible position would be to claim ignorance of whether or not X exists, especially if you have not done any research of your own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

1. Justification by faith (sola fide) is the concept that one becomes saved and goes to heaven only because of faith in Jesus and not because of good deeds you do.
2. Living by faith means that religion is not necessary for your spiritual walk because you have come to an understanding that all the rituals are superfluous if you have a Holy Spirit based relationship with God and talk to Him.

I still do not see a distinction. You are only able to have a personal, as opposed to ecclesiastic, relationship with God because of sola fide.

 Orlanth wrote:

Its a religious preference because its a choice directly related to religious principle.

That is a blatantly circular argument.

 Orlanth wrote:

Hammer? My comments are mostly gentle, and I minimise offense caused, excepting only the offense some take if relgion is mentioned at all.

The referenced phrase is: "If all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails."

 Peregrine wrote:

Because:

1) Belief in god is factually false. It's just like any reasonable person would complain if 80% of the population believed that 1+1=5, or insisted on teaching flat earth theory in schools.

Care to quantify this. You make blanket denial statement like that. It sounds like: LALALA I'm not listening.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) The religious majority is busy imposing itself on everyone else who doesn't share their beliefs. For example, telling them they're going to hell, passing theocratic laws, promoting a default belief in society that to be normal you have to have religion, and anyone who doesn't is lacking in morality/decency/whatever. If religion was entirely something you did in private and kept to yourself then atheists would be a lot quieter outside of debating communities.

And secularists don't impose themselves on everyone else. Relgions effect peoples walks of life so they wish to bring it where they walk. They have no more need of closets than anyone else. if any other geroup can say this is who I am loud and proud, including secularists and atheists, why cant religious people.

Shutting other faityhgroups inclosets qwoulsnrt shut up atheists anyway, it didn't that last time under Communism. Atheists fundamentalists like a power trip like any other form of religious fundamentalist.

The idea thart we will all get along in a rational post religious world is a myth, what we get is Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Pot or the horrors of Revolutionary France.
Sure not all atheists are like that, neither are those you hate. but this is what happens under an atheist pseudo-theocracy, and if you dont persecute with an iron fist you wont get ridf of relgion. Unless you think you will "educate" it away, which doesn't work unless you mean indoctrinate rather than educate as there are plenty of educated people who find God.

 Peregrine wrote:

Not any more than any person who wants to understand things would look into science and philosophy. If you want to get to the moon or cure a disease you get out a science textbook, not a religious text.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njpWalYduU4
When they went to the moon, the astronauts took their faith with them.

 Peregrine wrote:

No more than any religious believer has to. For example, just look at pretty much any ethical debate in society right now and you'll find christians quoting bible verses to support both sides of the debate. You clearly can't make your moral decisions based entirely on your religious text, so you have to have your own independently-justified sense of morality to tell you what parts of the religious text are the sacred word of god, and which parts are translation errors/advice for a different time and place/etc.

Actually we are taught to let the Holy Spirit guide us while reading th bible. All parts are relevant somehow, what isrelevant to the time depends on thr time and situation.

(I suspect other religions do it too, but christianity is the loudest majority around here.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, you have to believe that what the scientists are telling you is true. I mean you beleive in other galaxies right? Well what if the laws of light as we know them now are actually different once you go beyond our solar system.

That's such absolute nonsense that it's bordering on delusional. If you genuinely believe that the laws of light are magically different then you have serious problems and should seek professional help.

That is harsh, poorly explained - fair enough, delusional - no. You aren't qualified to say. Light is affected by gravity we account for that for such things as gravitational lensing. It is not unreasonable that we will get clearer images of the cosmos by leaving the Solar System, the picture will be clearer detail lost to us now might be revealed but I would be suprised if our viewpoint was radically altered.

 dogma wrote:


What is "factual truth?"

A term used to give the impression that there's more to your argument than just ''Theists beleive in things that can't be proven, they are morons!!''.

You know what, I'd like to see Peregrine argue with an existential theist, someone like Emmanuel Mounier. His tears of frustration would probably sustain me for a couple of centuries.

It is related to truthiness?

 d-usa wrote:
So everybody playing the lottery is being delusional instead of just facing incredible odds?

Kind of. People who play the lottery, spend too much money on it, and think they're going to win are delusional (it's a sad fact that lotteries exploit the poor and desperate who don't always have the best financial judgement), people who can afford to throw away $1 a week are just buying cheap entertainment. But in either case at least we know that winning the lottery is possible because someone eventually does. That isn't the case with god, where the absence of evidence (or even a convincing argument) is complete.

===================================

 dogma wrote:
That is correct, but where you go awry is in the derivation of a positive conclusion. It is insensible to claim that X cannot exist because large group Y cannot demonstrate that it does. A sensible position would be to claim ignorance of whether or not X exists, especially if you have not done any research of your own.

Sorry, but that's just silly. We don't hesitate to state "X doesn't exist" when X is something that the majority doesn't believe in, we only make a special exception for religion because we're terrified of offending people.


=================================

 Orlanth wrote:
Care to quantify this. You make blanket denial statement like that. It sounds like: LALALA I'm not listening.

What is there to quantify? There isn't even the slightest scrap of evidence for god, therefore if we apply the same standards of truth that we apply to every other existence claim in our lives the only rational belief is that "god doesn't exist" is a true statement, and that "god exists" is a false statement on the level of "1+1=5".

And secularists don't impose themselves on everyone else. Relgions effect peoples walks of life so they wish to bring it where they walk. They have no more need of closets than anyone else. if any other geroup can say this is who I am loud and proud, including secularists and atheists, why cant religious people.

The difference is that you live in a saner country where you don't have 40% of the country screaming about how abortion is murder, the homosexual agenda is destroying america and calling god's wrath down upon us, etc. It goes way beyond having pride in your identity and into trying to impose your identity on everyone else.

Shutting other faityhgroups inclosets qwoulsnrt shut up atheists anyway, it didn't that last time under Communism. Atheists fundamentalists like a power trip like any other form of religious fundamentalist.

That's a terrible comparison. Communism was not primarily a religious ideology, it opposed religion as a rival to the power of the state, but there was far more to it than just an absence of belief in god. On the other hand, atheism as a movement exists primarily in opposition to the dominant religious majority, if you take away the excessive influence of religion then there's nothing left to be loud about and most atheists would join theists in quietly keeping their beliefs to themselves.

The idea thart we will all get along in a rational post religious world is a myth, what we get is Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Pot or the horrors of Revolutionary France.

Or the "horrors" of secular European countries where religion is marginalized and apathy or outright atheism are dominant. But I guess they have socialism there, so some people would call that "horror".

Sure not all atheists are like that, neither are those you hate. but this is what happens under an atheist pseudo-theocracy, and if you dont persecute with an iron fist you wont get ridf of relgion. Unless you think you will "educate" it away, which doesn't work unless you mean indoctrinate rather than educate as there are plenty of educated people who find God.

Sorry, but the numbers are against you. Education, statistically speaking, correlates with less religious belief (and strongly with less belief in the worst fundamentalist religions). Rates of belief are declining, church membership is dropping, and atheism/apathy-ism are growing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njpWalYduU4
When they went to the moon, the astronauts took their faith with them.

But they got there by using science, not by using religion. Religion was just along for the ride.

Actually we are taught to let the Holy Spirit guide us while reading th bible. All parts are relevant somehow, what isrelevant to the time depends on thr time and situation.

And somehow the holy spirit guides people on opposite sides of the debate in opposite directions? Do you really think that's a more likely explanation than that the "holy spirit" doesn't exist and people just pick and choose quotes from the bible based on their existing beliefs?

That is harsh, poorly explained - fair enough, delusional - no. You aren't qualified to say. Light is affected by gravity we account for that for such things as gravitational lensing. It is not unreasonable that we will get clearer images of the cosmos by leaving the Solar System, the picture will be clearer detail lost to us now might be revealed but I would be suprised if our viewpoint was radically altered.

Except:

1) The claim was that the laws of light are different, not that new information will become available and slightly change our understanding of the universe. One is a delusional idea that the laws of physics magically change at the edge of our solar system just so that we can have the illusion of galaxies and a universe that is more than 10,000 years old, one is reasonable speculation.

2) The laws of physics can't change like that, because everything we have built on them works too well for us to be completely wrong. It is possible that we'll have changes, but on the level of "X specific theory about the life cycle of stars is incomplete", not "the speed of light is different outside of our solar system".


==============================================

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
A term used to give the impression that there's more to your argument than just ''Theists beleive in things that can't be proven, they are morons!!''.

Sorry, but if you believe in things that can't be proven you ARE a moron. It doesn't matter if that "thing" is god or Matt Ward's writing talent, and the only reason we pretend that god is any different from any other delusion is that religious people are enough of a majority that we have to be polite and not offend them, while people who think that the GK codex is a great work of literature are such a tiny minority that it's safe to laugh at them.

You know what, I'd like to see Peregrine argue with an existential theist, someone like Emmanuel Mounier. His tears of frustration would probably sustain me for a couple of centuries.

Yeah, I'd love to see that too. I predict lots of big words and attempts to sound "philosophical", but no proof that it's anything more than just empty speculation and wishful thinking. The only difference between "sophisticated" theists and fundamentalist morons is that the former are at least able to put up a superficial impression of having a good argument and fool people who don't look at it too closely, while the latter just scream about how god hates you and is going to torture you for eternity.

I have plenty of proof that God exists, you don't have any proof that is convincing to you.

That is really the heart of the matter. Just because you don't have any proof that is convincing enough for you doesn't mean that everybody else is an idiot.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) Belief in god is factually false.

Nope.

As I said earlier, there's a difference between believing in something in the absence of evidence, and believing in something despite the evidence.

As there is no evidence for or against the existence of God, both sides are taking a belief in the absence of evidence.

Whereas, with Young Earth Creationism and similar ideas, they are taking a position despite the evidence to the contrary.


The former is not an issue. It's something we all do from time to time. The latter is a problem.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but if you believe in things that can't be proven you ARE a moron. It doesn't matter if that "thing" is god or Matt Ward's writing talent, and the only reason we pretend that god is any different from any other delusion is that religious people are enough of a majority that we have to be polite and not offend them, while people who think that the GK codex is a great work of literature are such a tiny minority that it's safe to laugh at them.

I beleive in the demonstrative power of empirical data. Please, go on, try to prove 'proofs'. Epistemology has just struggled with that conundrum for about a century, but obviously, you have the key to it's resolution, otherwise you'd be yourself a moron in beleiving in science.

Yeah, I'd love to see that too. I predict lots of big words and attempts to sound "philosophical", but no proof that it's anything more than just empty speculation and wishful thinking. The only difference between "sophisticated" theists and fundamentalist morons is that the former are at least able to put up a superficial impression of having a good argument and fool people who don't look at it too closely, while the latter just scream about how god hates you and is going to torture you for eternity.

Honestly, right now, I'd like to see Kierkegaard or Marion destroy you in a boxing ring.

And I'm an atheist. (Oh but you won't beleive that because I'm pro-life and only moronic theists can be pro-life )

You say that you are an atheist, but how will you prove it? I don't think there is a scientific test for that....

 d-usa wrote:
You say that you are an atheist, but how will you prove it? I don't think there is a scientific test for that....

By asking him about his beliefs?

 d-usa wrote:
I have plenty of proof that God exists, you don't have any proof that is convincing to you.

Ok, and what would that "proof" be?

 sebster wrote:
As I said earlier, there's a difference between believing in something in the absence of evidence, and believing in something despite the evidence.

There is, but both are irrational. We don't hesitate at all to call people delusional for believing in things in the absence of evidence (for example, if I tell you all about my invisible friend Bob who is standing right next to you), and the only reason we make a special exception for religion is to be polite to the majority. It's completely inconsistent to make that special exception, and ridiculous to pretend that there's some kind of philosophical justification for it rather than just politeness.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
(Oh but you won't beleive that because I'm pro-life and only moronic theists can be pro-life )

Hey, that's not a fair accusation at all. I'll gladly admit that it's possible to be a moronic pro-life atheist, so if you'd like to claim membership in that group I won't dispute it.