U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-10-2013, 07:50 AM
 
39,225 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5098

Advertisements

The unworthy thought that the problem with the Stanford University enclopaedia's entry on atheism might be because Stanford is an American University was one that I pushed to the back of my mind, until I saw this:

"econd, and more important, is McGinnis' "side-note" treatment of what can be best described as a colossal failure of judgment at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of my favorite institutions in the whole of professional philosophy). For, "Plantinga’s SEP entry on 'Religion and Science' ...functions as a showcase for Plantinga’s own views."

Why would the Editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy permit Plantinga to promote Behe??? - New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

I don't want to get into ad Homenums, but is there an urgent need for a shake - up to ensure a greater measure of intellectual objectivity? If there was perhaps there would be less chance of philosophy -trained theists coming here and engaging in arguments long on bewildering jargon and elitist sneering and short on fair and objective argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2013, 08:19 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,943,511 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Man View Post
I just cannot suddenly write something off only because I cannot see it with my eyes or hear it with my ears. I'm fascinated by how atheism puts an emphasis on logic, but there has to be some kind of outside force behind some inexplainable miracles that happen.
Yep, it's Leprechauns. Obviously. Come on, don't be closed minded. You "cannot suddenly write something off only because I cannot see it with my eyes or hear it with my ears", can you?

That's the problem with trying to use a complete mystery as evidence for something. It's equally evidence for pretty much anything you can imagine. The reasonable thing to do is leave it at "I don't know".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 580,242 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You are, dtango, actually a god -believer.
Oh yes, I am! I wrote just above:

Theism is more logical than atheism when it comes to the earthly gods of the folklore traditions.

Of course you do not like to read of the earthly gods of antiquity because the God who, according to your agnosticism’s dogma, deserves that infinitesimal whiff of uncertainty with regard to his non-existence, is the one who climbed the ladder and went to live on the clouds. The very same God that had reached 7th heaven by the time of the Christian fathers, and is now –after having beamed himself- dwelling in the suburbs of the universe.

With such a childish-idea-God you may not declare agnostic and thus you favour more serious God ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 12:44 PM
 
40,150 posts, read 26,789,159 times
Reputation: 6054
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The unworthy thought that the problem with the Stanford University enclopaedia's entry on atheism might be because Stanford is an American University was one that I pushed to the back of my mind, until I saw this:

"econd, and more important, is McGinnis' "side-note" treatment of what can be best described as a colossal failure of judgment at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of my favorite institutions in the whole of professional philosophy). For, "Plantinga’s SEP entry on 'Religion and Science' ...functions as a showcase for Plantinga’s own views."

Why would the Editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy permit Plantinga to promote Behe??? - New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

I don't want to get into ad Homenums, but is there an urgent need for a shake - up to ensure a greater measure of intellectual objectivity? If there was perhaps there would be less chance of philosophy -trained theists coming here and engaging in arguments long on bewildering jargon and elitist sneering and short on fair and objective argument.
.Moderator cut: deleted Armchair philosophy is useless. Philosophy is a DISCIPLINE that requires rigorous training and reasoning ability beyond what is needed for day to day thinking. The Dover court's rejection of Creationism and ID (AS presented by the Discovery Institute) has nothing to do with the philosophical and empirical merits of the work of the witnesses they used . . . like Behe. To assume Behe is not intellectually and philosophically rigorous because of his association with the Creationist whackos is guilt by association only. Elitism is NOT merely understanding what the general populace does not, Arequipa . . . it is a derogatory term for other reasons not applicable here.

Last edited by june 7th; 03-13-2013 at 06:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,382,568 times
Reputation: 3735
Default Oh. OK! This one's simple!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU View Post
I've heard this being stated by a number of atheists here, as well as claims that eminent theistic scientists are theists because they are 'selectively unintelligent' in those areas of critical reasoning that concern theistic belief. This is not a popular view in academia, especially given that academia itself has gone against expected trends and has become desecularised over the past 30 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn™-the-scientist
(edited for brevity, plus a distinct lack of logical follow-through on the OP's part...)
Therefore, it would be interesting to see what arguments and evidence can be offered in this forum to defend such a statement.\
Tell you what, MissionIM: I'm going to take a page directly out of The New Christian's Operating Handbook of Pseudo-Debating, which is demonstrably obvious in nearly all of the threads and posts here in the R&P sub-forum. [TNCOHPD™]

I cannot, for the life of me, ever get a serious, intellectually honest answer to any of my questions even when asked politely of Christians here. And so, I'll just do as I've been taught:

My answer to your question is, quite simply:

Because, as an accredited professional (tho' admittedly now semi-retired..) scientist, I say so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 10:33 PM
 
39,225 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5098
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Moderator cut: Orphaned. Armchair philosophy is useless. Philosophy is a DISCIPLINE that requires rigorous training and reasoning ability beyond what is needed for day to day thinking. The Dover court's rejection of Creationism and ID (AS presented by the Discovery Institute) has nothing to do with the philosophical and empirical merits of the work of the witnesses they used . . . like Behe. To assume Behe is not intellectually and philosophically rigorous because of his association with the Creationist whackos is guilt by association only. Elitism is NOT merely understanding what the general populace does not, Arequipa . . . it is a derogatory term for other reasons not applicable here.
It is not a question of being defensive, but of being quite sure that arguments being put forward were flawed, the definitions did not reflect the actuality and I was not being handled fairly by our recent poster who, rather than address my points, dismissed them with a handful of high- flown philosophic jargon. Plus trying to buy the argument for free by playing a familiar trick -throwing a few in house specialist subjects at me with the 'surely you are familiar with...' implying that if I wasn't fully conversant with the more abstruse elements then I was not competent to question an Authority on philosophy - maybe not Elitism, but it is not washable. Something I have have had from you, old chum - I wondered for a moment whether you were two -accounting

As I remarked, I was astonished at the ineptness of the Stanford entry on atheism and the post I noticed and posted about Plantinga being allowed to make propaganda for Behe by Stanford was hardly defensive nor am I doing armchair philosophy but detecting logically flawed arguments and definitions that do not reflect the reality. Nor are you really addressing the matter but trying to make cheap irrelevant points.(does the Philosophy class give lessons in strawman fallacies? ) but well, I was suspicious on my part.

As I have stated elsewhere there are many -well - some -scientists who are perfectly good scientists in the biological field with all the ability to apply scientific rigour - but that goes out the window because of their faith in the Bible and so they propose theories which are shown up to be poor science.That is the case with Behe and Plantinga must know it and chose to ignore it and effectively say that he thought science was wrong and creationism was right -and the post I made was perfectly correct - and so was I - in seeing something not scientifically kosher about that.

Last edited by june 7th; 03-13-2013 at 06:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 02:48 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,702,360 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The Dover court's rejection of Creationism and ID (AS presented by the Discovery Institute) has nothing to do with the philosophical and empirical merits of the work of the witnesses they used . . . like Behe. To assume Behe is not intellectually and philosophically rigorous because of his association with the Creationist whackos is guilt by association only.
I am not aware of people who make that guilt by association. The flaws in his work are nothing to do with the association and everything to do with the fact his work is nonsense. His entire approach to evolution appears to be to find things complex enough to be beyond our current understanding - and then simply to assert that they could not have come about without an intelligent hand guiding it.

Assertion does not an argument make however young padewans. The basis for his entire issue with evolution is essentially "Argument from ignorance". In other words "If we do not know - then some intelligence must have done it".

Creationism is not a philosophy or empirical. It is just a case of "If you do not know therefore god" or "If I can cast doubts on your idea then my idea is correct by default".

The OP wants to know which is more logical? I think the logical position is that if someone comes up with an idea that has no basis then you do not accept the idea. Simply as that. The idea there is a conscious designing god has no basis - therefore not accepting that claim is the "logical" position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2013, 05:38 AM
 
39,225 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5098
Thank you Momentus. This is absolutely the whole matter of the debate. The 'defence' of atheism is simply that the logical position is sound and as stated - if it hadn't have been, a sound logical position would have needed to be adopted. In fact that seem to be what happened and maybe that's why we are still struggling with a lot of inapplicable definitions of atheism (apart from sheer missperception or misrepresentation).

The fallacy in the OP title is that it assumes that atheism needs 'defending' which is saying, effectively, that atheism needs to make its case. In fact it is Theism needs to make the case to show that atheism is less logical than theism, or that theism is more logical than atheism (1). Both these points were made by me and the OP refused to see or understand them.

He is a trained philosopher and I am not, and yet I could see what he couldn't. It isn't that I am smarter, better qualified or better educated than he is, or indeed than our pal Mystic, but that they, Behe, Plantinga and every damn' scientist, philosopher and archeologists who, having acquired Faith in a religion, the discipline is compromised and any correct, objective or even fair application of the discipline gets sidelined in favour of the Believers' Mission Statement:-

'This is the conclusion; what evidence can we find to support it?'

(1) one method being to prove that God exists or is at least probable - which is what I welcomed the OP apparently trying to do - and which he either failed to understand or pretended to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 04:32 PM
 
40,150 posts, read 26,789,159 times
Reputation: 6054
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
This is absolutely the whole matter of the debate. The 'defence' of atheism is simply that the logical position is sound and as stated - if it hadn't have been, a sound logical position would have needed to be adopted.
The fallacy in the OP title is that it assumes that atheism needs 'defending' which is saying, effectively, that atheism needs to make its case. In fact it is Theism needs to make the case to show that atheism is less logical than theism, or that theism is more logical than atheism (1). Both these points were made by me and the OP refused to see or understand them.

He is a trained philosopher and I am not, and yet I could see what he couldn't. It isn't that I am smarter, better qualified or better educated than he is, or indeed than our pal Mystic, but that they, Behe, Plantinga and every damn' scientist, philosopher and archeologists who, having acquired Faith in a religion, the discipline is compromised and any correct, objective or even fair application of the discipline gets sidelined in favour of the Believers' Mission Statement:-

'This is the conclusion; what evidence can we find to support it?'
Ah my friend . . . that is the true straw man being presented in this discussion. Your mistaken reliance on logic and the presumption in your starting premise is precisely the part of philosophical understanding that you do NOT even see as an issue. You take as your starting premise that materiality and naturalism are "given in the inner consciousness" and not even to be considered.But all logical analysis relies on the starting premise being true, period. THAT is WHY you do not understand the arguments made that defeat your starting premise and the derivatives from them. You only see what the "trained philosopher couldn't" BECAUSE you are an untrained armchair philosopher unfamiliar with the actual issues involved . . . the most salient being qualia and consciousness itself that completely contradict materialism or naturalism as you "see" them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2013, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,959 posts, read 14,264,832 times
Reputation: 16133
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The unworthy thought that the problem with the Stanford University enclopaedia's entry on atheism might be because Stanford is an American University was one that I pushed to the back of my mind, until I saw this:

"econd, and more important, is McGinnis' "side-note" treatment of what can be best described as a colossal failure of judgment at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (one of my favorite institutions in the whole of professional philosophy). For, "Plantinga’s SEP entry on 'Religion and Science' ...functions as a showcase for Plantinga’s own views."

Why would the Editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy permit Plantinga to promote Behe??? - New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

I don't want to get into ad Homenums, but is there an urgent need for a shake - up to ensure a greater measure of intellectual objectivity? If there was perhaps there would be less chance of philosophy -trained theists coming here and engaging in arguments long on bewildering jargon and elitist sneering and short on fair and objective argument.
No kidding.

Why do you think I kept saying it doesn't matter what some Academician at Stanford says?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Man View Post
This is why I just cannot be atheist. I value logic, reason, and common sense a lot, but there are just some things and events that happen that just cannot be explained, no matter how much logic or reason one can use. Sometimes, people can get too reasonable, and start overthinking and reaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-Man View Post
I just cannot suddenly write something off only because I cannot see it with my eyes or hear it with my ears. I'm fascinated by how atheism puts an emphasis on logic, but there has to be some kind of outside force behind some inexplainable miracles that happen.
They are explained, it's just not an explanation that you're willing to accept, perhaps because you're close-minded, or perhaps because you're lacking in knowledge.

What appears to be miracles is often nothing more than applied physics, pure and simple.

I can't tell you how many times my partner, or another cop, or one of the ambulance crew or an on-looker/witness remarked, "They should have died...it's a miracle anyone survived."

No, not a miracle...it's physics.

Shoot two people in the exact same place...say right on the bottom right of the rib-cage, and one will live and the other die.

A miracle?

No, physics. Everything from bone density to muscle mass to the amount of fatty tissue, body shape and a host of other factors affect how the bullet will impart its force and penetrate.

Lower bone density could result in the bullet fracturing the bone and penetrating the lung, while higher bone density may cause the bullet to deflect/ricochet into the abdominal cavity destroying the kidney and liver --- or maybe the bullet fragments and a sliver ricochets off of the sternum and severs the aorta.

It's all physics.

There's one of those christian science bookstores next to the Arab place where I eat, and the other day I saw something about "hip pain being healed."

You probably see that as a miracle, where I see that as an hypochondriac. Or quite possibly the pain was psychosomatic --- as it often is --- or the result of stress.

So the woman prays, and through prayer relieves her own stress, or convinces herself that she is healed and so she is.

A miracle? No, routine science (and psychology).

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that miracles do occur.

Do you not see how I am morally superior to Jesus or to any god that ever existed?

Jesus supposedly raised Lazarus...I would have raised all of the dead, instead of discriminating against them. Certainly Elijah, Ezra, Jeremiah, David, Solomon and Daniel were worthy to be raised from the dead, were they not?

Jesus supposedly healed a leper, a lame person and a blind person.....I would have healed all lepers and all blind people on the whole of the Earth....forever....so that there were never any more blind people or lepers or lame people.

How fair is it that some never pray, yet are bestowed with "miracles" while others pray and their prayers are rejected?

Where's the logic in that?

Good things happen to bad people; bad things happen to good people.

Where's the logic in that?

Look to the Old Testament where King Manasseh is the most evil Hebrew king to ever rule; who rejected Yahweh; who worshiped idols; and yet his reign was blessed with prosperity and bountifulness, and Manasseh himself was the greatest benefactor.

And then King Josiah rebuilds the Temple bans idol worship and devotes his life to Yahweh....only to be slain by Necho on the battlefield and his body drug around and mutilated, and then the entire Hebrew kingdom destroyed and the Hebrews exiled.

Where's the logic in that?

Reject god and benefit; worship god and suffer horribly -- and not just you but everyone.

Yeah, that's really logical.

With respect to Western religions -- Islam, Judaism and christianity --- what kind of morally superior benevolent enlightened being says, "Love me.....or burn in Hell for eternity"?

Does that make sense? Because I'm just not seeing it.

Bewildered....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top