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.
Because the number of people who go from one religion to another have no bearing on the strength of the argument for each religion so simply stating that you have converted is irrelevant.
Consider someone who rejects Christianity because their pastor was a jerk to her. Is that a valid reason to reject Christianity? How about an atheist who is betting on a race-horse who is 3rd, seconds before the end he thinks to himself "Shiva, if you let me win I'll pray to you" followed by the horse suddenly overtaking the others. Is that a valid reason to reject atheism?
Neither one of those are valid IMHO and I have no idea if the Phd philosophers who went from atheism to theism had valid reason, I don't know if they did it because they truly found proof that Christianity is right, fell to some fallacy or even had a personal experience. Without the people saying what evidence or argument made them convert then I have no idea if its any valid therefore anyone going "I was once an atheist before I found THE one true GOD" will, depending on the situation, get a "good for you" or the longer,more profane version of "Whoopteedo".
Quote:
Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist
It's considered to be just as valid when somebody converts to atheism.
No it isn't
Quote:
Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist
Nobody said it would. It would simply prove that Dawkins thought that there was enough evidence to support scientology, nothing else. Anyone who thought that it did prove something else is clearly off their rocker.
I agree which is why it irks me when I see people posting lists of converts and then putting emphasis on their status. Why else post it if not to imply: "they're smart and believe in this, therefore you should too"
Its like a list of satisfied costumers you see in some of those "as seen on TV" infomertial ads
Not really, ID itself is based entirely on an argument from incredulity which is in itself a fallacy. That combined with the legal history of ID and that stupid kirk cameron "banana, atheists worst nightmare" video make me really reluctant to waste my time reading a book. A good solution to this would be for you to take a point made in the book and post it using your own words rather than expecting someone else to uncover the hidden secrets of ID
So you haven't really read any serious ID arguments, but you claim they all are "based entirely on an argument from incredulity"? How do you come to that conclusion?
Some atheists here seem to speak with such authority about what is wrong with theists and their cute little arguments. As J. S. Mill urges, seek out the strongest version of an argument against your position, not the weakest; not the most popular or the easiest to understand. If all you do is dismiss the straw man, and you never actually grasp the most powerful and compelling case that can be made, how can you speak with such authority and conviction about theists having absolutely no evidence for their beliefs? How can you say that theistic arguments simply are based on wishful thinking, or that such beliefs are simply irrational, and that there is no case in the slightest for God's existence?
To the atheists who fulminate and vituperate (I love those words) against theists and their beliefs: have you sought out the strongest arguments for God's existence you can find? Have you made an attempt to truly understand the classic theistic arguments, or some of the new versions of them, to examine them without prejudice, without bias, putting aside your own commitments to atheism, so that you can give it a fair and open reading? Who has diligently scrutinized Aquinas' five ways, or Leibniz's discussion of the problem of evil? What of Aristotle's unmoved mover, or Plantinga's ontological argument, or his argument that belief in God is "properly basic"? Or Richard Swinburne case for theism?
Just to give you a feel for what's out there, here's a link to Alvin Plantinga's lecture notes on a dozen or so arguments for God's existence. It's not easy stuff.
So you haven't really read any serious ID arguments, but you claim they all are "based entirely on an argument from incredulity"? How do you come to that conclusion?
Correct me if im wrong but ID is defined as the belief that the diversity of life is too complex to have formed using natural causes. That many parts in creatures couldn't have come about without some force directing it. To me that comes out as "I can't fathom it therefore it couldn't have happened" which is a pretty standard argument from incredulity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
Some atheists here seem to speak with such authority about what is wrong with theists and their cute little arguments. As J. S. Mill urges, seek out the strongest version of an argument against your position, not the weakest; not the most popular or the easiest to understand.
If all you do is dismiss the straw man, and you never actually grasp the most powerful and compelling case that can be made, how can you speak with such authority and conviction about theists having absolutely no evidence for their beliefs?
How can you say that theistic arguments simply are based on wishful thinking, or that such beliefs are simply irrational, and that there is no case in the slightest for God's existence?
To the atheists who fulminate and vituperate (I love those words) against theists and their beliefs: have you sought out the strongest arguments for God's existence you can find? Have you made an attempt to truly understand the classic theistic arguments, or some of the new versions of them, to examine them without prejudice, without bias, putting aside your own commitments to atheism, so that you can give it a fair and open reading? Who has diligently scrutinized Aquinas' five ways, or Leibniz's discussion of the problem of evil? What of Aristotle's unmoved mover, or Plantinga's ontological argument, or his argument that belief in God is "properly basic"? Or Richard Swinburne case for theism?
Just to give you a feel for what's out there, here's a link to Alvin Plantinga's lecture notes on a dozen or so arguments for God's existence. It's not easy stuff.
Ok, that's all for now. Please resume with the regularly scheduled broadcast.
Thats fine which is why I stated before that rather than expecting me to read a series of books, grab their strongest arguments and discuss them here or in another thread.
Lets consider some options:
-I spend a few weeks reading books on ID, I don't like it because I see problems in the arguments made. I read through both the tenuous and brilliant parts then I come back to this thread and say "yep I've read it but I still reject the idea of ID for reasons X, Y and Z" then someone tells me of yet another book on ID with the same basic implication that the reason I don't support it is because I just haven't looked deeply enough.
-You having already read the books and understood the important bits makes a thread titled "Evidence for ID". Obviously you know enough about ID to defend it so you grab what In your opinion are the best arguments and make a case for ID. In response, I as well as other atheists, research the subject and come with a rebuttal or find that I/we can't followed by me/us willfully reading those books on ID.
I come here because this is a forum designed specifically for debating these types of topics so I've been careful to always explain what I know instead of expecting the other person to know it in detail too. If for example someone makes a strawman when debating evolution, I won't go "go read the origin of species you moron". I'll just explain to the person that its wrong and explain how its wrong. It's a good process because it allows me to learn about a subject I'm not too familiar with(such as an esoteric religion) and lets me refine my own points when I explain them to others.
I won't take your right of accusing me of being biased away, I am and so is everyone else but in different levels. What I will say is that I keep a level of objectiveness when dealing with arguments that may support of disagree with my opinion. I know that being right for the wrong reasons is worse being wrong so I'm willing to listen at either side but please don't accuse me of willfully remaining ignorant because I haven't bothered to read every Michael Behe book there is.
Few things like:
-IC
-Antropic principles
-Watchmaker analogy
Could all be discussed in a topic of their own
Correct me if im wrong but ID is defined as the belief that the diversity of life is too complex to have formed using natural causes. That many parts in creatures couldn't have come about without some force directing it. To me that comes out as "I can't fathom it therefore it couldn't have happened" which is a pretty standard argument from incredulity.
Hi Coos!
REAL quickly: Maybe you're right. But I don't want to lump all ID arguments into the same old bag. As far as I can tell, they're all following in the classic tradition of teleological or design arguments in some way. And I would resist saying that they all argue that complexity CANNOT be explained through natural causes, but rather, that complexity is BEST EXPLAINED by intelligent design. Not every form of this argument is going to be fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Thats fine which is why I stated before that rather than expecting me to read a series of books, grab their strongest arguments and discuss them here or in another thread.
Lets consider some options:
-I spend a few weeks reading books on ID, I don't like it because I see problems in the arguments made. I read through both the tenuous and brilliant parts then I come back to this thread and say "yep I've read it but I still reject the idea of ID for reasons X, Y and Z" then someone tells me of yet another book on ID with the same basic implication that the reason I don't support it is because I just haven't looked deeply enough.
-You having already read the books and understood the important bits makes a thread titled "Evidence for ID". Obviously you know enough about ID to defend it so you grab what In your opinion are the best arguments and make a case for ID. In response, I as well as other atheists, research the subject and come with a rebuttal or find that I/we can't followed by me/us willfully reading those books on ID.
I come here because this is a forum designed specifically for debating these types of topics so I've been careful to always explain what I know instead of expecting the other person to know it in detail too. If for example someone makes a strawman when debating evolution, I won't go "go read the origin of species you moron". I'll just explain to the person that its wrong and explain how its wrong. It's a good process because it allows me to learn about a subject I'm not too familiar with(such as an esoteric religion) and lets me refine my own points when I explain them to others.
I won't take your right of accusing me of being biased away, I am and so is everyone else but in different levels. What I will say is that I keep a level of objectiveness when dealing with arguments that may support of disagree with my opinion. I know that being right for the wrong reasons is worse being wrong so I'm willing to listen at either side but please don't accuse me of willfully remaining ignorant because I haven't bothered to read every Michael Behe book there is.
And please don't accuse me of accusing you of willfully remaining ignorant. I was half expecting something like, "hey, you know what Matrix, that's a good point. Thanks buddy! You're a real pal for bring this to my attention. I'll think about it. You may have something there. Maybe I really should try to do that more." Well, maybe I wasn't half expecting that, but I was hoping for some agreement.
To all: learn from The Matrix.
Now I really, really, really AM leaving and won't be back for a bit. Bye!
I never said he was. All I said was that he researched the evidence on both sides in an attempt to disprove theism, and then wrote about what he found.
If he researched the evidence on both sides, why are all of his sources members of a political group who's intention is to get creationism pushed as public policy by schools and other government agencies? Everyone in the book is a member of the Discovery Institute, which is an organization trying to push creationism into public schools. Edited to add - OK, one is a member of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, but same difference.
Where are the interviews with real scientists? Where are the interviews with prominent non-Christians? Where are the interviews with Christians who reject creationism? Without them, I don't see where the claim of researching both sides possibly comes from.
Quote:
They may have degrees in philosophy and theology, but that doesn't automatically disqualify them as scientists. Most (if not all) that have a degree in philosophy or theology also have a degree in a purely scientific field of expertise. So I really don't see why you shouldn't go to them, after all, you have to be darn good to get a PhD.
Would you rather have open heart surgery done on you by a medical doctor, or someone who just has a PhD in Theology? It shouldn't make a difference to you, since you have to be darn good to get a PhD in Theology, right?
Until you can show that they are acutally doing science by providing us with peer reviewed scientific research led by these theologians and philosophers, you're just guessing that they might be scientists.
I've done this exercise before, though, so I don't have to guess. Take Behe, for example, who has said "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". In other words, there's no legitimate science behind his support of ID & creationism despite the fact that he's a biochemist.
I was able to find this in a few minutes of searching. The fact that you can't seem to find anything supporting your claim that there's scientific evidence for god (or even a real scientific hypothesis of god) is starting to be a bit suspicious. I honestly doubt it exists, but I'll see if you can turn anything up.
Until you can show that they are acutally doing science by providing us with peer reviewed scientific research led by these theologians and philosophers, you're just guessing that they might be scientists.
I've done this exercise before, though, so I don't have to guess. Take Behe, for example, who has said "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". In other words, there's no legitimate science behind his support of ID & creationism despite the fact that he's a biochemist.
I was able to find this in a few minutes of searching. The fact that you can't seem to find anything supporting your claim that there's scientific evidence for god (or even a real scientific hypothesis of god) is starting to be a bit suspicious. I honestly doubt it exists, but I'll see if you can turn anything up.
KC, and Theoretical Scientist, I hope you don't mind if I add to this discussion a little. I haven't followed your whole debate, so forgive me if I'm missing parts of it.
I think peer reviewed journals are important. But I think it is a mistake to use the peer review process as a means of establishing what does, and does not, count as legitimate science. It is far too easy for an ideology to take hold in such matter, and when that happens, it is far too easy to shut down an opposing view simply because it does not conform to the "common opinion". Minority views should be heard, and should be allowed expression.
For example, what if for some reason the number of people who believe that ID is legitimate science multiplied greatly, and they became the majority voice in the sciences? What if they all of a sudden found themselves in editorial positions for journals, and held all the biggest academic positions in universities? What if they then turned around and said, "well, that evolution theory is cute and all, but it doesn't cut the mustard as real science. Better luck next time." Would it be legitimate to point to peer-reviewed journals, to the commonly accepted opinions, to the academy, as a way of appealing to authority for what counts as science and what doesn't?
Who is to say what counts as legitimate science? Well, apparently the legitimate scientists are the ones who say. But aren't "legitimate" scientists the ones who publish in peer reviewed journals? So who decides what's published in peer-reviewed journals? Well, those would be the "legitimate scientists"! We end up in a strange circle that doesn't explain anything about either peer-reviewed journals or legitimate science.
One of the big challenges presented by proponents of ID is in terms of what counts as science, and what doesn't. This is a legitimate question. And some proponents of ID claim that the "institution" of science itself is in the grips of a metaphysical assumption which unfairly (without argument) discredits other metaphysical assumptions from entering science. But this sort of claim cannot simply be dismissed by saying that the people who raise these questions are not "real" scientists because they haven't published in any peer-reviewed journals--therefore we don't have to listen to them. "You're not a real scientist so we don't have to listen to you" is not a counter argument. Pointing to a lack of peer-reviewed articles does not answer the big question of why something does not count as science. Of course, there may be legitimate reasons for discounting a position. But these other sorts of responses seem, in my opinion, to beg the question.
Anyway, I don't know if any of this pertains to the discussion. Just wanted to throw it out there.
REAL quickly: Maybe you're right. But I don't want to lump all ID arguments into the same old bag. As far as I can tell, they're all following in the classic tradition of teleological or design arguments in some way. And I would resist saying that they all argue that complexity CANNOT be explained through natural causes, but rather, that complexity is BEST EXPLAINED by intelligent design. Not every form of this argument is going to be fallacious.
Why sure and this runs in parallel with what the theoretical scientist and I have gradually began discussing. My position is that because the god hypothesis is unfalsifiable and largely undefined, its not suitable as the best or even a good hypothesis.
Its the same principle with ID, we have no Idea as to what the designer is or what mechanism the designer used to produce the different species. Its just really vague and incomplete if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
And please don't accuse me of accusing you of willfully remaining ignorant.
Well sorry if I misunderstood but thats the impression I got from your post.
There are small details in it which might be unintentional and a product of my over-analyzing but which I believe some of my fellow atheists may have also picked up because they tend to be a recurring theme with posts that criticize atheism.
For example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
Some atheists here seem to speak with such authority about what is wrong with theists and their cute little arguments. As J. S. Mill urges, seek out the strongest version of an argument against your position, not the weakest; not the most popular or the easiest to understand.
If all you do is dismiss the straw man, and you never actually grasp the most powerful and compelling case that can be made,
Its a bit hard for me to properly respond to this statement because every way I see it, it is not directed at me. If the statement had "you" instead of "some atheists" then I could say Its not true. What I instead get is a feeling than i'm being told that maybe its not me but that there are several groups of atheists that go about with 100% conviction about their beliefs refuting straw mans and Ignoring the real arguments. I'm happy to assume that this is true but then so? Since I can't exactly speak for them, I'm left in a position where I can respond as If the post was directed at me or ignoring it. If I do the former, I can be accused of overreacting and If I do the later(which I usually do) then there is no progress.
The true issue here if you ask me is whether or not my arguments portray the right attitude that's required for objectively debating these issues.
Then we get this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
how can you speak with such authority and conviction about theists having absolutely no evidence for their beliefs?
The problem I see here is not that Atheists think there is absolutely no evidence for something but that the evidence for it amounts to nothing which may as well be regarded as having no evidence.
This can be a matter of perspective because if you take me for example. Now I've never had any personal experience to convince me of something, I figure that even If I had one, I couldn't trust it. My senses have been wrong before and lead me to see things which just aren't there and when it comes even If I something was to come down from the sky, split mountains at the snap of a finger and claim that it is god herself, I couldn't tell if it was a true supernatural entity or an incredibly advanced alien. I could even get a feeling that I've never felt before, something so strong that makes me say "yes, now I know for sure that I truly am in the presence of god" because I seriously couldn't tell if thats the feeling I should be getting or if some alien has been messing with my mind. Its too easy for people to delude themselves into thinking some or see things were there aren't any and I'm no exception.
Thus for people like me who can't appreciate personal revelation, we place no value in it at all. Even people who trust in their personal experiences will only trust other peoples PE's If theirs agree with each other. The evangelist will not trust in the words that the muslim allegedly heard from god in a dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
How can you say that theistic arguments simply are based on wishful thinking, or that such beliefs are simply irrational, and that there is no case in the slightest for God's existence?
With the later one, we have this notion that there exists a piece of evidence or an argument that has gone undetected and can't be refuted. My view is that yes, this event is possible and I'm always willing to listen but it seems unlikely because people hoping to convince others of their views are constantly falling head over heels for the chance to show what they believe is their best piece of evidence or argument.
Lastly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
To the atheists who fulminate and vituperate (I love those words) against theists and their beliefs: have you sought out the strongest arguments for God's existence you can find? Have you made an attempt to truly understand the classic theistic arguments, or some of the new versions of them, to examine them without prejudice, without bias, putting aside your own commitments to atheism, so that you can give it a fair and open reading? Who has diligently scrutinized Aquinas' five ways, or Leibniz's discussion of the problem of evil? What of Aristotle's unmoved mover, or Plantinga's ontological argument, or his argument that belief in God is "properly basic"? Or Richard Swinburne case for theism?
This is the sort of robotic answer you will probably always get:
"Yes, As an Atheist I have tried my best to objectively analyze the arguments using evidence and logic to the best of my ability. I also gladly accept the fact that do not know everything that has or will be written on the subject"
An important thing to remember is that the philosophies usually associated with atheism such as nihilism or even global scepticism are very critical of absolutes so we find anyone with full conviction of something(even the non-existance of god) to be missing a few screws. Luckily I've never encountered an atheist in real life who was 100% sure of anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
I was half expecting something like, "hey, you know what Matrix, that's a good point. Thanks buddy! You're a real pal for bring this to my attention. I'll think about it. You may have something there. Maybe I really should try to do that more." Well, maybe I wasn't half expecting that, but I was hoping for some agreement.
lol well sorry to disappoint, I mean surely being with people of differing opinions isn't that bad...is it?
To The Matrix:
I don’t need to read any books on an argument for your god thing; they are just one person's opinion, I have my own. I simply don’t believe and have better things to read. I was raised xian, and have no desire to investigate that fantasy again.
_________
Quote:
Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist
I never said he was. All I said was that he researched the evidence on both sides in an attempt to disprove theism, and then wrote about what he found
They may have degrees in philosophy and theology, but that doesn't automatically disqualify them as scientists. Most (if not all) that have a degree in philosophy or theology also have a degree in a purely scientific field of expertise. So I really don't see why you shouldn't go to them, after all, you have to be darn good to get a PhD.
Please reread your post 197 and the following argument. I’ve copied your post 197 here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the theoretical scientist
No, it's not just my opinion, it also happens to be the opinion of a whole bunch of very distinguished scientists in various fields of expertise.
Plenty, but I never said that it pointed to any particular God. There is a very interesting and well written book about it: The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Try reading it sometime.
True, but you can still verify that is the best hypothesis.
Ok, first of all since I'm new to this thread I would like to know which side is which
Second I would like someone who believes in the Big Bang to answer the following questions
1 Where did the molecule that was involved in the big bang come from?
2 Where did the energy that caused the molecule to explode come from?
3 How could an explosion create a perfectly ordered universe with planets, stars, life, and trillions of different types of molecules? and how did all of this come from 1 molecule?
And for people who want me to prove there is a God , I can feel Him, a love deeper than any other, his strength when I go through pain, his presence inside of me, and I have a deep faith in Him. And prayer, many times He has answered my prayers, He brought me out of the Darkness and into the Light, he saved me.
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.
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.
) against theists and their beliefs: have you sought out the strongest arguments for God's existence you can find? Have you made an attempt to truly understand the classic theistic arguments, or some of the new versions of them, to examine them without prejudice, without bias, putting aside your own commitments to atheism, so that you can give it a fair and open reading? Who has diligently scrutinized Aquinas' five ways, or Leibniz's discussion of the problem of evil? What of Aristotle's unmoved mover, or Plantinga's ontological argument, or his argument that belief in God is "properly basic"? Or Richard Swinburne case for theism?
I was half expecting something like, "hey, you know what Matrix, that's a good point. Thanks buddy! You're a real pal for bring this to my attention. I'll think about it. You may have something there. Maybe I really should try to do that more."
