News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

Started by AnimatedDirt, June 13, 2012, 05:17:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

En_Route

Quote from: technolud on June 15, 2012, 10:50:32 AM
Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.

Alas, all that wonderful ambiguity will be lost.......

Who said that??
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Tank

Quote from: technolud on June 15, 2012, 10:50:32 AM
Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.

Alas, all that wonderful ambiguity will be lost.......
Good Boy *pats technolud*  ;)
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Firebird

#32
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?

I think most atheists would be willing to concede that, since you can't really prove a negative.
But most theists? I don't see many of them compromising on their end about this, and is a big part of the problem. It's simpler to just say anything we don't understand must be controlled by some higher power. We've been doing it throughout our history.

I sympathize with Genericguy's position on this, which is essentially that there's no such thing as "supernatural". If we come across some scenario that blows up our understanding of the laws of nature (like, say, a person walking on water) it just means we don't fully understand those laws or can't comprehend them because our senses aren't attuned to them properly.


EDIT: Gave proper credit to Genericguy instead of technolud
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?

I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't think revelation/faith and objective evidence/knowledge are in the same sphere.  Technically, to believe is not to claim to know.  You believe based on subjective experience; you know based on objective evidence.

technolud

Quote from:  Firebird bird bird birdI sympathize with technoluds's position on this, which is essentially that there's no such thing as "supernatural". If we come across some scenario that blows up our understanding of the laws of nature (like, say, a person walking on water) it just means we don't fully understand those laws or can't comprehend them because our senses aren't attuned to them properly.

In interest of full disclosure, I didn't say that.  Wish I had.  Agree completely with it.  But credit must go to Genericguy. 

Firebird

"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Genericguy

#36
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 10:18:41 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 15, 2012, 06:34:12 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 12:49:04 AM
Quote from: Genericguy on June 14, 2012, 06:20:56 PM
I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.

Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.




If empirical, undeniable proof of ghosts were brought forth, would our understanding of the laws of nature not have to change to comply with their observed existence? I don't see how a god would be any different.

This is the nub of it. God is defined so as to be outside the reach of science. He is exempt from the laws of nature. When he rides into town, virgins give birth, water turns into wine and the dead rise again. These feats are described as miracles, exactly because they defy the laws of nature. If there were any evidence these miracles had genuinely occurred then we atheists might have to reconsider our position. But of course there isn't any.

We place magic outside of science without a second thought. We do this with such ease because we have done so for so long. Let's examine, though, what would happen if a wizards wand were to be found that gave magic power to its wielder. Our understandings of the laws of nature would make room for the existence of magic. Maybe we would add it to our list of known energys... Kinetic, Electromagnet, Magnetic, Magic. It's existence defines it as natural. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. At the very least, until further understanding, we would have to include a new law giving exemption to magic.

Quote from: En_RouteThese feats are described as miracles, exactly because they defy the laws of nature.

The same goes for miracles and god. Proof of god would not abolish science. Science would change to comply with gods existence. If god created the laws of nature, then he created them with himself as an exemption. It would go something like this... According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.

Revert back to the magic example for clarity. It's harder to comprehend the god hypothesis in this manner but I think it still fits just fine.


Quote from: TankPlease would people attempt to attribute quotations.

Will do. Sorry about that.

En_Route

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 15, 2012, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 15, 2012, 03:55:41 AM
I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?

I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't think revelation/faith and objective evidence/knowledge are in the same sphere.  Technically, to believe is not to claim to know.  You believe based on subjective experience; you know based on objective evidence.


There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.

Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Recusant

Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PMAtheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism.

A minor quibble: "Absence of . . ." is an aphorism that sounds like a truism, but is not. See for example, Victor Stenger's article on the subject.

A truism is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention." The fact is, sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I prefer not to use the word "proof" here as it applies more to logic and maths than to science.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.

Neither side cares to move closer to the other.  The issue is peace. There really is no conflict as long as atheists don't attempt to force theists to abandon their faith and theists don't attempt to force atheists to adopt their faith, in one form or another. We can just settle into the same neighborhood, speak different languages, and have only superficial interaction, just like me and the Muslim family down the street.

Tank

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 15, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.

Neither side cares to move closer to the other.  The issue is peace. There really is no conflict as long as atheists don't attempt to force theists to abandon their faith and theists don't attempt to force atheists to adopt their faith, in one form or another. We can just settle into the same neighborhood, speak different languages, and have only superficial interaction, just like me and the Muslim family down the street.
Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves. I see no reason to. In fact if you are going to 'practice what you preach' you should leave HAF (I'm not suggesting you do) as you should be keeping your ideas to yourself shouldn't you?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

En_Route

Quote from: Recusant on June 15, 2012, 09:21:39 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 15, 2012, 09:01:33 PMAtheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism.

A minor quibble: "Absence of . . ." is an aphorism that sounds like a truism, but is not. See for example, Victor Stenger's article on the subject.

A truism is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially : one too obvious for mention." The fact is, sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I prefer not to use the word "proof" here as it applies more to logic and maths than to science.

Recusant, Thanks for drawing my attention to this article which has sparked off some further readings. I will try to marshal my ideas at some later date.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

technolud

Quote from:  En_RouteThere is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction. Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.

I hold with the bolded statement, but I don't believe that absence of proof equates to proof of absence.   Absence of proof may not be anything more the lack of knowledge.  But......in this case should not the Burden Of Proof lie with the party that is claimng the proofless thing exists?


technolud

Quote from:  genericguyWe place magic outside of science without a second thought. We do this with such ease because we have done so for so long. Let's examine, though, what would happen if a wizards wand were to be found that gave magic power to its wielder. Our understandings of the laws of nature would make room for the existence of magic. Maybe we would add it to our list of known energys... Kinetic, Electromagnet, Magnetic, Magic. It's existence defines it as natural. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. At the very least, until further understanding, we would have to include a new law giving exemption to magic.

Athur C. Clarkes third rule:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

What I can't figure out.....Genericguy proves Clarke right, or Clark proves Genericguy right??????

Ecurb Noselrub

#44
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2012, 10:44:02 PM

Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves. I see no reason to. In fact if you are going to 'practice what you preach' you should leave HAF (I'm not suggesting you do) as you should be keeping your ideas to yourself shouldn't you?

It's rather arrogant of you to think that theists can't see reason. I'll let you ponder that for awhile. No one is asking anyone to keep ideas to themselves. My post dealt with either side attempting to force the other side to conform.  Discussing and sharing ideas and thoughts is not attempting to force either atheism or theism on anyone. I'm not sure how you concluded that from my post. If sharing and discussing becomes impossible because of the language difference (as it apparently is in our case), then the conversation can become more superficial in order to keep peace.