The Anti-theist Thread

[Rána Eressëa]

Yes, science sometimes may be wrong. But we are humans that are using science, and humans are the most skilled at making mistakes, as you have so greatly exposed with "we are all sinners". Science, however, is able to change. In science, you are able to discover there is something else that holds more truth than the previous - in other words, you are able to change what was written.

Religion, however, cannot change, can it? Religion does not allow you to rewrite what was written.

In conclusion, this makes religion a pointless merry-go-round you cannot jump off of.

If there are contradictions in science: it can be changed and/or corrected. If there are contradictions in religion: it can never be changed, leaving you with a enigmatic labyrinth of confusing questions never to be answered through clarity and truth.

So, tell me again, which is more trustable, truthful and relevant?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa

Religion, however, cannot change, can it? Religion does not allow you to rewrite what was written.

In conclusion, this makes religion a pointless merry-go-round you cannot jump off of.

You should examone Voudoun sometime. It regularly gets rewritten, a\as well as several other religious systems, which you may not be familair with.

It may be pointless for you, but then, it's not very useful to judge the utility of spiritual beleifs for other individuals.

As for what might be trustable, truthful and relevant, I can only answer nothing, because the context is always changing.

Trust what to do what? Truthful about what and when? Relevant to what? If you place all your trust in any one thing, and follow it uncritically, expect dissapointment sooner or later.

[afro-elf]

Epistemology i've always found to be over-rated.
Sort Of pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence

So ALL we no KNOW is that something exist

either we can know the thing in itself or we can't

if we can't ultimately know it, get over it
Try as best as we can to do so.

and what really annoys me is " science can't explain everything"

as if saying so somehow automactically gives some super credence to what they wish to believe

Just because science is based on empirical data does not necessitate that there is a NON- empiracl world.

( for the sake of argument say in future times there is a time machine if we could back to the beginning or before the beginning
why couldn't we study it empircally

Is there any reason why god or gods can't be detected?

(ooh ya its the OTHER side)

just a tad miffed today

[Andúril]

The accounts were several centuries apart, and chronicles was written after the hebrews had gone into and returned from exile. So it has the babylonian influence on it's thought, and gives credit to satan, the direct cause, rather than god, the ultimate cause, the one who allowed it.

Why is there no mention of Satan in the Samuel account? Did God think that suddenly he did not have to include certain facts when trasmitting his inspirations into the author's mind? If the Chronicle account is correct, in that Satan had a part in the provocation of the cencus, why is there no mention of him in Samuel? Besides, in Samuel God is named the cause. There is no disctinction between a direct cause, and an ultimate cause, so we must assume that God is both the direct and ultimate cause; is there anything in Samuel to discredit this assumption?

Look at the way the beginnings of the two accounts are similar; with one big contradiction...

Wherever we see Satan directly interacting with humans, it is mentioned. It doesn't matter who wrote the account, or what language they spoke. His name is always mentioned. It is mentioned prior to this "babylonian influence", and after. So your theory about ultimate cause does not hold. Perhaps you can submit some examples of this "babylonian influence"?

We must ask, what excatly is the nature of God's divine inspiration? Does he transmit thoughts into the minds of his proposed (free-will robbed) authors, which are then recorded in such a way that it makes sense specifically to those people. Where is the thought in that? What about the rest of us?

Can you give a reason for the "several century" wide gap between the two accounts?

When you say :

...rather than god, the ultimate cause, the one who allowed it

That doesn't help. The event that you propose God as having ultimately caused (the census), is similar to countless other events depicted in the bible. For you to be correct, it would mean that the direct cause has been recorded for all these other events, and not the ultimate cause, which you say is God. Therefore, this "balylonian influence" has actually affected virtually the entire bible, where they should have reported God as being the ultimate cause, and they should have left out the direct cause in each case. This is absurd.

What do you mean by "allowed it"? Are you saying that the actions of the devil are either constrained or unconstrained by the God, showing that he will either allow Satan to exercise his free will, or disallow it? So much for free-will. By the same token, we can say that everything any free will being does, is "allowed" by God. Following this reasoning, it is not me who is typing this message out, it is God. He is allowing it. He is the ultimate cause. Utter nonsense, and a demonstrable refutation of your free will theory.

[Cirdan]

I didn't say I examine them subjectively. If you note I said that I examine them for usefullness. Which is done in the realm of mind, which isn't subjective to the individual. At which point I have to notice which assumptions I am making if I accept the theory, and whether or not it is useful to my understanding of the universe.

You did say that everthing obtained through sensory input is subjective. Did you obtain them with psychic powers? ( well, that would be a sixth sense, so it would be subjective, too). These semantic arguments are a bit tedious. Would you like to discuss the thread topic? What theory of the universe to find the most useful?

[Cirdan]

[QUOTE]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming that perceptions are purely subjective stretches the meaning of the word. Fire is hot. I have sensed this phenomenon. Is it subjective? Do I just think it is hot? It is utter nonsense to think that the truth is immutable and unattainable by subjective sensory perceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is it? oddly enough, peple thought it was utter nonsense that the earth revolved around the sun, because they percieved quite clearly that the sun moves across the sky.

As for truth being immutable, I'm afraid that's your interjection. My point is that it's merely unobtainable unless you are willing to grant certain assumptions.


Do you agree that the earth revolves around the sun, or is it just a perception? The fact that the true nature of the earth's relation to the sun was discovered proves the truth was obtainable. I guess the assumptions would be that we can perceive.

I'm sorry, but I have examined your theory and found it less useful than others, subjectively speaking.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by Blackheart
You should examone Voudoun sometime. It regularly gets rewritten, a\as well as several other religious systems, which you may not be familair with.

It may be pointless for you, but then, it's not very useful to judge the utility of spiritual beleifs for other individuals.

As for what might be trustable, truthful and relevant, I can only answer nothing, because the context is always changing.

Trust what to do what? Truthful about what and when? Relevant to what? If you place all your trust in any one thing, and follow it uncritically, expect dissapointment sooner or later.

Oh, so I take it every once in a while God or a god comes in and says, "I've changed my mind about this..."

As for science being trustable, truthful, and relevant - when I believe so surely in something brought up by science (say, the origins of writing began in Mesapotamia) and it's proven wrong (the origins of writing began in Egypt) I'm not disappointed. I'm just enlightened. And, I had put my entire trust into it. There's no point in being disappointed by everything. I take it religion teaches you this?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa


Oh, so I take it every once in a while God or a god comes in and says, "I've changed my mind about this..."

As for science being trustable, truthful, and relevant - when I believe so surely in something brought up by science (say, the origins of writing began in Mesapotamia) and it's proven wrong (the origins of writing began in Egypt) I'm not disappointed. I'm just enlightened. And, I had put my entire trust into it. There's no point in being disappointed by everything. I take it religion teaches you this?

RE, thanks for getting our feet back on the ground

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Rána Eressëa
(say, the origins of writing began in Mesapotamia) and it's proven wrong (the origins of writing began in Egypt) I'm not disappointed. I'm just enlightened.

At the risk of being pedantic.... that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of science; more linguistics, and/or ancient history...

... Earliest writing, I think originated from china? Not sure on that, though. Earliest mathematics is surely Sumeria, earliest example of monotheism comes from Egypt, and earliest laws/jurisdiction, come from the mesopotamian area....

[afro-elf]

At the risk of being pedantic.... that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of science; more linguistics, and/or ancient history...

I beg to differ it is science in the BROAD sense of the word. linguistics and history ARE sciences

Earliest writing, I think originated from china?

The chinese want you to believe that but I think it was sumerian

i JUST read something about the chinese writing system not going back as far as once thought

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by afro-elf
[B] The chinese want you to believe that but I think it was sumerian

Possibly. However, China had the first symbols, hence first usage of written form.

I beg to differ it is science in the BROAD sense of the word. linguistics and history ARE sciences

More a social science, I think. Not completely empiracle.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Epistemology i've always found to be over-rated.
Sort Of pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence

So ALL we no KNOW is that something exist

either we can know the thing in itself or we can't

if we can't ultimately know it, get over it
Try as best as we can to do so.

and what really annoys me is " science can't explain everything"

as if saying so somehow automactically gives some super credence to what they wish to believe

Just because science is based on empirical data does not necessitate that there is a NON- empiracl world.

( for the sake of argument say in future times there is a time machine if we could back to the beginning or before the beginning
why couldn't we study it empircally

Is there any reason why god or gods can't be detected?

(ooh ya its the OTHER side)

just a tad miffed today

Other side eh? Other side of what? There are lots of real world similarities, before you go flapping off about pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence.

Or have you managed to think of a way to get data out of a singularity? Or past the edge of the "visible" universe?

So before you toss it all off as some kind of easy out for people who like to point out that there are limits to what types of empirical data we can gather, you should take note.

As for what people believe, why the hell should someone care what anyone else believes? Other than another believer. You want to believe there's nothing there? Go right ahead. I'm an agnostic, I have the sense to say I don't know, and leave it at that.

Miffed? Eat more bran.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


You did say that everthing obtained through sensory input is subjective. Did you obtain them with psychic powers? ( well, that would be a sixth sense, so it would be subjective, too). These semantic arguments are a bit tedious. Would you like to discuss the thread topic? What theory of the universe to find the most useful?

Once the information is in your mind, it's no longer subjective. The source may be, but the symbols being manipulated are not. If your arguing semantics, then why bother? You've sort of missed the point that uncritical acceptance is the problem I'm trying to highlight.

The thread topic is particularly interesting however. I find people who take a position for or against something that can't be known interesting, in that they obviously have a vested interest for doing so either way.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf


I beg to differ it is science in the BROAD sense of the word. linguistics and history ARE sciences

History is the study of the past, and it may be a science, but it is not an entirely objective science.

Whether that's because of cultural bias, or researcher bias, or political machinations, usually depends on a number of factors.

It might be nice if it was an objective science, but history unfortunately involves studying humans, and we seem to have a tendancy to waffle when studying ourselves.

Just ask any psychologist.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Once the information is in your mind, it's no longer subjective. The source may be, but the symbols being manipulated are not. If your arguing semantics, then why bother? You've sort of missed the point that uncritical acceptance is the problem I'm trying to highlight.

The thread topic is particularly interesting however. I find people who take a position for or against something that can't be known interesting, in that they obviously have a vested interest for doing so either way.

Once the information is in your mind it's no loger subjective? So, when people were given the information that the world is flat, it was no longer subjective. I someone thinks the tooth fairy is real then that is not subjective?

I find that people who claimed not to have an opinion may have a hidden agenda. It's pbvious that you haven't read the entire thread (who could blame you), but you have a mistaken impression of what I think. Either that or you just want to argue about someting you claim to be indifferent about. There has been relentless criticism on both sides, so valid and some less so. I have consistantly argued against belief based on theories and mysticism. Absolutisms like "everything is subject" or "can't be known" fall into that category.

To say that theories are invalid unless every possible fact can be known is pointless in that it works to level all ideas to the lowest level of validity. The idea that usefullness is a measure of the accuracy of a idea or theory. My problem is with the uncritical dismissal of ideas because they may may theoretically have a subjective element or that is is posible to point to some aspect that is unknown and say that it invalidates the whole theory. There have been very few posts that proclaim belief of theories. Some of the theists have stated that faith is a critical element, for them, with regards to their religion, but have used historical elements and theories contrary to those held by atheists. many of the theists have agreed with the atheists of some points

That a theory is not a fact doesn't invalidate the facts on which it is based. Most of the discussions have been the details af the facts behind the theories of theism and atheism. I would hope that you might have some comment regarding these facts instead of harping on the "subjectiveness" and "unknowness" of either point. The fact that someone favors one concept over another does not mean they believe it unquestionably. Give us a little credit.

The "I know you are but what am I" statement that I am interested in semantic debates when I have stated clearly otherwise is a fairly ham-fisted bit of sophistry. I doubt I missed the point of uncritical acceptance being a problem since I have posted about this topic well before you began posting. I don't like the ad hominem tactic but I'll give back what I get.

[afro-elf]

Other side eh? Other side of what? There are lots of real world similarities, before you go flapping off about pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence.

Or have you managed to think of a way to get data out of a singularity? Or past the edge of the "visible" universe?

So before you toss it all off as some kind of easy out for people who like to point out that there are limits to what types of empirical data we can gather, you should take note.

again naught but "pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence"

however i should have added, tedious, dull, boring,dreary, monotonous, mind-numbing, wearisome, wearying, I could go on but I don't wanna repeat myself


for all of your erudite spewing all you have said is tantamount to sticking out your tongue and going " you can't know that neh neh neh" again and again

yes there may be limits to our knowledge

get over it

but your relentless hue and cry will not make it any more true

I feel like paraphrasing yoda

" once you turn to the path of epistemological addiction forever it will dominate your path"

A beautiful woman ( or man if that floats your boat) approaches BH obviously interested,

X " Hi, how are you?"

BH I don't know? Maybe I really don't exist. Maybe I just a hologram, or brain in a vat...


X Dude did you shag her?

BH I don't know maybe she really didn't exist. Maybe she was just a hologram or maybe....


Did I EVER claim that

UOTE]Or have you managed to think of a way to get data out of a singularity? Or past the edge of the "visible" universe? [/QUOTE]


I'm not gonna stifle myself with the utter impracticality of perpetual thoughts along that endevor

Hmmm did my alaram clock go off? Do I really have a job to go to?
I am really typing at entmoot?




EPISTEMOLOGY TEST
Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your
position.

As for what people believe, why the hell should someone care what anyone else believes? Other than another believer. You want to believe there's nothing there? Go right ahead. I'm an agnostic, I have the sense to say I don't know, and leave it at that.

Hmmmm I guess what other believes doesn't affect your life

What the president believes what he should do doesn't affect you

I guess the al-queda beliefs don't affect anyone


Too bad all orc are like you

Is that really army of Calaquendi or is that a subjective one

I guess your orcish pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence is full of bran

I feel so much better now

[afro-elf]

hey BoP here's some info for you



The oldest written language in existence is said to be Sumerian. The first records in Sumerian have been traced to 3100 BC, in southern Mesopotamia.

The earliest examples of Chinese writing date to the late Shang period (ca. 1200 BC). These are the so-called Oracle Bone Inscriptions (jiaguwen) which were found at the site of the last Shang capital near present-day Anyang, Henan province.

[Andúril]

I have a proposal.

I think it would be interesting if we examine the bible book by book, going through all the verses in a critical manner. In our current environment, christians and others have the ability to respond to the criticisms, and this should generate a lively debate, perhaps answering theological and philosophical questions, as well as those pertaining to other fields of study.

Now, being aware that there are two threads open (Anti-theist and Theism), if my proposal is accepted (which I have no doubt it will by the non-theists here), I will post an invitation on the opposing thread, calling for respondents to our criticisms.

Anybody interested? One affirmative response will be sufficient.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Once the information is in your mind it's no loger subjective? So, when people were given the information that the world is flat, it was no longer subjective. I someone thinks the tooth fairy is real then that is not subjective?

Sigh. Language is such a pain. Once the symbols are in your mind, they are no longer subjective by which I mean they are directly knowable. Not in the sense that the ideas or things that they represent are no longer subjective. That will always be subjective, as I'm sure you know. Whether it's the tooth fairy, or the keyboard you are using to type on. Are you sure your not being purposefully obtuse on that particular point?

I find that people who claimed not to have an opinion may have a hidden agenda. It's pbvious that you haven't read the entire thread (who could blame you), but you have a mistaken impression of what I think.

Why, yes I do have an agenda. My agenda is that agnosticism is the only real rational and honest choice. If you think that is so, then yes, I have a mistaken opinion of what you think. I don't think I claimed not to have an opinion. Perhaps it sounded that way, since my opinion is one based on skepticism as a rational alternative to accepting beliefs (all kinds of "beliefs") as facts?

Either that or you just want to argue about someting you claim to be indifferent about.

Umm, why would you think I was indifferent? If I was indifferent, why would I be in here arguing? I think you may have confused my point, with my level of interest. Perhaps I was a bit vague, but then I admit to arguing for the sake of argument at times. So I get tempted to start out vague. Or perhaps it's merely an attention getting device

There has been relentless criticism on both sides, so valid and some less so. I have consistantly argued against belief based on theories and mysticism. Absolutisms like "everything is subject" or "can't be known" fall into that category.

That's fine. I am taking the opposite opinion. Well, perhaps not opposite. I'm arguing against presenting any beliefs as "facts". When a theist tells me there is a god, I can only say that's what you believe. When an atheist tells me there is no god, I can only say that's what you believe. Neither can be proven. For me agnosticism is the only honest and rational choice. It doesn't preclude me from having beliefs either, I just have to avoid stating them as facts, to remain honest.

So are you stating that everything can't be know is an absolutism? In which case do you beleive the opposite, everything can be known? Which is an absolute also you know... Perhaps you remember the earlier statements I made? If however, you want to say, I don't know if everything can be known, or not known, then that's acceptable.

Are you arguing against beliefs based on theories or against beliefs based on mysticism? Or both? In which case perhaps your not as far away from agnosticism as I thought. Beleif based on mysticism are fine with me, as long as they aren't presented as fact. The same thing with beleifs based on theories. As long as they aren't presented as fact, that's fine.

To say that theories are invalid unless every possible fact can be known is pointless in that it works to level all ideas to the lowest level of validity.

Well now weren't you the one arguing against beliefs based on theories? I think you mistake me. I have no problem with theories presented as theories. I have no problem with different theories being favored because they are more "useful" (in other words they allow us to predict other circumstances). I do however, have a problem with presenting theories as facts, which incidentially does not level all ideas to the lowest common denominator. That's common rhetoric, and untrue. Regarding theories as competing ideas is healthy for thinking. When you begin to regard a particular theory as "fact" no matter how cherished, you have become a "beleiver", and I do have problems with that, because it hinders the honest evaluation of ideas.

[quote]
The idea that usefullness is a measure of the accuracy of a idea or theory. [/quuote]

What? Usefullness is the only measureable value of an idea, or theory. If it fits the known facts, and allows us to predict future occurances, that's whats referred to as usefullness. What other kind of measure are you going to use? You can't compare it with a "known" example of reality.

My problem is with the uncritical dismissal of ideas because they may may theoretically have a subjective element or that is is posible to point to some aspect that is unknown and say that it invalidates the whole theory.

OK, put the brakes on. Now I understand why you've got the knickers in a wad. Nowhere did I mention the idea that theories must be dismissed because they are only models of a reality which cannot be directly known. This must be something you are bringing to the discussion from somewhere else. What I am pointing out is the fallacy of accepting succesful models as "facts". Which is an even more pervasive and perhaps egregious fallacy, in my opinion.

There have been very few posts that proclaim belief of theories. Some of the theists have stated that faith is a critical element, for them, with regards to their religion, but have used historical elements and theories contrary to those held by atheists. many of the theists have agreed with the atheists of some points

That a theory is not a fact doesn't invalidate the facts on which it is based. Most of the discussions have been the details af the facts behind the theories of theism and atheism. I would hope that you might have some comment regarding these facts instead of harping on the "subjectiveness" and "unknowness" of either point. The fact that someone favors one concept over another does not mean they believe it unquestionably. Give us a little credit.

I'd hoped that you'd get around to this point. My "harping" on the "subjectiveness and unknowness of either point" is my point, if I'm advocating agnostiscism as a rational (in my opinion the only rational) belief.

Theories, are not based on "facts". Theories are based on other succesful theories. This applies to ethical, scientific, and metaphysical theories. Favoring one concept over another isn't what I see happening. Though I take your point, I shall extend credit. However you will just have to accept that I have the tendancy to be bombastic, especially when I'm trying to get a point that I find important across.

[quote]
The "I know you are but what am I" statement that I am interested in semantic debates when I have stated clearly otherwise is a fairly ham-fisted bit of sophistry. I doubt I missed the point of uncritical acceptance being a problem since I have posted about this topic well before you began posting. I don't like the ad hominem tactic but I'll give back what I get. [QUOTE]

I think you mistook the points I laid out as semantic argument, which is understandable, since I wasn't going to spill the beans about where I was going until a few terms were agreed upon. A semantic argument (in the usual sense it is used) is quibbling about semantics with no point. There was a point, I just chose not to stick it at the front of my diatribute.

And I would expect no less than for you to give back as good as you get. Otherwise you aren't going to be any fun to discuss ideas with.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf
again naught but "pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence"

however i should have added, tedious, dull, boring,dreary, monotonous, mind-numbing, wearisome, wearying, I could go on but I don't wanna repeat myself


for all of your erudite spewing all you have said is tantamount to sticking out your tongue and going " you can't know that neh neh neh" again and again

Give that man a cigar! Yes. That's exactly it. Which is why I'm an agnostic, and take great delight in pointing out that everyone else is a believer. Nyah! Nyah! nyah!

yes there may be limits to our knowledge

get over it

but your relentless hue and cry will not make it any more true

Make what anymore true? Ahh, the fact that if you can't know, then saying "I don't know" is a rational honest act, and presenting beliefs as facts isn't? I never said anywhere that people shouldn't act on their beliefs. But I think I should go ahead and point out that people shouldn't act on their beliefs as if they were facts, which includes but isn't limited to, attacking other people for their beliefs.

I feel like paraphrasing yoda

" once you turn to the path of epistemological addiction forever it will dominate your path"

I feel like chuckling at the idea that you've hurled a muppet in my face. Pehaps Yoda will smite me?

A beautiful woman ( or man if that floats your boat) approaches BH obviously interested,

X " Hi, how are you?"

BH I don't know? Maybe I really don't exist. Maybe I just a hologram, or brain in a vat...


X Dude did you shag her?

BH I don't know maybe she really didn't exist. Maybe she was just a hologram or maybe....

Hehe. I think you are again over on the literal side of the highway. I certainly believe I screwed the hell out of her. I may even go so far as to say I did. And I will likely behave as if I did. But that doesn't make it a "Fact". Again, I have no problem with people acting on their beleifs, but when they act on them as if they were facts, it causes problems. Of course, this is a rather literal interpretation, with hopefully small ramifications if I do act as if it were "factual". In fact, It might have been a guy, who underwent a sex change, and there I go bragging about the cute chick I nailed, until X says, "Dude" that was a transgenic.

I'm not gonna stifle myself with the utter impracticality of perpetual thoughts along that endevor

What a pity. Are you accepting my statements that we can't get data out of a singularity as FACT? Damn at LEAST call me on my own frigging bullshit dude. The folks on the skeptics list would have done it

EPISTEMOLOGY TEST
Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your
position.

An old joke, and very funny. I think I'll choose against. I can't prove it! I must be right

Hmmmm I guess what other believes doesn't affect your life

What the president believes what he should do doesn't affect you

I guess the al-queda beliefs don't affect anyone

Pratical application time, I see.
That's correct. What they believe does NOT affect anyone. The fact however that they ACT on their beliefs as FACTS does.
Beliefs don't harm anyone. Actions, on the otherhand have impact. At least, I believe they have impact.... Hehehee. Acting as if it were a fact however, locks me into a single path of behavior.

Too bad all orc are like you

Is that really army of Calaquendi or is that a subjective one

I guess your orcish pseudo-sophist-intellectual flateulence is full of bran

Why I do believe you are resorting to base insults! I could act as if it were a fact, and choose to respond in kind, but instead I think I'll reserve judgement. I find arguments from authority rather uninteresting.

I feel so much better now [/B]

I told you the bran would help.