Define an atheist ?

[Road Warrior]

Oh please..don't flatter yourself...I just noticed how easily and quickly RW jumped on your band wagon.....

Looks like someone needs a hug.

....and a joke.

How does a woman know her date with an atheist is half over?

Spoiler: answer

When he says, "Well that's enough about me, let's talk about how superior atheists are to anyone who believes in magical sky daddies"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thats correct. I do not believe in a god or a "first cause"(whatever that vague terminology means).

I'm sorry that you find it vague (or, perhaps, worthy of ridicule). This may prove helpful.

So, you do not classify yourself as an ontological naturalist and you reject the cosmological argument as you understand it. Is there an argument that you consider more compelling, or are you simply witholding judgment until such time as a compelling argument on one side or the other surfaces?

 

[Foxfire]

I'm done here, but in my defense, I did not call Denett himself a busybody. I probably could be justifiably guilty of poor post structure though. I do tend to jump around a lot and put too much faith that my readers can figure it out. LOL!
Have a nice day, everyone. Love and Light.

 

[Road Warrior]

in my defense, I did not call Denett himself a busybody.

I'll do it! Daniel Dennett is a busybody!

Okay, so like Pat Roberts, PZ Myers, Fred Phelps and lesser more relaxed souls who have an opinion, Mr. Dennett has a right to his. He's still a busybody like anyone else who tries to tell others what to do and what to believe.

Is religion a threat to rationality and science? | Education | The Guardian

If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.......The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'll do it! Daniel Dennett is a busybody!

Okay, so like Pat Roberts, PZ Myers, Fred Phelps and lesser more relaxed souls who have an opinion, Mr. Dennett has a right to his. He's still a busybody like anyone else who tries to tell others what to do and what to believe.

Is religion a threat to rationality and science? | Education | The Guardian

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm done here, but in my defense, I did not call Denett himself a busybody. I probably could be justifiably guilty of poor post structure though.

Yea well anyone reading your original post can clearly see you did. You gave the quote then your response.....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2940719-post380.html



:sarcastic

 

[Tristesse]

I'm sorry that you find it vague (or, perhaps, worthy of ridicule). This may prove helpful.

So, you do not classify yourself as an ontological naturalist and you reject the cosmological argument as you understand it. Is there an argument that you consider more compelling, or are you simply witholding judgment until such time as a compelling argument on one side or the other surfaces?

I'm familiar with the first cause argument, and I'm also familiar with why it's flawed. I don't buy into the first cause nonsense because it hasn't been shown that a "first cause" is necessary for the universe to exist.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm familiar with the first cause argument, and I'm also familiar with why it's flawed. I don't buy into the first cause nonsense because it hasn't been shown that a "first cause" is necessary for the universe to exist.

Sounds similar to Bertram Russell?

I've of the view that what exists has always existed. It just goes through cycles changing form. Energy becomes matter that reverts back to energy.

 

[Tristesse]

My apologies, you did say that. But the argument stands regardless.

And I've already said, I'm fine if you want to say I have a belief based on a bisbelief. If thats what your argument is. If not, maybe you could explain a little better. I'm failing to see your point.

Your failing to see what I'm getting at?

You don't have a belief in God besides that you don't believe in him. Lets remember what "God" really is here.

And what would "god" be here?

So you can convince your self that a god exists?



If it were sincere then it should be noted that whatever is being lacked is usually something that is strived to be attained. In essence, if that is not the meaning behind it then the proverb and usage of it is shallow and concerning only what other people think of.

Typically, opposition to a person in a group makes the group in opposition to the individual.

Thats irrelevant, anyways.

Ok, please state what your case is. Because I've never stated that I was in opposition to a person in a group. And still I'm failing to see any relevant point in your discussion to atheism. I'd be happy to give you my definition of atheism, if thats the issue here. If not, what is the issue then?

You are though, if you are not convinced then wouldn't it be likely that others would try to convince you more?

Your lack of conviction is a claim (that may or may not be sincere), regardless of if you secretly are or not.




That your point(s) are weak and cliche.

My points are weak and cliche? And what are my points exactly? That I don't believe in a god, because thats not a point, thats a fact. I'm not making any points btw, I'm stating my case.

So, here's what I'm saying in a nutshell. I'm an atheist, I do not believe that a god exists. Whats your contention with that statement. Lets try and be as clear as possible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm familiar with the first cause argument, and I'm also familiar with why it's flawed. I don't buy into the first cause nonsense because it hasn't been shown that a "first cause" is necessary for the universe to exist.

So you know that it's flawed and, in fact, 'nonsense' because you know that a first cause has not been shown to be necessary. What alternative, in your opinion, has been shown to be more likely?

 

[Foxfire]

I'll do it! Daniel Dennett is a busybody!

Okay, so like Pat Roberts, PZ Myers, Fred Phelps and lesser more relaxed souls who have an opinion, Mr. Dennett has a right to his. He's still a busybody like anyone else who tries to tell others what to do and what to believe.

Is religion a threat to rationality and science? | Education | The Guardian

I concur. And wish to withdraw my earlier statement about not saying Dennett was a busybody. I was wrong. Apparently, my reading ability comes and goes. :areyoucraI did call Dennett a busybody! But I'm sure he's a very nice busybody.

Love this bit right here (from your article, RW)because it is what I believe is the problem with busybody atheists and religious hardliners: (my emphasis)

The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.

OK, now I'm done. Bye, bye now.

 

[Tristesse]

So you know that it's flawed and, in fact, 'nonsense' because you know that a first cause has not been shown to be necessary. What alternative, in your opinion, has been shown to be more likely?

Thats not how it works Jayhawker. Arguments don't win by default of an alternative idea, the idea itself needs justification. People who assert a first cause, are asserting it based purely on speculation, because the fact is, we don't know enough about the planck time(inception of the universe) to speculate one way or another, and anyone who asserts otherwise, needs to demonstrate how they came by this knowledge.

 

[Foxfire]

How does a woman know her date with an atheist is half over?

Spoiler: answer

When he says, "Well that's enough about me, let's talk about how superior atheists are to anyone who believes in magical sky daddies"

Another good one.

 

[beerisit]

The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.

And you fail to see the inherent contradiction in this? WOW

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you know that it's flawed and, in fact, 'nonsense' because you know that a first cause has not been shown to be necessary. What alternative, in your opinion, has been shown to be more likely?

Thats not how it works Jayhawker. Arguments don't win by default of an alternative idea, ...

I was not suggesting that they did. So, again, what if anything do you deem a better alternative and why?

 

[Tristesse]

I was not suggesting that they did. So, again, what if anything do you deem a better alternative and why?

I'm fine with our current understanding, that we don't know enough to be making proclomations about "before" the big bang, if such a statement made sense. So my answer is I don't know, and neither does anyone else, and if somebody does know, they need to come forward and win a nobel prize.

 

[Foxfire]

And you fail to see the inherent contradiction in this? WOW

WOW, as you put it, perhaps you would post what the contradiction is instead of reminding everyone how brilliant you are as opposed to me.

So, no, I'm not seeing the contradiction. Would you care to enlighten my silly dim self?

 

[beerisit]

Here ya go Foxy.

The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain.

Is it the same alleged scientists who find more things we don't understand as the scientists who frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life?
Science continues to explore and at the same time has all the answers. Like I said WOW

 

[Foxfire]

Here ya go Foxy.

Is it the same alleged scientists who find more things we don't understand as the scientists who frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life?
Science continues to explore and at the same time has all the answers. Like I said WOW

???? Still not there yet. Sorry.

 

[beerisit]

???? Still not there yet. Sorry.

Perhaps your previous post was accurate.