What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[The Voice of Reason]

... and if you are a fair judge, you will have to agree with me,

Would that imply that anyone disagreeing with you would automatically be an "unfair judge"?

 

[GadFly]

And you, Mr Gadfly, have the nerve to whine about personal attacks?

I take it that you approve of mud slinging and out house tactics. You might enjoy such a low level standard of debate but not I. Call it whinnying if you like but how do you have any knowledge of personal attacks on me? But thanks for the alert.
GadFly

 

[Smoke]

Now what was that about mocking and ridicule...? :tsk:

It's not our fault. When some people go into their divine spokesman act, it's such a great temptation to mock them that we yield to the temptation.

 

[Papersock]

It's not our fault. When some people go into their divine spokesman act, it's such a great temptation to mock them that we yield to the temptation.

The devil made them do it :sarcastic

 

[Rolling_Stone]

And that's insanity.

Really? That's the first time I've heard William James (among others of high repute) called insane. It's called a "forced decision," a situation in which no decision due to lack of evidence has the same consequences as making a decision. It's used to illustrate why evidentalism is no longer held is such high esteem as it once was.

 

[Willamena]

Really? That's the first time I've heard William James called insane. It's called a "forced decision," a situation in which no decision has the same consequences as making a decision. It's used to illustrate why evidentalism is no longer held is such high esteem as it once was.

Alright; perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the way I see it the decision and the consequences are two separate, distinct things. Having the "same consequences" does not result in having made the "same action".

I'm funny that way.

 

[GadFly]

Would that imply that anyone disagreeing with you would automatically be an "unfair judge"?

If you are trying to alert me to the fact that you have pushed any philosophical differences we have into the personal zone, you have. Shall we discuss ethics next?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Really? That's the first time I've heard William James (among others of high repute) called insane. It's called a "forced decision," a situation in which no decision due to lack of evidence has the same consequences as making a decision. It's used to illustrate why evidentalism is no longer held is such high esteem as it once was.

Referencing William James is committing the fallacy of an "Appeal to Authority".

Simply because a published author espouses a given position does not make it any more valid than if he did not.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If you are trying to alert me to the fact that you have pushed any philosophical differences we have into the personal zone, you have...

I am asking you a straightforward question. Are you implying that simply disagreeing with your position would automatically make someone an "unfair judge"?

If you are so implying, then you are committing the fallacy of "Poisoning the Well". You are effectively saying (before a debate begins) that anyone that does not agree with you is wrong.

That, my friend, is how logic works. It has a set of rules (universally recognized) that are not open to personal interpretation. If both parties agree to the premises, then both present their arguments for their position, without committing fallacies. At the end of the debate, a third party judges which side presented the strongest evidence for their position. Needless to say, pointing out the fallacies committed by the opposition is part of the debating process.

Oh - and there is no such thing as "atheist logic". A person either adheres to the rules of logic or they don't.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Referencing William James is committing the fallacy of an "Appeal to Authority".

Simply because a published author espouses a given position does not make it any more valid than if he did not.

Wow! Did I call it what on my short list? You really impress me, VOR. If I ever wanted an example to illustrate the points I made about what's wrong with atheism, you're it. Thank you! :bow:

Let take something a little more familiar, Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager isn't about evidence of God's existence, just the opposite. It's about the lack thereof and the choices we're faced with. You bet on one pony or the other. Fine. But not making a bet is effectively the same as placing a bet. There's no way around it. The only think to do is weigh what evidence there is (if any) against the potential consequences and choose. The delimma for the agnostic is that not choosing has the same consequences as choosing atheism.

(I'll bet you think this means I believe it's a choice between heaven and hell, right?)

 

[McBell]

I take it that you approve of mud slinging and out house tactics.

Not really.
Though i can fully understand the why behind it in this thread...

You might enjoy such a low level standard of debate but not I.

Apparently you do, for you have engaged in the mudslinging yourself.

Call it whinnying if you like but how do you have any knowledge of personal attacks on me? But thanks for the alert.
GadFly

I was merely pointing out that you have some nerve complaining (whining) about personal attacks when you are not above them yourself.

You spent so much time explaining and bragging about how you were so much better than that, then turn right around and make your own personal attacks.

So yes Mr Rolling Stone, i do see the double standard.
Seems the fly does not like being bit either...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Shall we discuss ethics next?

We can certainly discuss ethics, if you wish. My guess is that you would really like to discuss the nature and origin of ethics, as opposed to the ethics themselves. If so, feel free to start a thread, and I will be more than happy to join in.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... If I ever wanted an example to illustrate the points I made about what's wrong with atheism, you're it. Thank you!

I see that you are still not grasping the point that I am an agnostic, and not an atheist.

Alas, I fear that you are trying to convert me from one belief system to another, through the power of persuasion.

 

[Magic Man]

Wow! Did I call it what on my short list? You really impress me, VOR. If I ever wanted an example to illustrate the points I made about what's wrong with atheism, you're it. Thank you! :bow:

And again, you show how a theist can be guilty of the things you accuse atheists of.

The delimma for the agnostic is that not choosing has the same consequences as choosing atheism.

OK, I'll bite. So, what are the consequences of choosing any of the three options, as you see them?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Let take something a little more familiar, Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager isn't about evidence of God's existence, just the opposite. It's about the lack thereof and the choices we're faced with. You bet on one pony or the other.

Actually, Pascal's wager is a failed attempt at trying to justify one's irrational belief in a supernatural being. If one believes in God on faith, then it is understood that rational thought does not support the belief.

If, on the other hand, one believes in God because they are wagering for a favorable review from God, then that is not faith at all.

Scott1 and Scuba Pete are both great examples of theists that believe in God, based on revealed faith.

I don't readily have the names of any theists that believe in God, based on the hope of gaining favor should God exist, but if I come across any, I'll let you know.

As for the rest of your analogy, I understand your need to label atheism as a choice. Indeed, in my opinion, it is. I see atheism as a choice to not believe in God (since that is the very definition of the term).

Agnosticism, however is not the same choice. I choose to continue my search for God, while my rational mind concludes that, with each passing day that God does not choose to reveal himself to me, it grows exceedingly likely that He does not, in fact, exist.

As for the consequences of the choices, I would sum them up thusly:
Atheists and agnostics are ambivalent about what you see as the consequences, because there are no consequences.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... (I'll bet you think this means I believe it's a choice between heaven and hell, right?)

I love to go to Las Vegas, because I love to gamble. If you are a betting man, I would strongly urge you to refrain from wagering on games that you don't understand.

The fact that I don't refrain from pointing out the breakdowns in your arguments does not mean that I don't understand them.

Quite the contrary - I fully understand the arguments that you are making - I simply reject them.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... The only think (sic) to do is weigh what evidence there is (if any) against the potential consequences and choose.

And herein lies the breakdown. You don't seem to want to admit that for the agnostic and the atheist there are no consequences.

You wish to hold others to a standard that they reject.

I fear that you will be carrying (and losing) this debate for quite some time.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Having the "same consequences" does not result in having made the "same action".

You got it! Of course, this isn't true in every case, which is why I wanted to stay with my original illustration. Having a non-malignant mole removed wouldn't be the same. The decision wouldn't be "forced."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

And herein lies the breakdown. You don't seem to want to admit that for the agnostic and the atheist there are no consequences.

hehe. I thought I made it simple enough even for you. Guess I was wrong. That where the bet comes in and what it's all about. :sarcastic

Quite the contrary - I fully understand the arguments that you are making

Obviously you don't. Vegas is not a forced decision; cancer and the ponies are.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, and what do you think the consequences are for choosing any of the three options?