Yaaaaawwn. You guys were busy while I was sleeping.
Let me recap what I've read over the last few pages:
1. We've had the standard theist response that "atheism is a belief that god isn't real" and the extremely incorrect statement that the burden of proof then lies on atheists, as THEY'RE the ones making the claim..
This is obviously not true, as atheism is simply the rejection of theistic concepts. It is the theistic concepts that require evidence to be considered as plausible. Nice try though, but this is the lowest form of theistic argument, it makes creationist look intelligent.
2. Deamun stated that "science is a rule" and thus is subject to human error and anamolies and thus we shouldn't subscribe to it for truth.
No doubt, that the product of our methodology yields errors on occasion. That's the best part about science, it's self correcting. If a theory is proved to be wrong eventually, we throw it out. Every single concept of god has been debunked, and theists still don't throw that theory out.
More importantly: Science isn't some grand philosophy, it's just a method for determining what is factual and/or plausible. The products of that method may end up being incorrect, but the method itself is not faulty. It is simply putting a standard to what you hold to be true. Theists don't have these standards.
3. Flion has a 3 word vocabulary.
4. There developed a list of atheist/theist great minds and charities.
This is largely irrelevant as it's apparent that good and bad motivations can arrise from theism and atheism. The counterpoints here are that: Theism has dominated society for most of our history, so most scholars would have been labeled a theist throughout history. Furthermore, one can never be certain the motivations of that individual. Perhaps there really were people that wouldn't have contributed to our society as much had they not been theists. However, I'd say that without theism, there most likely would have been significantly more contributing minds.
5. Daemun is possibly a birther.. Dear god I hope not. A creationist birther.. The lowest form of human being.
@Flion:
I see you're not interested in displaying yourself as anything but a moron, so I assume you'll just keep repeating this behavior until everyone here blocks you to save themselves the trouble of facepalming at you.
@Flion:
I see you're not interested in displaying yourself as anything but a moron, so I assume you'll just keep repeating this behavior until everyone here blocks you to save themselves the trouble of facepalming at you.
Yaaaaawwn. You guys were busy while I was sleeping.
Let me recap what I've read over the last few pages:
1. We've had the standard theist response that "atheism is a belief that god isn't real" and the extremely incorrect statement that the burden of proof then lies on atheists, as THEY'RE the ones making the claim..
This is obviously not true, as atheism is simply the rejection of theistic concepts. It is the theistic concepts that require evidence to be considered as plausible. Nice try though, but this is the lowest form of theistic argument, it makes creationist look intelligent.
2. Deamun stated that "science is a rule" and thus is subject to human error and anamolies and thus we shouldn't subscribe to it for truth.
No doubt, that the product of our methodology yields errors on occasion. That's the best part about science, it's self correcting. If a theory is proved to be wrong eventually, we throw it out. Every single concept of god has been debunked, and theists still don't throw that theory out.
More importantly: Science isn't some grand philosophy, it's just a method for determining what is factual and/or plausible. The products of that method may end up being incorrect, but the method itself is not faulty. It is simply putting a standard to what you hold to be true. Theists don't have these standards.
3. Flion has a 3 word vocabulary.
4. There developed a list of atheist/theist great minds and charities.
This is largely irrelevant as it's apparent that good and bad motivations can arrise from theism and atheism. The counterpoints here are that: Theism has dominated society for most of our history, so most scholars would have been labeled a theist throughout history. Furthermore, one can never be certain the motivations of that individual. Perhaps there really were people that wouldn't have contributed to our society as much had they not been theists. However, I'd say that without theism, there most likely would have been significantly more contributing minds.
5. Daemun is possibly a birther.. Dear god I hope not. A creationist birther.. The lowest form of human being.
1. I stated the burden lies upon the person trying to change another's mind. Someone agreed with me. You've misconstrued this statement more than once, in this thread.
2. The same could be said about Dogma. I was actually stating that I have a strong opinion of science, but as stated in another thread; there are two ways to look at absolutely everything in life. Either it is all fact, or it is all relevant. I think science has errors because our brains are unable to grasp it in its entirety. The reason is, because there are absolutes and in our insignificant understanding of science, we still have exceptions to the rule. I believe there are no exceptions to the rules, rather our limited knowledge of said rules is the problem. I agree that science is self correcting, but it's not really the science, it's just our understanding. The truths about nature we come to find, didn't magically change, we just finally solved more pieces of the puzzle.
3. LOLd (irl) greatly. Thanks for that.
4. Good info
5. I am not. I stated my qualms with current leadership and take full responsibility for our current economic duress. The collective populous of America elected all of our current governing officials, not just one. It is our political involvement (or lack thereof) and system wide panic that has put us on this path. It is the job of every American to return to the values (pride in our work, open arms, defense for the weak, the strive to be the best at everything we do, getting the job done instead of letting bureaucracy hinder our progress) that once made us a great nation.
I think that's a big thing most theists don't understand:
Atheists would gladly become theists if there was peer reviewable, reproducible, sane evidence.
Until that time, we have no reason to hold your god above any other imaginary being.
edit:
@ Daemun:
Nope, the burden of proof only lies with the person making the hypothesis claim (the theists). Stop *** trying to wiggle out of it. It's your responsibility to provide evidence for your *** claim.
Nice quote Vinvv. Unfortunately that is not how most atheists come across. At least any atheists that I've met, including those in my own family.
I see such things as two sides of the same coin as we all are more similar than we think at times.
I decided to identify myself as a atheist/non-theist.
I am not convinced of Christianity, and I likely won't ever be convinced.
Some could interpret my belief as agnostic but I'll explain it in this way.
I was raised as a Christian, and am more familiarized with Christianity than any other religion.
So in regards to Christianity? Def. Atheist on that that front.
Now we *** the multitude of other God heads, and I am not egotistical enough to just take a blanketed approach and say all other beliefs are wrong and that I think what they believe is BS, more to the extent that I cannot believe/disbelieve in something I'm not aware of lol.
I think that's a big thing most theists don't understand:
Atheists would gladly become theists if there was peer reviewable, reproducible, sane evidence.
Until that time, we have no reason to hold your god above any other imaginary being.
edit:
@ Daemun:
Nope, the burden of proof only lies with the person making the hypothesis claim (the theists). Stop *** trying to wiggle out of it. It's your responsibility to provide evidence for your *** claim.
You can't, so move the *** on.
Wow, I like the way you put that. It makes perfect sense. That is something someone can achieve, and allows for an amiable approach.
Now to your last part. You are completely missing the point. I was talking solely about the threads started here, by atheists saying there is, in fact, no God. I wasn't talking about the ageless debate on his existence as a whole. Yes, theists are burdened with that proof. Until you care to address the proper question, drop it.
And until you care to address me with proper respect (ie. no merit less name calling), find someone else to talk to because I'll just ignore someone so pathetic as to insult via the internet. Welcome to Jetas level.
]I'm gonna say it anyway.
We always have ulterior motives, even if we aren't consciously aware, there is never a time where you help another person with the pure motive to help them only without any personal gain.
Positive feelings and feeling good in general about yourself is a gain btw.
short form response:
you can't help others without helping yourself.
and when you help others you are helping yourself.
so rather than making it all about YOU helping THEM
why don't you make it about a mutual relationship.
Because all of these things are give and take.
And even if you don't get physical retribution, a psychological one can work just as well for some people.
Past that I think you're being selfish.
If you use your same thoughts and ideas that we are all created by God in his image, why do you expect people to not help others by nature if God is one that would be prone to do that?
Do you question God's motives?
I just am offended that if I ever want to donate anything being an atheist I'm going to be judged as trying to get something out of it rather than helping just to help.
It's rather insulting.
If you aren't consciously aware, then it isn't a motive. That's the point. Nature and motive are not synonymous with one another.
I see your point. I can't explain it in a way where it doesn't come across as you see it. I apologize for that, as it is not my intent. I can't explain this without being offensive in that nature. I do not question God's motives, and I believe it is in our nature to be as Him, it is also in our nature to want to be Him, therein we get a completely different set of motivations for our actions.
Yes, our nature is to help. Because of our desire to be the end-all be-all of design, it is not in our motivation.
My motivation to help others around me is so that they can be happy and then in turn I can be happy and we can strive to exist in harmony.
:/
Is that a bad motivation?
Do you feel it should be a questionable motivation?
Let's say a close friend is hard up on cash and has trouble with getting ends to meet and I take him out to lunch every so often and pay for his meal and have a great conversation while eating.
Am I doing this because I want something out of him or am I doing it because I genuinely care for the persons well being?
Google said:
self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
Adjective: (of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure
chief·ly/ˈCHēflē/Adverb
1. Above all; mainly.
2. For the most part; mostly.
You did the good deed because you cared to put someone above yourself. Volunteering should be to put others before yourself and have no focus on yourself. Charity shouldn't be done chiefly for a good feeling. The good feeling comes because of the action, it should not be the reason for doing Charity.
Doing Charity for an alterior motive = Selfish
Doing Charity because you desire to help other above yourself = not Selfish by definition/spoiler]
Do you believe being selfless and being religious are exclusive concepts?
Did I mention religion anywhere in what I said? I was just using the definition of Selfish. You can take it as my opinion on the matter (but is not every post everyone's opinion). To answer the question, no I do not believe those two are exclusive concepts.
Science doesn't have errors, because science is just a method. A method for determining what we hold as true.
Now how mankind has applied that method has produced errors, but we're not talking about that.
We're talking about applying a standard to your beliefs. A standard you refuse to apply.
Just curious, but you state that Christianity is flawed because the book that is the foundation of it's beliefs was written by Humans correct? So how do you put Science as without 'error'? Was it not too written by Humans?
Edit: Also agree with you on the application of the process though.
Science doesn't have errors, because science is just a method. A method for determining what we hold as true.
Now how mankind has applied that method has produced errors, but we're not talking about that.
We're talking about applying a standard to your beliefs. A standard you refuse to apply.
Just curious, but you state that Christianity is flawed because the book that is the foundation of it's beliefs was written by Humans correct? So how do you put Science as without 'error'? Was it not too written by Humans?
It was a means of deduction given to us by God.
EDIT: That sentence could apply to both the Book and Scientific Theory
Science doesn't have errors, because science is just a method. A method for determining what we hold as true.
Now how mankind has applied that method has produced errors, but we're not talking about that.
We're talking about applying a standard to your beliefs. A standard you refuse to apply.
I just stated this. I agree, scientific method is not flawed. It is our lack of understanding that causes the error.
Here's my question then:
If you understand that the method for determing if something is plausible/true is not flawed, and the method is well known...
Why does EVERYTHING in your life and the universe get that method applied... Except concepts that you just "want" to be true?
Why do you rely on the scientific method to tell us the earth is round, the sun is hot, life evolves, chemical entropy, solar system formation, atomic reactions... Yet you won't apply it when questioning concepts like "magic" and universal origin?
It doesn't feel like a double standard to you to remove this filter for things you "want" to be true?
Science doesn't have errors, because science is just a method. A method for determining what we hold as true.
Now how mankind has applied that method has produced errors, but we're not talking about that.
We're talking about applying a standard to your beliefs. A standard you refuse to apply.
I just stated this. I agree, scientific method is not flawed. It is our lack of understanding that causes the error.
Here's my question then:
If you understand that the method for determing if something is plausible/true is not flawed, and the method is well known...
Why does EVERYTHING in your life and the universe get that method applied... Except concepts that you just "want" to be true?
Why do you rely on the scientific method to tell us the earth is round, the sun is hot, life evolves, chemical entropy, solar system formation, atomic reactions... Yet you won't apply it when questioning concepts like "magic" and universal origin?
It doesn't feel like a double standard to you to remove this filter for things you "want" to be true?
Sure that gets to you..
This is where you assume, and incorrectly I may add.
I do apply it to every aspect of my life. Since we have little understanding of the grand scheme (ie. science falls short at this moment) my belief is that there is a greater being that has set this into motion and keeps it from falling to chaos. Reactions in experiments are quite unstable, as you probably know. It is with our hand we keep them controlled. We have neither the knowledge or the power to do so with larger things (creation of the universe, planetary collision, general earth functions [earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, jet stream, etc]) so why would it not be so that there is a being powerful and knowledgeable enough to do so?
]I'm gonna say it anyway.
We always have ulterior motives, even if we aren't consciously aware, there is never a time where you help another person with the pure motive to help them only without any personal gain.
Positive feelings and feeling good in general about yourself is a gain btw.
short form response:
you can't help others without helping yourself.
and when you help others you are helping yourself.
so rather than making it all about YOU helping THEM
why don't you make it about a mutual relationship.
Because all of these things are give and take.
And even if you don't get physical retribution, a psychological one can work just as well for some people.
Past that I think you're being selfish.
If you use your same thoughts and ideas that we are all created by God in his image, why do you expect people to not help others by nature if God is one that would be prone to do that?
Do you question God's motives?
I just am offended that if I ever want to donate anything being an atheist I'm going to be judged as trying to get something out of it rather than helping just to help.
It's rather insulting.
If you aren't consciously aware, then it isn't a motive. That's the point. Nature and motive are not synonymous with one another.
I see your point. I can't explain it in a way where it doesn't come across as you see it. I apologize for that, as it is not my intent. I can't explain this without being offensive in that nature. I do not question God's motives, and I believe it is in our nature to be as Him, it is also in our nature to want to be Him, therein we get a completely different set of motivations for our actions.
Yes, our nature is to help. Because of our desire to be the end-all be-all of design, it is not in our motivation.
My motivation to help others around me is so that they can be happy and then in turn I can be happy and we can strive to exist in harmony.
:/
Is that a bad motivation?
Do you feel it should be a questionable motivation?
Let's say a close friend is hard up on cash and has trouble with getting ends to meet and I take him out to lunch every so often and pay for his meal and have a great conversation while eating.
Am I doing this because I want something out of him or am I doing it because I genuinely care for the persons well being?
Google said:
self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
Adjective: (of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure
chief·ly/ˈCHēflē/Adverb
1. Above all; mainly.
2. For the most part; mostly.
You did the good deed because you cared to put someone above yourself. Volunteering should be to put others before yourself and have no focus on yourself. Charity shouldn't be done chiefly for a good feeling. The good feeling comes because of the action, it should not be the reason for doing Charity.
Doing Charity for an alterior motive = Selfish
Doing Charity because you desire to help other above yourself = not Selfish by definition/spoiler]
Do you believe being selfless and being religious are exclusive concepts?
Did I mention religion anywhere in what I said? I was just using the definition of Selfish. You can take it as my opinion on the matter (but is not every post everyone's opinion). To answer the question, no I do not believe those two are exclusive concepts.
I see such things as two sides of the same coin as we all are more similar than we think at times.
I decided to identify myself as a atheist/non-theist.
I am not convinced of Christianity, and I likely won't ever be convinced.
Some could interpret my belief as agnostic but I'll explain it in this way.
I was raised as a Christian, and am more familiarized with Christianity than any other religion.
So in regards to Christianity? Def. Atheist on that that front.
Now we *** the multitude of other God heads, and I am not egotistical enough to just take a blanketed approach and say all other beliefs are wrong and that I think what they believe is BS, more to the extent that I cannot believe/disbelieve in something I'm not aware of lol.
I am neither religious or non-religious. The problem I have with (most) atheists is not that they want evidence of God(s). Rather it is their refusal to open their mind to any other possibility than what has been dictated to them by scientists.
There are things science cannot yet explain, and things that it has explained that will surely be changed in the future. Neosutra makes a really good point about how science is just a method, and I'm very comfortable in saying that I believe in the methods. Afterall, it is the pursuit of knowledge. But in my view the greatest scientists are those who do not close up their minds and become stuck on the facts and theories of their time. They try to see the infinite possibilities that there really are in the universe. That may or may not include the existence of celestial beings, but to outright say "There is no proof, ergo it does not exist" is just ridiculous. So many breakthroughs in science have come through individuals believing something could exist that most others would not accept!
It's because many people religious and atheistic both restrict their view point on facts when facts change over time.
Hell I saw this video of this microchip that was the first real world application of quantum mechanics, the microchip was apparently vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, therefore existing into two places at once which is something that is possible in quantum physics....that sounds kind of neat.
The difference between facts that don't add up with scientific method and facts that don't add up with say biblical scholarship is that facts with scientific method can change, while many people are boned up on sticking with KJV for the bible(at least in my area) for example, which is full of "facts" that don't have the propensity to change over time.
]I'm gonna say it anyway.
We always have ulterior motives, even if we aren't consciously aware, there is never a time where you help another person with the pure motive to help them only without any personal gain.
Positive feelings and feeling good in general about yourself is a gain btw.
short form response:
you can't help others without helping yourself.
and when you help others you are helping yourself.
so rather than making it all about YOU helping THEM
why don't you make it about a mutual relationship.
Because all of these things are give and take.
And even if you don't get physical retribution, a psychological one can work just as well for some people.
Past that I think you're being selfish.
If you use your same thoughts and ideas that we are all created by God in his image, why do you expect people to not help others by nature if God is one that would be prone to do that?
Do you question God's motives?
I just am offended that if I ever want to donate anything being an atheist I'm going to be judged as trying to get something out of it rather than helping just to help.
It's rather insulting.
If you aren't consciously aware, then it isn't a motive. That's the point. Nature and motive are not synonymous with one another.
I see your point. I can't explain it in a way where it doesn't come across as you see it. I apologize for that, as it is not my intent. I can't explain this without being offensive in that nature. I do not question God's motives, and I believe it is in our nature to be as Him, it is also in our nature to want to be Him, therein we get a completely different set of motivations for our actions.
Yes, our nature is to help. Because of our desire to be the end-all be-all of design, it is not in our motivation.
My motivation to help others around me is so that they can be happy and then in turn I can be happy and we can strive to exist in harmony.
:/
Is that a bad motivation?
Do you feel it should be a questionable motivation?
Let's say a close friend is hard up on cash and has trouble with getting ends to meet and I take him out to lunch every so often and pay for his meal and have a great conversation while eating.
Am I doing this because I want something out of him or am I doing it because I genuinely care for the persons well being?
Google said:
self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
Adjective: (of a person, action, or motive) Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure
chief·ly/ˈCHēflē/Adverb
1. Above all; mainly.
2. For the most part; mostly.
You did the good deed because you cared to put someone above yourself. Volunteering should be to put others before yourself and have no focus on yourself. Charity shouldn't be done chiefly for a good feeling. The good feeling comes because of the action, it should not be the reason for doing Charity.
Doing Charity for an alterior motive = Selfish
Doing Charity because you desire to help other above yourself = not Selfish by definition/spoiler]
Do you believe being selfless and being religious are exclusive concepts?
Did I mention religion anywhere in what I said? I was just using the definition of Selfish. You can take it as my opinion on the matter (but is not every post everyone's opinion). To answer the question, no I do not believe those two are exclusive concepts.
