|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 14:35:36 GMT
Hsis arguments are ridiculously easy to refute and is done so often. He is in no way a religious scholar and probably wasn't the greatest scientist out there. His philosophy is simply built on preaching to the choir so that they can finally have the ability to at least pretend to know what they are talking about. You give them a spaghetti monster and squeal in delight as ifg that was a slam dunk when really it just convinced them of what they were already convinced about. "You give them a spaghetti monster and squeal in delight as ifg that was a slam dunk"
Not really, I've yet to even hear anyone bring up the spaghetti monster in recent years.
"Hsis arguments are ridiculously easy to refute and is done so often."
Examples?
"He is in no way a religious scholar"
I don't think he ever claimed to be a religious scholar.
It's true the material needs to be updated. However, his fame rose with that just as it's waning a little bit as it turns out that he is kinda a jerk and not in a George Carlin funny way. However, he did set the standard at which a religion hater could figure out how best to dismiss the notions of religions while at the same time ramping up the irrational fear that somehow, someway, the majority of mankind is a danger to them.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 23, 2017 14:35:48 GMT
I suppose "Well you don't know for certain!" would be the least terrible argument, but that one has already been refuted countless times anyways, so even that one falls rather flat. I'm not sure I understand you. How exactly is this argument supposed to work? Is it "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god"? That's obviously a terrible argument, surely there are arguments for god better than that. Well sure, that's why I said least terrible, I still find quite a few problems with it. As for "better arguments", I'm hard pressed to think of any, all I've heard are pretty bad (watchmaker argument, moral argument, cosmological argument, prime mover). It gets even more absurd when dealing with ID/creationist arguments (irreducible complexity, a kind can never go outside it's own kind, etc)
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 14:36:56 GMT
I'm not sure I understand you. How exactly is this argument supposed to work? Is it "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god"? That's obviously a terrible argument, surely there are arguments for god better than that. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to force the point. It seems the question was asked and answered numerous times with a big fat No. That would be the logical response to the question except for concrete physical proof as described by me. Force what point? What question has been answered with a "big fat no"? My question to nonbelievers if there are any arguments that have given them pause? Well, obviously some nonbelievers will say "no". Others will say "yes". Indeed, in the very first response in this thread, captainbryce gave an example of an argument that in his view at least "doesn't seem unreasonable".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 14:37:20 GMT
I was under the impression stuff like this had to be lab tested & Dawkins approved. Then you were badly mistaken, and have now been corrected. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 14:39:08 GMT
I'm not sure I understand you. How exactly is this argument supposed to work? Is it "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god"? That's obviously a terrible argument, surely there are arguments for god better than that. Well sure, that's why I said least terrible, I still find quite a few problems with it. As for "better arguments", I'm hard pressed to think of any, all I've heard are pretty bad (watchmaker argument, moral argument, cosmological argument, prime mover). It gets even more absurd when dealing with ID/creationist arguments. In my view, all of those arguments are better than "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god". "You don't know for certain..." is probably one of the worst arguments for god that I've heard. I can't imagine any reasonably intelligent theist even trying to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 23, 2017 14:40:36 GMT
Well sure, that's why I said least terrible, I still find quite a few problems with it. As for "better arguments", I'm hard pressed to think of any, all I've heard are pretty bad (watchmaker argument, moral argument, cosmological argument, prime mover). It gets even more absurd when dealing with ID/creationist arguments. In my view, all of those arguments are better than "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god". "You don't know for certain..." is probably one of the worst arguments for god that I've heard. I can't imagine any reasonably intelligent theist even trying to defend it. You really think the watchmaker argument is better? That's probably the worst one I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by 🌵 on Apr 23, 2017 14:42:26 GMT
In my view, all of those arguments are better than "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god". "You don't know for certain..." is probably one of the worst arguments for god that I've heard. I can't imagine any reasonably intelligent theist even trying to defend it. You really think the watchmaker argument is better? That's probably the worst one I've heard. Yes, I do. The watchmaker argument is a bad argument, but I think it's better than the argument you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 14:55:49 GMT
In my view, all of those arguments are better than "you don't know for certain that there is no god, therefore there is a god". "You don't know for certain..." is probably one of the worst arguments for god that I've heard. I can't imagine any reasonably intelligent theist even trying to defend it. You really think the watchmaker argument is better? That's probably the worst one I've heard. The watchmaker argument is a perfectly valid one that was dismissed purely by the will of the godless. It's just that it doesn't matter too much because it neither enhances nor takes away the ridiculous notion of abiogenesis or the logic behind something being created. These are things that each groups simply accept or dismiss and it is entirely irrelevant to life whether one buys into the other.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 23, 2017 14:57:17 GMT
I was under the impression stuff like this had to be lab tested & Dawkins approved. Then you were badly mistaken, and have now been corrected. You're welcome. So what's the most persuasive argument for God that wouldn't involve proof?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 15:01:38 GMT
Then you were badly mistaken, and have now been corrected. You're welcome. So what's the most persuasive argument for God that wouldn't involve proof? Probably the offer of heaven and the threat of hell. Those seem to persuade a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 23, 2017 15:12:43 GMT
tpfkar Man, some people are positively obsessed with that guy. Bobby
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 23, 2017 15:12:44 GMT
You really think the watchmaker argument is better? That's probably the worst one I've heard. The watchmaker argument is a perfectly valid one that was dismissed purely by the will of the godless. It's just that it doesn't matter too much because it neither enhances nor takes away the ridiculous notion of abiogenesis or the logic behind something being created. These are things that each groups simply accept or dismiss and it is entirely irrelevant to life whether one buys into the other. "The watchmaker argument is a perfectly valid one"
It really isn't, it's just a false equivalency (a watch and the universe are two different things). Nothing in nature particularly screams "design", certainly not from a divine creator anyways (natural selection could be argued as a type of designer I suppose). Dawkins made an interesting argument, the Watchmaker analogy would work better if the watchmaker was blind and had to guess and clumsily put together through luck and several attempts, that's really more how nature actually works.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 23, 2017 15:13:53 GMT
tpfkar Man, some people are positively obsessed with that guy. Bobby A lot of theists seem to think he's our "Jesus", I've yet to actually read any of his books (or any of the Four Horsemen atheists)
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 23, 2017 15:41:59 GMT
Hsis arguments are ridiculously easy to refute and is done so often. Then try and articulate one of his arguments (to show you actually know what they are and know what you are talking about), and then refute it. Good luck with that! (I think we all know this won't happen and you won't even make a try at it.) Except when it comes to historical claims, theology is not a discipline that contains an actual body of knowledge that is authoritative in any sense whatsoever, so his not being a religious scholar is completely irrelevant. As a scientist, he is actually better qualified to think about and pass judgement on claims about the universe than any theologian, in fact. And he was never famous for his scientific work, as anyone who is familiar with science knows. What he is famous for was taking original work done by others and communicating its value to his peers so that they eventually realized its importance. Without him some very important ideas would have languished in obscurity. You don't write a best selling book on religion by appealing only to atheists. The math says we aren't enough of a population to make anything best selling. And in fact, he has been contacted by many former believers who said that reading The God Delusion made them turn away from religion.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 23, 2017 15:48:26 GMT
Well I am a naturalistic pantheist who does not believe in a personal god. My conception of god is unique. The only argument that could convert to atheism is the scientific argument against determinism as my belief in a god hinges on that. Could you explain this in a bit more detail? How is your belief in god connected to determinism? Well god is the universe to me because assuming determinism is true the universe has power over everything and has created everything. It determines itself and yet it is what is determined. It is both the determiner and the determined. I know this sounds like new age bullshit but I don't have time for any of that.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 23, 2017 15:55:51 GMT
The most persuasive argument FOR God is the fact that something came from nothing. Since that doesn't seem like a natural process, and cannot be explained scientifically, a supernatural explanation doesn't seem unreasonable. I've never been moved by that argument. First, I don't see any justification for the premise that something came from nothing - it's possible that something has always existed. Semantics. That's essentially saying the same thing in a different way. If something has "always existed" and science cannot explain origin or reason for it existing in the first place, you end up with the same dilemma. In any case, I understand that you (along with many others presumably) may not be moved by such an argument, which explains why they are atheists instead of theists. Because in some people's eyes, a negative need not be justified. Asking why not doesn't offer an actual explanation that people are seeking. The answer to the question of why not is because it doesn't make sense in accordance with the principle of cause and effect. According to Big Bang cosmology, matter and energy came into existence at some point in the past - which begs the question of what caused it to come into existence other than an extra-dimensional causal agent existing outside of (and independent of) space-time. I'm not saying that it's a convincing argument for everyone. I'm just answering your question. That in my opinion is the strongest the theist argument.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Apr 23, 2017 15:56:41 GMT
My point is that nothing but the Almighty smacking them in the face would do and even then they would be skeptical. Would do for what? Would do for converting them to theism? Well, obviously I'm not asking nonbelievers for arguments that they find persuasive enough to convert them to theism. If they felt that there were any such arguments, they would already be theists. I'm only asking for arguments that have given them pause, that have challenged their non-belief. To say that no nonbeliever has ever felt challenged by an argument for theism is obviously absurd. Basically, Cool is an anti-atheist bigot. He spent many years claiming he didn't care about atheists while taking every chance he got to attack atheists.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Apr 23, 2017 16:01:42 GMT
You really think the watchmaker argument is better? That's probably the worst one I've heard. The watchmaker argument is a perfectly valid one that was dismissed purely by the will of the godless. Bzzz, that would be a lie on your part. People have explained why it's a poor argument plenty of times where you would've been able to see it. You know, like pointing out the difference between natural and artificial objects? I also find it funny bryce is claiming to be a neutral party.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 23, 2017 16:09:37 GMT
The notion of a being or beings so advanced they may be seen as "gods" from our perspective doesn't strike me as terribly hard to believe. I've never really had a problem with the notion of a super-advanced being or beings with powers beyond our current understanding. My issue with more with the fairly-obviously-made-by-man-for-man-to-control-man nature of the various mythologies we call "religion".
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 23, 2017 16:10:33 GMT
tpfkar Man, some people are positively obsessed with that guy. Bobby A lot of theists seem to think he's our "Jesus", I've yet to actually read any of his books (or any of the Four Horsemen atheists) As a theist myself, I don't think of Dawkins as being the equivalent of the Lord Jesus, or Buddha, etc., for atheists. There have always been atheists, just as there have always been religions.
|
|