Godless Apostate

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

DuffMan: do you realize that not even Richard Dawkins claims with 100% certainty that there absolutely is no god? You're advocating for a position more extreme than the man who is arguably the most famous atheist in the world.

That's fine, he's not the only atheist in the village.

It makes sense that the most famous atheist will leave the least amount of room possible for skepticism due to fact that proving God doesn't exist is impossible.

Likewise, how many xtians are 1's on the opposite end of the scale instead of 1.1's and do not leave that small amount of room?

[photon]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Likewise, how many xtians are 1's on the opposite end of the scale instead of 1.1's and do not leave that small amount of room?

Lots, almost all the ones I know anyway. Or at least they'd say that.

Just because they say that doesn't mean it's a reasonable position to take.

Where you are on the scale can vary depending on the definition of god.. the god of the Bible some take a 7 position because of specific claims about the nature of that god vs observed reality or philosophy or logic. But that same person could be a 6 for a deist type god.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

It makes sense that the most famous atheist will leave the least amount of room possible for skepticism due to fact that proving God doesn't exist is impossible.

Precisely! So why do you claim with certainty that there is no god?

Likewise, how many xtians are 1's on the opposite end of the scale instead of 1.1's and do not leave that small amount of room?

That was exactly Dawkins's point, which you should have read in the text I quoted. He claims that many believers will say they're a "1" because they have absolute conviction in their faith, but very few atheists will say they're a "7" because there literally is no possible way to disprove god and thus the possibility, however small, will always be there. In his view, both 1s and 7s are irrational since the existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable.

For the record, I would also place myself as a 6.9 using his scale.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Precisely! So why do you claim with certainty that there is no god?

Because Tim Tebow would be better.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

How can you prove something doesn't exist?

You can't. However, you seem to be so certain of a belief that is strengthened because of an apparent lack of absolute evidence for God when such evidence is, in my view, impossible, short of God's appearance to deliver the proof you require. You're saying that your belief in no God is stronger because the impossible hasn't happened. For the record, I think the world and the universe are evidence of God (same as with Francis Collins).

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

You can't. However, you seem to be so certain of a belief that is strengthened because of an apparent lack of absolute evidence for God when such evidence is, in my view, impossible, short of God's appearance to deliver the proof you require. You're saying that your belief in no God is stronger because the impossible hasn't happened. For the record, I think the world and the universe are evidence of God (same as with Francis Collins).

The world and the universe are evidence of Science and billions of years.

"short of God's appearance to deliver the proof you require"

You're talking the highest end of evidence, but I am asking you. Do you have any evidence, anything, big or small? like anything that is more than nothing?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

The world and the universe are evidence of Science and billions and years.

LOL, what does that even mean? Science is a man-made philosophical framework for learning about the natural universe. Saying that the universe is "evidence of science" is completely nonsensical.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

LOL, what does that even mean? Science is a man-made philosophical framework for learning about the natural universe. Saying that the universe is "evidence of science" is completely nonsensical.

Ok, if you say so.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Ok, if you say so.

I'm curious. You're constantly asking for explanation from others, so go ahead:

How is the universe evidence of Science?

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

The world and the universe are evidence of Science and billions of years.

"short of God's appearance to deliver the proof you require"

You're talking the highest end of evidence, but I am asking you. Do you have any evidence, anything, big or small? like anything that is more than nothing?

Nothing that would satisfy you. I've already told you that such evidence is impossible.

My evidence is the same as that cited by Collins. I know you know who he is and his point of view. To me, this wonderful body I inhabit (well, I could lose a few pounds and have a bit more hair) is evidence to me, plus this very delicately balanced universe. I know you don't accept that.

[photon]

The problem with Collins' evidence is he spends time in his book refuting flawed arguments for special creation and such, then turns around and commits the same kinds of mistakes he just refuted to try and support his claims.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Precisely! So why do you claim with certainty that there is no god?

I would put a religious god at 100% false and 99% against the thought a superior being creating the universe.

In other words I'm very very certain.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

The problem with Collins' evidence is he spends time in his book refuting flawed arguments for special creation and such, then turns around and commits the same kinds of mistakes he just refuted to try and support his claims.

If so, then being a poor writer doesn't make him wrong.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

If so, then being a poor writer doesn't make him wrong.

I haven't read his book, but if what photon says is an accurate description, then that goes beyond simply being a poor writer; that makes him a poor philosopher.

[icecube]

re: T&T's sig

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views"- Albert Einstein

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

If so, then being a poor writer doesn't make him wrong.

It also doesn't make him right.

As MarchHare said it's not about the writing style, it's about the content. The reasoning.

Often a young earth creationist's (for the sake of example) claims can be refuted simply because they are flawed reasoning. And Collins does this in his book. But then he will use the same flawed reasoning to support his own conclusions.

It's human, we all do it.

Flawed reasoning also doesn't make one wrong, but it does make one's conclusions invalid (in the way a stopped clock can happen to be correct, but it's not a valid way to tell time).

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Pardon for the interruption...

I have to make a plug for my colleague's new book: Theology after the Birth of God: Atheist Conceptions in Cognition and Culture

LeRon is giving a talk based on his book on Thursday night here in Kristiansand at a meeting of the local humanists society, entitled: "Where do gods come from — and why do we keep them around."

Purchased. Looking forward to reading it. I'll post a review once I've finished reading it (which probably won't be until early next year).

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by photon

It also doesn't make him right.

As MarchHare said it's not about the writing style, it's about the content. The reasoning.

Often a young earth creationist's (for the sake of example) claims can be refuted simply because they are flawed reasoning. And Collins does this in his book. But then he will use the same flawed reasoning to support his own conclusions.

It's human, we all do it.

Flawed reasoning also doesn't make one wrong, but it does make one's conclusions invalid (in the way a stopped clock can happen to be correct, but it's not a valid way to tell time).

This is why the scientific method works despite it's conclusions never being certainly true. It recognizes we aren't very good at building solid arguments, but that we are very good at finding problems in the positions others hold. By accepting the criticisms others make about our arguments as at least tentatively true until we can demonstrate/explain otherwise, we can either improve our explanations and arguments, or determine that we were incorrect, and move on to a (hopefully) more correct explanation, argument or position.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by icecube

re: T&T's sig

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views"- Albert Einstein

Einstein, to the extend he believed in a god, was a pantheist. He was, for practical purposes, an Agnostic Atheist(Assuming those that claim pantheism is a form of atheism are correct, something on which there is no universal agreement). He was not like DuffMan and T&T who deny with certainty any possibility that God exists.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Nothing that would satisfy you. I've already told you that such evidence is impossible.

My evidence is the same as that cited by Collins. I know you know who he is and his point of view. To me, this wonderful body I inhabit (well, I could lose a few pounds and have a bit more hair) is evidence to me, plus this very delicately balanced universe. I know you don't accept that.

Do you believe in Noah's Ark?