View Single Post
Old 01-29-2007, 07:10 AM   #30
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Mike Doolittle (Post #27):
If that's your perspective, then what you're describing is not atheism; or, it can best be described as "weak atheism". Atheism is an outright rejection of the existence of anything spiritual. Atheism and positivism are congruent philosophies, because the atheist believes that since there is no spiritual reality, all that is relevant to our existence is quantitative knowledge.
Even the position of so-called "strong atheism" doesn't necessarily say anything of a person's belief in any other feild of inquiry. An atheist is simply a person would does not believe in any gods.

What difference?
The difference is between having faith that your car won't explode when you start the engine and having faith in the existence of an afterlife. Or to put anyother way, the difference is between having faith in something or someone based on past experience or evidence and having faith in something simply because a some dogma says so.

Once again you are confusing qualities of God with actions that define God as a "God".
I am attempting to demostrate how arbitrary the concept of a "creative god" is by substituting it with a logical extreme. As I'm saying for a third time, any definition of any unfalsible entity is by definition arbitrary. So, when you're describing the god which you've hijacked like so much fan fiction, you are essentially describing nothing.

See, Mike, we debate about many things. When I make positive claims, I try to provide evidence for for them--not simply say that because there are no alternatives, my argument is valid. When you posit your "creative god" just out of the eyeshot of known knowledge (or gap) and give it any characteristics, all you've done is describe an imaginary friend. And I'm not being rhetorical. You've provided no positive evidence for your "creative god," only chosed it from an infinite number of equally plausible entities because it was most intuitive. This is why I, as a person who believes in evidence (more on that below), find your god unreasonable.

If you were a scientist demonstrating a theory for the "uncased-cause" you would be required to provide an extraordinary amount of evidence to back up your claim, but because it's your imaginary friend, all it needs to be is just outside the reach of knowledge and vague enough. You should be honest and admit that your belief is anything but reasonable, or provide positive evidence for it.

Quote: want matters faith to be something that can be laid out before you like anything else tangible. It just doesn't work like that.
As I've said before:

"Science is a self-checking process that demands testable evidence. This is why science is just so damn good at ascertaining "how."

What is the criteria by which theism ascertains "why?" By what process do we dicipher the false claims from the factful?"

I want any "matter of faith" which makes an objective claim about the universe to be subjected to the same scruntiny of any scientific claim about the universe.

A universe in which prayers are answered is a different universe than one which isn't. A universe which allows for an afterlife is a different universe than one without. A universe with a "creative god" is different than one with none. It isn't simply enough to take these "matters of faith" at face value. Either there is evidence or there is not.

I know you don't give a shit, but I'll tell you anyway: I believe in demostrating evidence. If there is compelling evidence for a god or gods, I'll believe in gods; if there is compelling evidence for an afterlife, I'll believe in an afterlife. My standing as an atheist and a naturalist are both conditional; my standing as a skeptic is permenant.

Last edited by Nicato; 01-29-2007 at 07:48 AM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote