well thats my major problem with atheism
at its root it seems to be entirely based on a lack of humility. Atheists I meet, and most exemplified by Dawkins, tend to have a hugely inflated Idea of their own omni-cognisance, and totally fail to acknowledge the fact that human beings, themselves included, still have far more to learn than they have thus far achieved.
Logic and reason have brought us Nuclear Proliferation, Global Warming, and the Credit Crunch, each of these caused by some of the smartest people on the planet.
Logically then perhaps instead of choosing not to believe in God we would be better off not believing in People?
(, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:19, Reply)
" totally fail to acknowledge the fact that human beings, themselves included, still have far more to learn than they have thus far achieved."
I disagree with this statement. Atheists DO acknowledge that there is unimaginable amounts of things that humans do not understand.
I would argue that it is religious people who claim to know everything. They 'know there is a god', and they consider this to be the truth, which is known, end of story. An atheist should never rule out the possibility of there being a god entirely, but does not believe that it should be an assumed (and pretty much assumed without a shred of evidence) fact on which we base our lives.
(
Kung_Fu_Russ ran out of amusing signatures on, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:27,
Reply)
Except they don't know it.
Knowledge is justified, true belief. They have the belief, but the justification is lacking and the truth is unlikely...
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:29,
Reply)
ok, i like what you've said
but would you acknowledge that in the past Science, Logic and Reason have all made massive errors as well?
I would put it that where on past history science has been demonstrated to be less than 100% truth, hailing it as a replacement for God is a little premature.
(, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:49, Reply)
Of course there've been mistakes.
However, that's part and parcel of science. What survives, though, is the intellectual parsimony, and that's worth keeping.
There is no evidence at all that points to the existence of a deity. There is no evidence at all for some non-religious beliefs. However, that doesn't mean that science and religion are on a par.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:59,
Reply)
There's certainly no empirical evidence, I'll grant you
but plenty of people, myself included, claim experiential evidence. And that I'd say is the nub of the whole issue. And if you can resolve that conflict then I'd pin the medal on you myself.
(, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 12:16, Reply)
I think perhaps were arguing the same side here, let me clear it up a bit
Fundamentalists are cunts because they are arrogantly believing that their knowledge is the only knowledge and everyone else is wrong.
I believe the same of atheists, and atheists who belittle those who believe in God are double cunts.
In my book, the only category of "Not-Cunts" are those who are always prepared to accept that what they believe may not be 100% correct, and acknowledge the validity of other beliefs.
Personally I believe in God: both as an explanation of fortuitous events in my life that I otherwise am unable to explain, and because I a happier existing with the belief in God than not. Alas my own modest little set of beliefs is under attach from cunts from both directions; Both of whom seems to find my believing something different to them is offensive to them personally and also some kind of act of defiance against either their superiority of faith or intellect.
Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Atheists all seem to have an agenda of thought control of their neighbours.
(, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:44, Reply)
...
Logic and reason have brought us Nuclear Proliferation, Global Warming, and the Credit Crunch, each of these caused by some of the smartest people on the planet.
That's a really, really poor argument. Noone intended for any of those things to happen. Nor is anyone claiming that the alternative to belief in god is a belief that humanity is flawless.
Even Dawkins does not say outright that god does not exist. His claim is simply that the existence of a deity is hugely unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it. We're much better off not believing in him for reasons of metaphysical good taste. Moreover, naturalistic science can offer an explanation of the world that's much more metaphysically parsimonious and complete. So we have a reason to adopt naturalistic science.
Give a compelling argument the other way, and science ought to adop it, just because it is not based on a predetermined picture of the universe.
Moreover, your claim belies a value-intoxicated view of the world. Nuclear proliferation, global warming and so on are arguably bad from a human point of view, but it follows from that neither that they are bad, or that they are wrong.
What do you mean by believing in people? I simply can't make sense of that.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 11:35,
Reply)
Don't feign a lack of comprehention as a disputational gambit with me boyo ;)
Of course my closing remark was sophistry and we could play the game of poking holes at each other all day long (and I think we'd both enjoy it).
We're discussing a whole area that has been hotly debated by plenty of folks cleverer than us (an likely a lot more less so) for most of history without resolution.
My motivation in jumping in at all was to point out how this whole area of debate is polarising, as it seems to be with us here now. I consider myself a moderate, but can you see how in discussing it I am being pushed to either agree with you entirely, or to fall to countering your Scientific certainties with certainties of Faith.
Surely as the only outcome of taking an extreme view on either side is conflict. And while here today its just a bit of stimulating fun (I hope) for both of us, There are plenty who are more emotionally invested in their position that each conflict escalates from flaming on message boards through advertisements on buses until we reach a point where we are burning down churches and bombing science labs.
Who wins then? (well, if you are a bit Goatish, then the Rich White Elite win.)
As for me, I think of myself as a Fundamental Moderate: I believe that we all have a duty to defend the rights of our neighbours, even when they are are being dicks, as long as what they are doing does not hurt anyone else. This of course means that I get hit from both sides, from Atheists the accusation that I am illogical, and that my beliefs hurt progress, tomorrow I may get into a dispute with a fundamentalist Christian who will tell me I'm a sinner and will burn. Hey Ho.
(, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 12:11, Reply)
that's possibly the best answer i've read so far in one of these B3ta /links theological arguments.
well done sah!
*doffs cap*
(
Just Flange, Wed 4 Mar 2009, 12:51,
Reply)