Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Unless you can tell me what the ultimate reality is I must conclude that you don't know what your talking about anyway and operating under that assumption we probably mean differentvthings by ultimate reality. Even if I believe an an ultimate reality I very much doubt it is the ultimate reality you mean. That renders your question mostly meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So this is you not being insulting then? Because I think you could do a better job of it honestly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I believe it is highly unlikely that the ultimate reality in any way resembles the being you think of as god. I think that figure only exists in Mopac's imagination. I will continue to think that until you can demonstrate your claims about reality somehow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You don't even know what the ultimate reality is so what do you care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It's more that I don't believe for a moment that you know what the ultimate reality is and you have given me no reason to think otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are aware that nihilism and atheism are two different things yeah? I mean there are even religious atheists such as taoists. Taoist by the way also not nihilists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm just telling you that if there is a nihilist conspiracy I'm unaware of it. Btw I do not self identify as a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Chill out dude. Nobody is out to get you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This sounds related to Pascal's wager where you can't assume the god you pray to is the correct god.
Pascal's wager does not lend itself to any particular religion or god over any other so I'm not sure why I would assume that to begin with. Also just for clarity sake I do not believe humans do pray to any god(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not trying to prove anything. You are The one trying to prove something exists that is unobservable through normal means.You can't prove anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Probably the former.I telll you nothing!Or you hear nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What is the functional observable difference between evidence that is not recognized as evidence and no evidence at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I only can know what you tell me. Most of it is contradicted by other stuff you told me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This place has a stated purpose (to provide a safe space online for the purposes of debate) a purpose which you claimed recently to disdain. I didn't have to say you are in the wrong place. You said it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why don't you head on down to Twitter. Now that is a place for proclaiming stuff. You need no evidence whatsoever to post something on Twitter you'll love it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ok have a productive day then. Go proclaim or something. The name of this site is DEBATE art. If you have no interest in debate you are in the wrong place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The problem as far as I can tell is that you are telling me what I as an atheist must believe and claim. You do not get to tell me what I believe Fallaneze and quite frankly you are generally better than this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Unless there is something about this thought experiment that you are not telling me there is no way he can know who made the watch... I mean ant farm.
And as I said this gives us zero reason the think that the universe was similarly manufactured.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have no idea what you believe as you refuse to give any definite answers and retreat to vague circular definitions whenever pressed for details
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I suppose you are unfamiliar with the no true Scotsman argument. I am an atheist and I do not fit the deffinition you have given ergo your definition is incorrect or at least not all encompassing.
Created:
Posted in:
All I asked was when an ant touches the glass boundary of an ant farm, is the ant touching evidence of a creator of that ant farm. Initially nothing about perspective.
So the whole reason that an ant farm is evidence of a creator is because we know humans manufacture them. In that case it is a poor analogy since we are unaware of any manufacturers of universes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Indeed I am also skeptical of big foot and alien abduction but there is no specific word for those propositions because skepticism on these subjects is the norm. The word atheism only exists because in this one single matter (religion) and as near as I can tell no other belief without evidence is the default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How many times must I say that atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).
It breaks down like this atheist (a)theist (not)theist not a theist.
In fact unless you believe in Zeus and Thor and Maui you too are an atheist, in regards to those gods any way. I simply believe in one fewer than you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If the case made by your church is anything like the case that you have to date offered me then I have to say that I am genuinely unimpressed and if the case you have offered is not representative of the case made by this church perhaps you could examine what you are doing differently and try again. If that is you are suddenly interested in making good cases for your arguments.It makes a better case at proving
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What about it? I am an atheist and my only position is that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in any god(s) so unless your working on a no true Scotsman argument I don't see your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What definition are you using? I thought the word just meant that you don't believe in any god(s). If I am an atheist then atheism does not necessitate a claim and therefore is not tantamount to a claim.Which definition of "atheism" are you using?
Atheists make claims atheism is not a claim. Do you see the distinction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
According to which definition?
When I say I am an atheist all I mean is that I do not maintain a belief in any god(s). This is not tantamount to making any claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You specifically said I was to view this from an ants perspective. Now you wish me to tell you if an ant is touching something that is evidence from a human perspective.
Which perspective are we actually adopting for this thought experiment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Atheism itself is not a claim. Atheism is simply withholding belief on one particular subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church certainly sees itself as The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
So what? People and organizations often view themselves in unrealistic ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Actually I try to avoid blanket statements like that. Allow me to amend my statement more in keeping with my epistemological limits. Many people wonder and they are still wondering because there is no sufficient evidence.Saying everyone is actually quite an acknowledgment.
I'm strictly referring to an ant's perspective. Of course we know, but what about the ant? Did that ant just feel with his antennae evidence of the creator of that farm?
This is the watchmaker argument the thrust of which is that even a primitive tribesman who had never before seen a watch would still recognize a watch as being made by a human. The trouble with this examp is that the only reason the primitive tribesman would recognize a watch as being manufactured is that it is clearly not a naturally occurring object. Since naturally occurring objects do not contrast from naturally occurring objects in this way we cannot surmise that natural objects are manufactured. The very reason the analogy is applied to the universe is also the reason that the argument cannot be applied to the universe.
So the ant has only found evidence of a creator of ant farms if it understands the concept of manufacturing and if it only recognizes the ant farm as an artificial structure because it differs from a natural structure then natural structures are not evidence of any creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In the case I presented, the ant farm is a commercially produced item. We know ant farms are sometimes manufactured. So a creator (in this case a human) had to be involved.
So the whole reason that an ant farm is evidence of a creator is because we know humans manufacture them. In that case it is a poor analogy since we are unaware of any manufacturers of universes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Everyone has wondered but I have never seen any evidence to support the premise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Did that ant just touch evidence of a creator (of the ant farm)?
How do we know that ant farms are created? What I mean is what differentiates an ant farm from a natural habitat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Biblically speaking, it starts with the view of nature (or the experience of nature since not everyone has sight). Have you ever wondered if God, or a creator exists after viewing nature?
That is entirely irrelevant unless there is some way of answering the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Oh no see this thread is for debate. If that isn't why you are here I think it would be better if you don't post here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think God is unable to identify himself to humanity
I think that no human that claims any god(s) have been revealed to them has ever met their burden of proof that I know of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you have a god-o-meter or are you just guessing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ok well have fun with your proclaiming. You sure seem to have a lot of it to do. Look at you staying busy. Good job.
Created:
Posted in:
That's nice. Let me know if you actually become interested in debate. Have fun with your proclaiming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ok well habe a nice day. Of you ever figure out the problem with your arguments and get done better ones let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Or maybe I would if you said what you mean plainly instead of using doublespeak mysticism.
Created:
Posted in:
Your definition is inconsistent. Sometimes it is whayever reality is and sometimes it is a specific thing reality must be. Decide which you mean and get back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have yet to tell me plainly what we are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You mean a figure in a bronze age book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I agree that when we say truth we mean something different. You mean many things which we cannot be certain are true. At the least you have nit deminstrated any of them as true.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You pollute a lot of threads why draw a line now ?
Created: