Franz, Issac Asimov, and the history of religions school

[BongHitsForJesus101]

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

what you believe that this word connotes is totally irrelevant

[JaneyLife20]

another great refutation

God bless

[facilisdescenus]

It's stupid how atheists are trying to redefine words. Historically and in any reputed philosophical resource(Stanford & Routledge) atheism means the denial of the existence of God.

[TheGamingWeasel]

Add the Camebridge Dictionary of Philosophy to.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

"atheism means the denial of the existence of God."

Your fallacy is that you assume believing in god is the default state. We are born blank slates. Religion REQUIRES indoctrination. Atheism IS the default state.

[facilisdescenus]

"Atheism IS the default state"

Please provide some kind of philosophical resource that says this. I already showed that Stanford and Rutledge said that atheism was a denial of God.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

"Please provide some kind of philosophical resource that says this. I already showed that Stanford and Rutledge said that atheism was a denial of God."

Philosophy is for suckers like "arts" college classes are for idiots too stupid to take "applied sciences." Religion *requires* indoctrination. You believe theism is the default state because you are fatally biased. People are born agnostic (or ignostic, as pointed out). Period. It's a fact. Deal with it.

[migkillertwo]

"Philosophy is for suckers like "arts" college classes are for idiots too stupid to take "applied sciences.""

Bullshit! we could never know anything without Philosophy because we woulden't even know what it means to know anything without philosophy!

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

How "philosophical" of you. I'll stick with my applied sciences, thank you.

[legodesi]

did he just say arts college classes are for idiots?

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

Absolutely, and I stand by it. I started my college career on an arts program. It was so simplistic I dropped the major and expressly demanded "applied sciences." Arts programs are for people who are either:

a) Lazy

b) Ignorant

c) All of the above.

[legodesi]

"a) Lazy

b) Ignorant

c) All of the above."

I don't think your education has cured you of your simplistic tendencies.

[LotusGreenX]

migkillertwo: What's wrong with saying atheism is a lack of belief in a God? It is a position just as you lack belief in Allah is a position. You don't have to have an alternative explanation to reject an explanation, God. The position is skepticism until evidence for a valid position comes.

Naturalism cannot be proven or disproven, but based on methodological naturalism, it is a useful belief and unless there's a god there is no reason to posit an open ended immaterial world.

[FlowCell]

This is why Richard Dawkins statement that we are all born atheists is so silly. The only reason people aren't ever born with belief is because belief takes brain power that new born babies don't have. A baby is about as much an atheist as, well, a Coke bottle.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

"A baby is about as much an atheist as, well, a Coke bottle."

I sure hope you aren't trying to say we are born religious?

[FlowCell]

No, I am not. If I were, then Coke bottles would be true believers in my opinion, and that's just silly.

The problem in claiming we are born atheists is that babies lack the ability to know of spiritual concepts, much less dispute spirituality or "God". It would be far more accurate to say that babies are born ignostic. That is, ignorant of knowledge, and thus incapable of reaching any conclusions about cosmology at all.

[migkillertwo]

"I sure hope you aren't trying to say we are born religious?"

That's not what flowcell is asserting. It is a valid point that a baby is as much an Atheist as is a coke bottle. If you're going to redefine "atheist", then you have absolutely no position and its meaningless to argue for it.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

I see that now, and your point is a fair one.

[LotusGreenX]

"This is why Richard Dawkins statement that we are all born atheists is so silly."

I get your point completely, however, your still a non Christian or a non theist (atheist) before someone gives you a reason to believe. For example: If you were just presented with a new God, now you are "responsible" for rejecting it. However, if you are given no reason to believe in that God you wouldn't even consider giving up your belief in your God. Same applies with atheism.

[lazyconquistador]

Your right the pencil is an atheist, so what. You can't refute a certain position or claim by offering as your own argument the exact same position espoused by whoever you are trying to refute.

I don't particularly embrace naturalism, but even if super-string theory were proved correct or scientifically accepted (i.e. parallel universes) I still don't really see how that would refute naturalism because there is a huge difference between spaciotemporal realities and the supernatural.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

Re: Mouse. Bad analogy. It is not a living entity nor a working reaction (nuclear or chemical).

Re: Original cause. There is absolutely nothing to prove the supernatural and that is your baseline assumption (true bias).

Re: Naturalism. Nothing has ever been seen poofed into existence. Evolution has been observed, even in the lab, and we know how stars form elements.

There is no need for god, except for the "original cause" in which there is no proof of, period.

[lilchrizz123]

rrs is online...yo when I get a webcam we gotta take them on.

[migkillertwo]

are you over there? I think I might hang out there for a few minutes.

[lilchrizz123]

yeah I am.

[lilchrizz123]

You got aim?

[epaminodas]

given that you say that naturalism is a "positive claim" aren't you implicity saying that there is no validity to the default position of simply saying "i don't know"? how can you say with certainty that there are no negative claims?

kudos on the parallels exposition presentation; but i still have a question how come Jesus was known as the "Son of God" (granted an OT phrase) while Augustus was also the "SON of God" before Jesus was alive? i never reconciled those two things. any input?

[migkillertwo]

no evidence of actual borrowing unfortunately.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

"no evidence of actual borrowing unfortunately."

You fallacy here is you are drawing a line in the sand and intentionally excluding the institutionalized behavior of the christian church for a thousand years after Peter. Our ancestral lands (white boy) were invaded by a religious plague that crept up out of a cave in the Middle East, suppressed, enslaved, nearly destroyed and then assimilated our ancestors and their art. You draw this magical line as if all that history is not relevant.

[epaminodas]

so what you're saying is that METAPHYSICS >>> PHYSICS???? come on

the first cause argument is not that simple - you can't discount it w/ the wave of a hand

[migkillertwo]

I didn't discount it.

[epaminodas]

edit: i meant the argument that the universe is infinite instead of first cause finite universe theory

[Knowntje]

I love my atheistic penis :)

personally I dont really care if I qualify as an atheist or agnostic or whatever lable you want to put on it. I guess the word non-theist could apply as well

[migkillertwo]

"I love my atheistic penis :)"

*rolls eyes* great now I'm going to have to evangelize to people AND their genitalia!

[Knowntje]

oh boy... does this mean that if I convert and my penis doesnt, that I will go to heaven without my penis :| ?????

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

Brilliant!