L
lelinator
Guest
Of course the opposite is also true. There are those who purport to believe in God who actually don’t.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
You’re still missing the point. My argument does not mention God or Scripture and is independent of their existence. Over and out.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Perhaps, but I’m not sure how many. I recall a very distinguished scientist saying he went to church on Sunday because that was the socially acceptable thing to do. And there may be a politician or two who purport to have a faith they have clearly ignored their entire lives.
L
lelinator
Guest
Beliefs are difficult things to pin down, even our own. We often convince ourselves that we believe in things which in all honestly we’re only uncertain of, or hopeful of, or just comfortable with. But what we actually believe, that can be a much more difficult question to face.
B
Bradskii
Guest
O: I believe that there’s A Black Swan.po18guy:
That they do doubt, I take them at their word. Is their doubt rational? No.
Atheistic claims are logically defeated by the Black Swan fallacy. Atheists believe unreasonably in the non-existence of the Black Swan. While we cannot argue with how they feel, we can argue against their illogical thinking as unreasonable.
B: This guy says there’s a Black Duck.
O: He’s wrong.
B: He says you’re wrong. And here’s someone else who says there’s A Black Goose. And he says you’re both wrong.
O: Millions believe in the Swan.
B: Same with the other two. Have you actually seen the Swan?
O: No.
B: Neither has anyone seen the Duck or the Goose.
O: But we have scripture.
B: The other guys do as well.
O: Ours will give you eternal life.
B: Yeah. Same deal with the Duck and Goose.
O: We have metaphysical proofs for the Swan.
B: But they also apply to the Duck and Goose.
O: But the other two don’t exist.
B: Not surprisingly, the other guys said exactly the same.
O: The Swan created the world.
B: That was entirely a result of natural processes.
O: The Swan created us.
B: And THAT was entirely due to natural processes.
O: But if you don’t believe in the Swan then you can have sex whenever you want, you can use contraception, you don’t have to get married to have kids, you can self indulge, you can…
B: Hang on. Wait a minute. Are these meant to be the negatives?
Then all three ask the same question at the same time: So you don’t believe me?
B: Not really. No. But I’ll keep an open mind. Why don’t y’all sort it out between yourselves and then get back to me.
B
Bradskii
Guest
A Christian, an agnostic and an atheist drive past a pond. ‘Look’, says the Christian. ‘A black swan. All swans are black! It’s a miracle!’.
‘Hang on’, says the agnostic. ‘You tend to jump to huge conclusions based on the flimsiest of evidence. All we know is that particular swan is black. You can’t extrapolate any further’.
‘Sorry’, says the atheist. 'You are both wrong. All that we can say for definite is that the swan that we can see is black on one side. Yes, it’s probably black all over. I’ll give you that. But I don’t believe that all swans are black and it’s something that’s impossible to prove. If someone wants to believe that, then they’ll have to believe it on faith.
‘Hang on’, says the agnostic. ‘You tend to jump to huge conclusions based on the flimsiest of evidence. All we know is that particular swan is black. You can’t extrapolate any further’.
‘Sorry’, says the atheist. 'You are both wrong. All that we can say for definite is that the swan that we can see is black on one side. Yes, it’s probably black all over. I’ll give you that. But I don’t believe that all swans are black and it’s something that’s impossible to prove. If someone wants to believe that, then they’ll have to believe it on faith.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Can you please give us the Reader’s Digest version? The epic version is a little overwhelming. Can’t tell who the hero is but I suspect it is “O”.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Which is probably the only rational position. I probably lean more towards the agnostic.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Well, that’s a little more digestible. But you forgot to mention that the atheist, blinded by the light (pun intended), could not see that the swan’s other side reflected in the pond’s water was also black.
Last edited:
F
FredBloggs
Guest
No, it’s not true. I know of no atheists who would say that the probability of theism and naturalism are the same. Nor is it true to say there is no evidence on either side. There is certainly no evidence for theism (or more accurately, the truth claims that theistic religions make). However, there is abundant evidence for naturalism. Science depends upon it, and science works, consistently and for everybody.
I’m surprised you’ve come across people who claim to be atheists but allow that theism is plausible. Without wishing to invoke the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, I would say that either those people aren’t actually atheists, or that they just didn’t fancy having an argument about it.
To answer your first question: atheists have as much doubt as anybody else. I can’t speak for all of them, but personally I have seen zero evidence for the existence of gods (unless there’s some that’s being hidden for some reason); that doesn’t mean that I would say I “know” there are no gods; just that it’s extremely unlikely - as unlikely as anything for which no evidence has been produced.
And preference? I would prefer that the god of the Old Testament didn’t exist, as he is a nasty piece of work indeed. But that isn’t the reason I don’t believe. The reason is that there is no evidence where there should be, given the claims made by religions. For what it’s worth, I strive to examine my beliefs and avoid believing things purely because I wish they were true. Theists would do well to apply the same rigour to their belief system, I feel.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
A pond with a vertical surface would be needed for that
O
o_mlly
Guest
Poetic license.A pond with a vertical surface would be needed for that
O
o_mlly
Guest
Or the object in motion above the reflecting surface.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m not sure I’m understanding some of the claims here. Could someone identify a trait that can not be produced or emerged over time using natural or sexual selection? While there may not be facts evident to support evolutionary advantages for traits, there is certainly reasonable scenarios and statistical advantages to them. A random mutation can produce a brain with a certain trait, can’t it? Help would be appreciated!
B
Bradskii
Guest
The traits mentioned are general. Ones that you will find within a population. So just because there is (genetic) trait that persuades us that working in a group is desirable (not necessarily beneficial, although because it is beneficial we have termed it desirable), that doesn’t preclude there being those who prefer to be alone. You can’t extrapolate from the population to the individual or vica versa.
And individual traits can learned behaviour. If a peer group treats an act as undesirable, then a person within that group may develop an aversion to it.
But if you study a large enough group and question any given behaviour and you keep asking why after every answer (just as a child does) then you often end up eventually looking at an evolutionary answer.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
As far as IWantGod is concerned, as I understand it he/she is not questioning the rôle of evolution …
What a “metaphysical possibility” would be I can’t say, but then I’m not a fan of metaphysics. What I suspect is that when IWG asks “why is there trait x” the question is not “why (meaning how) did trait x come about?” (answer probably evolution) but “why (meaning for what purpose) did trait x come about?” To which the answer is “Why do you assume a purpose?”
P
Pattylt
Guest
Gotcha! That helps me understand much better. I was assuming that he was stating that evolution could not produce the trait. Sorry, IWG!
T
Thinker_Doer
Guest
This points to the fact that in the English language there is one word: “why”, with two different uses: “what was the cause?” and “what is the aim?”. In some other languages there are two words for this, so the chance of misunderstanding is eliminated. Unfortunate evolution
of the language… 
P
PickyPicky
Guest
There is actually a third. “Why does 4+4=8?” Which actually means “why do you say that” or “why do mathematicians assert that” 4+4=8. Which is actually a “how does it come about that” question in disguise.
B
Bradskii
Guest
We have to remember that anything that gives us an evolutionary advantage did not emerge to counter a problem. Evolution is just a process. ‘It’ doesn’t know there’s a problem to solve in the first place. And there may well be no problem.Pattylt:
As far as IWantGod is concerned, as I understand it he/she is not questioning the rôle of evolution …
What a “metaphysical possibility” would be I can’t say, but then I’m not a fan of metaphysics. What I suspect is that when IWG asks “why is there trait x” the question is not “why (meaning how) did trait x come about?” (answer probably evolution) but “why (meaning for what purpose) did trait x come about?” To which the answer is “Why do you assume a purpose?”
An animal may grow some more hair because of a genetic change. If the weather is quite warm, then it may well be a disadvantage. If the weather is cold, it may be an advantage. But the animal doesn’t grow more hair BECAUSE it is cold. It doesn’t grow more hair for a purpose. It is entirely random (which doesn’t mean that evolution as a process is random).
It’s only in retrospect that we can say it was an advantage. It’s only in retrospect that we can infer purpose. But there was no purpose to begin with. So there can be none subsequent to it happening.
Imagine two people crossing some land. They randonly pick up some stones and put them in their pocket - they have a wierd genetic urge to do so.
One has to cross a river and drowns. What was the purpose of him picking up the stones? There was none. It just turned out to be a disadvantage.
The other has to fight off some animals and he throws the stones at them and escapes. What was the purpose for his picking up the stones? There was none. It just turned out to be an advantage.
But IWG sees people picking up stones and sees them using them to fight off animals and declares that the genes for stone-picking were selected for a purpose. When we can see that they were not.
Last edited:
- Status