This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Awesome article on modern Atheism

#71Dathrowed1(Topic Creator)Posted 7/17/2014 9:53:48 AM
With that in do you still fail to see why the author says Dawkins is being lazy?
---
sig
#72DarkContractorPosted 7/18/2014 7:57:39 AM
Dathrowed1 posted...
I am not accusing them of believing fundamentalism is the only religion, but that their arguments only work under that assumption.


They have specific arguments for specific religions. I've already referenced one of the arguments the 'horsemen' atheists use for liberal beliefs. Not that I think it's a particularly good one, but that's independent from whether or not their arguments against fundamentalist beliefs are the same.

I mean look at Jon's article from your group. It says we have to view it from a cultural context. I didn't know the Israelite were the way 20th century western secularist convenience them to be.


Red herring

Also I think what you're saying is that you disagree with what scholars believe to be the culture. This is something debatable and they would of course welcome criticism, as far as I know, unless you have some examples to tell me why I'm wrong.Of course 'convenience' here is a loaded word which seems to suggest that you think they deliberately distort information which seems to be an empty accusation.

So I am not supposed to read the bible with an open mind but with the mindset of a 20th century western secularist.


No, you're not supposed to assume atheists think attacking fundamentalism disproves all religions or whatever.

Here's a handy quote from Richard Dawkins btw.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in may cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the then Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions.
(From the Greatest Show on Earth)
---
facebook.com/uninterestingdebateshow
#73Dathrowed1(Topic Creator)Posted 7/18/2014 10:10:32 AM(edited)
I think if they would welcome criticism they wouldn't base their assumptions on the documentary theory. Also their arguments wouldn't be so contradicting

I also don't think the convenience is done purposefully anymore than when I pronounce the Spanish word "esta" as "ehta".

From my red herring you give a non-sequitor.

I also think use of "liberal beliefs" is apart of the problem too.
---
sig
#74epictetus1216Posted 7/19/2014 3:41:27 PM
Dathrowed1 posted...
I think one of the problems with Dawkins (who I hate to pick on right now) is that he's pretty much a baptist minister for atheists. With the credentials and authority he has it doesn't whether he believes what he writes or not, I agree with that. I think the problem comes when his followers take his word for gospel instead of thinking critically.


Actually, I think his followers consider him a champion of critical thinking, and that's why they ARE his followers. I also think he does, in fact, believe what he writes. He's a crusader with a cause and his "pen" is his weapon. He is determined to advance the cause for atheism.
#75yevgrafPosted 7/19/2014 10:24:17 PM
master_gamr1231 posted...
SSj4Wingzero posted...
To some people, it's so blatantly obvious that God is real that the person asking for evidence is the arrogant one. Which is the point - it all depends on your perspective. If, as most atheists likely do, you approach the topic thinking of atheism as the "default setting" or "null hypothesis", and the existence of God as an "alternative hypothesis", if you will, then certainly you're going to want proof.

But someone who approaches it from a different angle, with the presence of a creator as a "null hypothesis" and the absence of one as an "alternative hypothesis", to him, you're going to have to prove that God is not real.

And because proof of God's existence or lack thereof currently sits outside the bounds of human knowability, it's not fair to say which option deserves to be the "null hypothesis", if you will, because that requires human judgment and perception, and thus is left to the discretion of the person. You see the world, and you find it obvious that God is not real, thus you ask for proof that he is from the people you disagree with. I see the world, find it blatantly obvious that God is real, thus, I'll ask for proof that he isn't. I don't bother proving that he is, because it's so obvious to me that I don't need to waste my time.


This contradicts the very definition of "null hypothesis." The null is defined as the hypothesis which states no correlation, or absence; in this case, referring to the existence of god. The whole idea behind it is that you need evidence to prove "something" rather than "nothing." Framing the null as a hypothesis that posits something's existence is warping statistics.


The null hypothesis here would be that there is no God.
#76master_gamr1231Posted 7/19/2014 11:08:28 PM
yevgraf posted...
master_gamr1231 posted...
SSj4Wingzero posted...
To some people, it's so blatantly obvious that God is real that the person asking for evidence is the arrogant one. Which is the point - it all depends on your perspective. If, as most atheists likely do, you approach the topic thinking of atheism as the "default setting" or "null hypothesis", and the existence of God as an "alternative hypothesis", if you will, then certainly you're going to want proof.

But someone who approaches it from a different angle, with the presence of a creator as a "null hypothesis" and the absence of one as an "alternative hypothesis", to him, you're going to have to prove that God is not real.

And because proof of God's existence or lack thereof currently sits outside the bounds of human knowability, it's not fair to say which option deserves to be the "null hypothesis", if you will, because that requires human judgment and perception, and thus is left to the discretion of the person. You see the world, and you find it obvious that God is not real, thus you ask for proof that he is from the people you disagree with. I see the world, find it blatantly obvious that God is real, thus, I'll ask for proof that he isn't. I don't bother proving that he is, because it's so obvious to me that I don't need to waste my time.


This contradicts the very definition of "null hypothesis." The null is defined as the hypothesis which states no correlation, or absence; in this case, referring to the existence of god. The whole idea behind it is that you need evidence to prove "something" rather than "nothing." Framing the null as a hypothesis that posits something's existence is warping statistics.


The null hypothesis here would be that there is no God.


I know. I said that.
---
Why do people... betray one another? They might as well... all just die instead.
Welcome to my kingdom!
#77The ApologistPosted 7/19/2014 11:25:38 PM
The methodological framework that involves the notion 'null hypothesis' applies only to empirical questions, and so not to the question whether a deity exists (construed as an abstract philosophical question).
---
GameFAQs' best guitarist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY69_OpAklM
#78yevgrafPosted 7/20/2014 11:56:46 PM
master_gamr1231 posted...
yevgraf posted...
master_gamr1231 posted...
SSj4Wingzero posted...
To some people, it's so blatantly obvious that God is real that the person asking for evidence is the arrogant one. Which is the point - it all depends on your perspective. If, as most atheists likely do, you approach the topic thinking of atheism as the "default setting" or "null hypothesis", and the existence of God as an "alternative hypothesis", if you will, then certainly you're going to want proof.

But someone who approaches it from a different angle, with the presence of a creator as a "null hypothesis" and the absence of one as an "alternative hypothesis", to him, you're going to have to prove that God is not real.

And because proof of God's existence or lack thereof currently sits outside the bounds of human knowability, it's not fair to say which option deserves to be the "null hypothesis", if you will, because that requires human judgment and perception, and thus is left to the discretion of the person. You see the world, and you find it obvious that God is not real, thus you ask for proof that he is from the people you disagree with. I see the world, find it blatantly obvious that God is real, thus, I'll ask for proof that he isn't. I don't bother proving that he is, because it's so obvious to me that I don't need to waste my time.


This contradicts the very definition of "null hypothesis." The null is defined as the hypothesis which states no correlation, or absence; in this case, referring to the existence of god. The whole idea behind it is that you need evidence to prove "something" rather than "nothing." Framing the null as a hypothesis that posits something's existence is warping statistics.


The null hypothesis here would be that there is no God.


I know. I said that.


Just affirming what you said.
#79SSj4WingzeroPosted 7/21/2014 5:15:40 AM
It's not even a good comparison since it can't be proven through empirical evidence. It's apples and oranges. It was my mistake for lending credence to your argument.
---
Not changing this sig until the Knicks win the NBA Championship! Started...4/23/2011? Or was it 2010?
#80DarkContractorPosted 7/23/2014 8:21:39 PM
Dathrowed1 posted...
I think if they would welcome criticism they wouldn't base their assumptions on the documentary theory. Also their arguments wouldn't be so contradicting


I don't see what basing your assumptions off documentary hypothesis/having bad/contradictory arguments has to do with being open minded about other arguments.

I also don't think the convenience is done purposefully anymore than when I pronounce the Spanish word "esta" as "ehta".


I don't know Spanish so I don't know what to take from that.

From my red herring you give a non-sequitor.


Where did I get fallacious?

I also think use of "liberal beliefs" is apart of the problem too.


I agree, but I was having trouble thinking of a good adjective that sounded less awkward (noto say 'liberal' isn't awkward itself). Suggestions?
---
facebook.com/uninterestingdebateshow