Atheism vs Agnostic (video #28 may 2015)

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "@Sheldon

Lion IRC "@Sheldon
All evidence is derived from the senses. That's science 101."

Oh not this bullshit again, can you really be so stupid as to believe science drives evidence SOLELY from an individuals subjective claims? Theists keep peddling this nonsense, and it's fooling no one who has even a tenuous grasp of the scientific process, you just failed science 101 by even mentioning it.

Lion IRC "If two theists BOTH report a supernatural experience (one says Zeus and the other says Ra) you are missing the evidentiary elephant in the room."

Argumentum ad populum fallacy, all I see is two different people making two different claims, based SOLELY on subjective opinion that they can demonstrate no objective evidence for.

Lion IRC "BTW so-called "secular countries" in Scandinavia which have a background history of thousand years of religious culture are hardly representative of what an atheistic culture would actually look like"

So you're throwing in another evidenced assumption for good measure, just why I guess only you know. FWIW they are examples of what secular democracies look like, and since I made no other assertion you've even added yet another straw man fallacy. This is the problem with theists and apologists, you don't even see your own relentless bias. NB note how your unevidenced fallacy doesn't actually address the point I was making, quelle surprise.

David Killens's picture
@ Lion IRC

@ Lion IRC

"If two theists BOTH report a supernatural experience (one says Zeus and the other says Ra) you are missing the evidentiary elephant in the room."

But in this elephant example, the observers could actually see, touch, smell, and taste the elephant. They also could converse with each other to confirm what their senses were telling them.

But in the case of your god, is there anything to see, touch, or smell or taste?

So please provide evidence for your god.

Whitefire13's picture
... And you are not me," said

... And you are not me," said Chuang Tzu. "So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?"

“I don’t have to be you,” says the friend, “to see that you are not a fish...it is your imagination Chaung, believing what you want doesn’t make it “so”.”
Chaung pouted...

cranky47's picture
@Whitefire

@Whitefire

“I don’t have to be you,” says the friend, “to see that you are not a fish...it is your imagination Chaung, believing what you want doesn’t make it “so”.”

-and who's been watching reruns of "Kung Fu ? Gee I loved that show. I thought it was deep. Of course at that age I would have thought Oprah Winfrey was deep.

In case you're too young to have seen it (I think some episodes are available free on Youtube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbNCBVzPYak

Whitefire13's picture
@Cranky - I’m to young but I

@Cranky - I’m to young but I’ll take a gander...

cranky47's picture
@white

@white

Sadly that show has not aged well, neither has its star David Caradine. In fact he's deceased, having had an accident whilst engaged in auto erotic asphyxiation.

Today the show just seems cheesy.

There was a meme going around at that time; " Who is that bald kid and why is the Chinese guy beating him with a pole?"

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

OT: you have twins 6 year olds? Wow! Do I envy you? Not for a second.

I'm the oldest of 4 siblings. One is 9 years younger than I, another is 13 years younger. . I changed a LOT of nappies (diapers) At that time nappies were soft cloth and needed to be cleaned and washed. You began with a bucket see------ Mum had a few dozen. Heaps of fun drying them in winter.

That was the base for my intense dislike of children. However, I'm confident any spawn of mine would be simply darling, as I'm sure yours are. Besides, today we have disposable nappies.

PS do you know of a legal way to dispose of disposable nappies?

David Killens's picture
@ cranky47

@ cranky47

"PS do you know of a legal way to dispose of disposable nappies?"

Claim they came from heaven and are angel poop? Then sell them on eBay to gullible christians? That is the business model of most televangelists.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "The most

Lion IRC "The most compelling evidence for the existence of God is direct, personal sensory experience."

That's not evidence, it's a claim for personal subjective experience.

Far more problematic for your bare claim is the fact we have seen theists of many different religions make precisely this claim for different religions and deities, and they cannot all be right, but they can of course all be wrong. Indeed I know that theists when proselytising will do their best to place potential recruits in a suggestible state and environment.

In a recent book I read examining secular societies like Norway and Denmark, some theists were interviewed for balance, and precisely this claim was offered to validate a person's belief in Thor, so surely you can see how this does not represent compelling evidence, no matter how compelling you personally find the experience.

Lion IRC "You can simply assert your atheistic disbelief - but you cant refute it."

If you had been born in China you'd likely be an atheist or a Buddhist, in the middle east you'd be a Muslim or Jewish, and in India a Hindu or a Sikh. So simple geography refutes your claim this is compelling evidence, and you since you cannot demonstrate it, and it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, there is nothing to refute is there? IT'S A CLAIM, it is not evidence.

As is so often the case, all you have done is what all theists do on here, and shown you are misrepresenting personal subjective beliefs as evidence. And far worse you have by your own admission claimed this to be your most compelling reason for believing, that paints you into something of corner from here.

Bumped

Sheldon's picture
theplagueiscomi... "Sheldon,

theplagueiscomi... "Sheldon, you are clueless insignificant punk"

I don't know what punk means, confusingly the dictionary defines it as a loud, fast-moving, and aggressive form of rock music, popular in the late 1970s. but yes I'll cough to being clueless occasionally, and insignificant. You seem vexed my friend, what ails you?

theplagueiscomi "Life if going to teach you some very hard lessons"

i don't doubt it, it has always done so, life can be like that. If you are implying something further, then you will have to spell it out more clearly for me, as I am clueless after all.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ dennis the menace

@ dennis the menace

Hey you canadian fart master. You are just fucking sad.

Whitefire13's picture
Oh god almighty!!!! Canadian,

Oh god almighty!!!! Canadian, eh?!?!? Read his rants in your “best Alex Jones” voice...

Ohhh, and on behalf of Canada, “I’m sorry, eh...”

@David - probably from your end of the country- our end is too rednecked... ;)

David Killens's picture
awww sheesh, can't we just

awww sheesh, can't we just ship this one nutcase out west? There are indications he may be a cowboy at heart.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Whitefire13's picture
@David...another reason I

@David...another reason I lovvvveeee Alberta!

I’m talking the overall visual...not the “asshole” specific part... ‘cause with the TP shortage this asshole is full of sshhhiiittt

Edited to add... pssst, David - it’s good to know, eh, we can outdo our Aussie brethren when it comes to “crazy”...

cranky47's picture
@White

@White

"Edited to add... pssst, David - it’s good to know, eh, we can outdo our Aussie brethren when it comes to “crazy”..."

It's nice that you think so. I gather you have never visited Northern Queensland?

.Known as 'The deep north" it's the buckle of the Aussie bible belt. Home of a thousand victims of the Nigerian Prince and other scams. The Gold Coast is arse deep in retirees, with all that implies. The type of person once called hippies are now called 'ferals' . .They live in the rain forests where they grow weed and produce tribes of free range children.

Dennis would fit right in.

Cognostic's picture
@David: WHAT! You wanna get

@David: WHAT! You wanna get rid of Tin Man? Okay, he got a bit carried away after the last eggnog party but that's no reason to scrap him.

Tin-Man's picture
...*suddenly bursting through

...*suddenly bursting through door*.... *breathing heavily*... Okay! Got here... *deep breath*... as quick as I could!... *pant-pant-pant*... What have I mis-... *looking around room*.... Uh, why is everybody staring at me?... *spotting cowboy pic*... *sudden surprised look*... Uh... errrr... Uh, look, uh, I can explain. So, uh, you see, uh, whuttahappenedwuz, uh, Cog bet me I couldn't lasso Old Man as he was riding around in circles on his trike singing "Rawhide" at the top of his lungs. So, uh, naturally, you know, I just HAD to go get my lasso... and cowboy hat... and chaps... and boots... and, uh... well, I was in a hurry, obviously, soooo.... *looking around room again*... HEY! STOP JUDGING ME!

Sheldon's picture
@theplagueiscomi...

@theplagueiscomi...

No sorry, still clueless as to what you're trying to say. However I do think you may want to check out the forum rules, the people who monitor this site are very patient, but I fear your stay may be as short as it has so far been unremarkable if you persist in the same vein.

Oh wait a minute I think I see where your cryptic rhetoric was going now. You're saying that your posts are tortuous, and they are of course.

Whitefire13's picture
@Sheldon/Lion

@Sheldon/Lion

Sometimes us kids like to play while the adults talk - but that plague guy..... fuucckkkkk ....

Anyway you many want to “bump” again. It’s interesting.

Sheldon's picture
@Whitefire13

@Whitefire13

being a resident of the UK, my posts often miss the initial discussion, and might often be lost. Sometimes I think it is useful to bump a post to the end of a thread as it makes it easier to find.

LogicFTW's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Sometimes I think it is useful to bump a post to the end of a thread as it makes it easier to find.

I try to do that too, especially when threads hit 50+ post.

Algebe's picture
@Lion IRC All evidence is

@Lion IRC All evidence is derived from the senses. That's science 101.......If two theists BOTH report a supernatural experience (one says Zeus and the other says Ra) you are missing the evidentiary elephant in the room.

So which senses do you experience the supernatural through? Blind faith seems to rule out eyesight. Given that it's all bullshit, I'm guessing smell.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "@Sheldon

Lion IRC "@Sheldon
All evidence is derived from the senses. That's science 101."

Oh not this bullshit again, can you really be so stupid as to believe science drives evidence SOLELY from an individuals subjective claims? Theists keep peddling this nonsense, and it's fooling no one who has even a tenuous grasp of the scientific process, you just failed science 101 by even mentioning it.

Lion IRC "If two theists BOTH report a supernatural experience (one says Zeus and the other says Ra) you are missing the evidentiary elephant in the room."

All I see is two different people making two different claims, based SOLELY on subjective opinion that they can demonstrate no objective evidence for. Claims that far from supporting each other, directly contradict each other.

Lion IRC "BTW so-called "secular countries" in Scandinavia which have a background history of thousand years of religious culture are hardly representative of what an atheistic culture would actually look like"

So you're throwing in another unevidenced assumption for good measure, just why I guess only you know. FWIW they are examples of what secular democracies look like, and since I made no other assertion you've even added yet another straw man fallacy. This is the problem with theists and apologists, you don't even see your own relentless bias. NB note how your unevidenced fallacy doesn't actually address the point I was making, quelle surprise.

So here is my point spelled out for you, are the claims of the people that they know Thor is real true, based solely on their personal experience? As you claim your experiences evidence your deity?

IF NOT, THEN WHY NOT? Do remember you already claimed your own personal experience is your most compelling reason to believe the deity you have chosen, is in fact real.Now we have testimony identical to yours, that Thor is real? Who to believe and why?

Bump

cranky47's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

"Oh not this bullshit again, can you really be so stupid as to believe science drives evidence SOLELY from an individuals subjective claims? "

Going by what's his names posts, the answer is obviously 'yes'.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Slightly OT but apropos. Indifference is a far greater insult than getting off one's trike and smashing the little red wagon of another.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cranky

@ Cranky

Leave my fucking trike alone.

cranky47's picture
@old man

@old man

"Leave my fucking trike alone."

Sorry, I was actually referring to mine. The pedals were broke, so I used it as a scooter for 10 years, at which time it was stolen.

David Killens's picture
Backs away ..................

Backs away .....................

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ DK Ha That's my OLD one....

@ DK
Ha That's my OLD one....

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Lion IRC's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

1. If the scientific method derives evidence from any source OTHER THAN sensory experience, you will need to explain how that can be. Maybe my philosophy of science books are out of date.

2. If two theists are both reporting the real experience of (for example) a burning bush or a voice in the clouds, and the first theist names that voice Yahweh while the second theist names the voice Thor, they are both (unintentionally) corroborating each other's sensory experience of evidence for what they both believe - theism.

3. For better evidence of what an atheist State looks like I think The USSR is a more realistic example than Sweden or Denmark or Norway. Most refugee migration is in the direction towards countries which allow freedom of religion. It's not called the opium of the masses for nothing.

Sheldon's picture
Lion IRC "1. If the

Lion IRC "1. If the scientific method derives evidence from any source OTHER THAN sensory experience, you will need to explain how that can be. Maybe my philosophy of science books are out of date.

Here was my original point:

Sheldon Oh not this bullshit again, can you really be so stupid as to believe science drives evidence SOLELY from an individuals subjective claims? Theists keep peddling this nonsense, and it's fooling no one who has even a tenuous grasp of the scientific process, you just failed science 101 by even mentioning it.

So firstly I never claimed anything about the use of our senses, and you seem to be claiming again that scientific facts are based SOLELY on personal subjective claims? Which as I said is bullshit, and it is demonstrably risible to make such an absurd claim or comparison, then to talk about science 101. The fact humans must use their senses, doesn't mean your unevidenced, unfalsifiable and untestable personal subjective experience is remotely comparable to the modern scientific method, which has to be supported by objective evidence, must be falsifiable, and testable, and the results must reach the same conclusion regardless of who is repeating the tests, not you claiming Jesus and someone else claiming Thor.

One more time then SCIENCE IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Scientific facts are objectively verifiable, they must also be falsifiable, and your personal subjective experience is not, though it is at odds with all other theists making the same claim, but coming up with different results.

Lion IRC "2. If two theists are both reporting the real experience ....they are both (unintentionally) corroborating each other's sensory experience of evidence for....theism."

Another argument from assertion fallacy, you cannot simply claim your experience is real, a point you seem determined to ignore. You have to demonstrate some objective evidence it is real, and it is beyond absurd to claim that other theists coming to different conclusions based on their personal subjective experience corroborates your own conclusion. How the fuck does two people making unevidenced subjective claims about their personal experience, and coming totally different conclusions corroborate those conclusions? That is the very antithesis of the modern scientific method. Where the same evidence is rigorously tested, and must always reach the same conclusion in order to be objectively valid, science has fuck all to do with subjective personal experience, and the fact humans have to use their senses doesn't change that, you're claim is totally asinine.

Lion IRC "3. For better evidence of what an atheist State looks like I think The USSR is a more realistic example than Sweden or Denmark or Norway"

Wow, you are relentlessly dishonest, so here is my post again then...

Sheldon "So you're throwing in another unevidenced assumption for good measure, just why I guess only you know. FWIW they are examples of what secular democracies look like, and since I made no other assertion you've even added yet another straw man fallacy."

So first;you ignored your original straw man fallacy, which is dishonest enough, then secondly you ignored the fact I said secular democracies, not totalitarian states like the former Soviet Union. Modern Russia is still a dictatorship and not a democracy, though it is no longer a secular state, something else you seem to be unaware of. So a totalitarian state like Russia has fuck all to do with my original post, beyond your blinkered hatred of atheism and secularism.

Please stop misrepresenting my posts, as although I cut people some slack my patience for dishonesty in debate is not limitless.

Algebe's picture
@Logic IRC: For better

@Logic IRC: For better evidence of what an atheist State looks like I think The USSR is a more realistic example

Well that's rather a shallow analysis.

Stalin was able to establish totalitarian rule because the Russian people had been conditioned to paternalistic tyranny by centuries under the Orthodox church. Stalin knew all the tricks because he started out training to be a priest. Putin is still exploiting the power of the church to cement his dictatorship.

Can you imagine such a monstrous system taking over in secular democratic states like Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, or the UK? Dictators need religion to keep the people stupid and ignorant.

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." --Napoleon Bonaparte

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.