Does Dawkins exist?
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Apollo - "I simply believe that the universe is a creation. So then it is reasonable (coherent) to believe there is a creator of it."
Oh let me try:
I simply believe that the universe is an ice-cream cone. So then it is reasonable (coherent) to believe there is an icecream scooper it came from.
Even an ice cream cone had a creator. So what's your point?
Appolo - "Even an ice cream cone had a creator. So what's your point? "
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of m̲i̲s̲u̲n̲d̲e̲r̲s̲t̲a̲n̲d̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲e̲s̲t̲ ̲a̲r̲g̲u̲m̲e̲n̲t̲s̲ if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means p̲r̲o̲t̲e̲c̲t̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲s̲t̲u̲p̲i̲d̲i̲t̲y̲." -George Orwell
I believe that it is arrogant to think that with all the stars in the universe we are the only intelligent beings to exist in it. I believe in aliens because I have a general idea of what is required to create them, namely, some chemical compounds. This doesn't mean I know how to create them, but it does mean that I can rule out some environments for life to exist. You don't even know what is required for your god to exist so my belief in aliens trumps your belief in god.
"I believe that it is arrogant to think that with all the stars in the universe we are the only intelligent beings to exist in it."
I agree.
"Hello folks. I'm a newbie here and just thought I'd introduce a subject in perhaps a way that I hadn't noticed use before."
Welcome.
"I'm a thiest and don't apologize for it, despite the fact that some believe theism is evil."
Um, okay. I neither expect you to apologize for your beliefs, nor believe that you are inherently evil because of them. The ONLY thing I would ever expect someone to apologize for is actions, so unless you are doing something unconscionable, an apology seems a bit presumptive.
"But my topic isn't evil at the moment. My topic is more in the realm of how do we know this or that?"
Good. Evil would be a difficult topic, as I don't think we have anything but a vague idea of what would constitute what one considers 'evil'. We certainly can't quantify it, and I have never heard someone say that something was either three pounds or joules of evil, so it would be a rather wishy-wasy topic. So, on to epistemology, or do we know what we know?
"So I wondered if I could prove Dawkins exists."
If he exists, yes you could. You could conceivably amass every single piece of evidence available, if one cared to, and prove he exists to the same degree that you can prove that you do.
"The parallel is obvious."
To what? Not god, I hope. Richard Dawkins is many things, but a god he is not. The two are not equivocal, I am sure you would agree, and Dawkins does not have any of the questionable properties that supernatural beings are supposed to have.
"I've never seen him, so if seeing is believing, then I suppose I should think he doesn't exist, or at least that I have no proof of his existence."
Nonsense. You believe in air, do you not? So 'seeing is believing' is a rather silly assessment. Moreover, have you ever watched a magician? Did you believe they really perform 'magic'? No, we do not believe something based on whether or not we can see it, do we?
"But I do believe he exists, so obviously I think that I don't have to have direct observation to reasonably believe he exists."
Indeed, indirect observation also is a thing, and it can provide a great deal of evidence. We do not know of black holes because of what they reflect(what we can see), because they do not reflect anything. Instead we look for what should be there and isn't, the distortions of medium(light and waves) that they cause, and infer from these that there is an object there distorting and absorbing light and energy.
"One reason I believe he exists is I read a book called The Blind Watch Maker.
Well, I suppose. A book he is claimed to have written is pretty good evidence that he may exist, or might have existed. Or, at least, decent evidence that someone is running around claiming to be a man named Richard Dawkins.
"Based on an intelligent design type argument, I think Dawkins exists."
Nah, because some authors use pseudonyms, which means that a book by Richard Bachman does not necessarily prove the existence of Richard Bachman.
"My personal opinion is if I can believe Dawkins exist based on indirect evidence, what could stop me from believing there is a creator of the universe?"
Because a book is different from a rock. We have no good reason to assume that a rock, or the universe, require beings with agency to create them. Unfortunately, books do. Well, most books; I have read some stupid fucking books that make me wonder at times...
"My opinion at the moment is that proving Dawkins exists, is in the same boat as proving a creator of the universe exists."
Not even close. The existence of Dawkins only presumes the existence of ANOTHER human with the surname Dawkins. The existence of a god presumes that such an existence is even possible, contrary to what we know of biology and the universe. We have ample reason to conclude that the existence of a human Dawkins is possible, and not a single good or compelling reason to conclude that a god is.
"so if I believe one, why would it be unreasonable to believe the other?"
In my view, believing in unsupported(and mostly unsupportable) nonsense for no good reason IS unreasonable. I suppose if you think believing in Zeus is completely reasonable for the same reasons you believe your god is reasonable, then I suppose you would see it as reasonable.
Travis,
I'd like to point out that my views of what knowledge is and how it is arrived at is very much influenced by an atheist scientist. One implication of that is I have an open mind to the thoughts and reasoning’s of worthy atheists.
I believe that human knowledge is:
A correct inference reached within a true system.
I take that directly from an atheist scientist, a chemist. A "true system" is a reliable framework for knowledge, a personal system of beliefs, that is always operative in the act of knowing. There is no guarantee that any persons framework for knowledge is in fact true. Its truth ultimately relies on the reliability and validity of the persons judgment. The judgment of some far exceeds the judgment of the many because they spend a lifetime honing their skills and judgment in a specific field.
One of your main inferences is “a book is different from a rock”. In what way? Well according to you, a rock doesn’t require agency to create them thereby implying that a book does require agency. Your implicit claim that a rock does not require agency is your assumption. How do you know it doesn’t require agency? You just declare “a rock doesn’t require agency” to exist therefore, a rock is different to a book”. I accept that you have faith in that claim, but I don’t accept you can prove “rocks don’t require agency” to exist; rather, you just believe it. For all I know, you have that faith for social reasons.
To me the atoms and sub atomic components that constitute rocks are invention like entities. That’s my personal belief, and there is no good reason to assume it is irrational. Similarly, I believe a living cell is an invention like entity. Given that, there is no good reason to think belief in an inventor/creator is irrational.
There is no good reason to assume an invention like entity such as an atom or living cell must not have an inventor or creator.
Other items:
You claim that black holes don't emit anything. However, apparently the atheist and scientist Hawking claimed they do despite the scientific orthodoxy of the day. His claim was taken to be preposterous, but eventually it was accepted. And speaking of Hawking, in one of his books he outlined his view on the evolution of the universe from the big bang onward but acknowledged he can't prove his view, and accepts it on faith. He is a deep thinker and a good atheist, partly because he doesn't waste energy vainly trying to claim he has no beliefs, and no faith.
And speaking of evolution, it illustrates, in part, how science establishes fact and I believe it can be very instructive for whose with an open mind. Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and science takes it as a fact. Yet no one observed this primordial soup in which some rudimentary form of life emerged. So science doesn't need to observe something to take it as a fact. Too, the fact of evolution was not derived from experimental results, so experiment isn't always required by science to establish fact. I might add to this that Einstein took his theory of relativity as a *fact* prior to any empirical type verification. Again, that illustrates that good science doesn't always require experimental or observational verification to establish a fact.
One of my underlying points is that atheists on this site seem to think that they must not have beliefs and faith; I think that is destructive to you and your world view. Hawking and some other atheists are high level thinkers who don’t think like you guys do. They are aware of their assumptions and faith and don’t try to deny it.
One of your underlying beliefs and faith is, rocks don’t require agency to exist. That is just your faith.
"I'd like to point out that my views of what knowledge is and how it is arrived at is very much influenced by an atheist scientist. One implication of that is I have an open mind to the thoughts and reasoning’s of worthy atheists."
I am not quite sure what that has to do with anything I bothered to type.
"I believe that human knowledge is:
A correct inference reached within a true system.
I take that directly from an atheist scientist, a chemist. A "true system" is a reliable framework for knowledge, a personal system of beliefs, that is always operative in the act of knowing. There is no guarantee that any persons framework for knowledge is in fact true. Its truth ultimately relies on the reliability and validity of the persons judgment. The judgment of some far exceeds the judgment of the many because they spend a lifetime honing their skills and judgment in a specific field."
Still waiting for something to respond directly to...
"One of your main inferences is “a book is different from a rock”. In what way?
We know that a rock is cooled magma or petrified sediment, and that these things do not require any input but natural processes to occur. Books, in the context it was used, are compilations of sequential pages of paper which are bound together and has language imprinted upon them. One requires only natural process with no discernible input by any being with agency, the other requires artificial processes and mediums which are only possible via beings with sentience and agency.
There is quite a great deal of difference, and anyone pretending otherwise could only be practicing intellectual dishonesty to an obscene degree rarely even seen by young earth creationists.
"Well according to you, a rock doesn’t require agency to create them thereby implying that a book does require agency."
Indeed, but not only agency, but language as well. The two are very obviously distinct from each other.
"Your implicit claim that a rock does not require agency is your assumption."
It is also a fact in every single instance that it can be verified, but of course you would fail to mention that, wouldn't you...
"How do you know it doesn’t require agency?"
Because we can observe it happening naturally in real time, whereas, the only examples of books that have ever been found did not occur naturally.
"You just declare “a rock doesn’t require agency” to exist therefore, a rock is different to a book”."
True, I did declare it, mainly because I knew most of the people here are not so incompetent as to not know that rocks occur naturally.
"I accept that you have faith in that claim, but I don’t accept you can prove “rocks don’t require agency” to exist; rather, you just believe it."
We can observe it in real time, you are literally shitting on geology wholesale now, care to deal with the entire MOUNTAINS of observations by geologists that say you are full of crap?
"For all I know, you have that faith for social reasons."
Nope, scientific reasons, unlike your apparent faith that rocks must be magicked into existence by fairies despite us observing their formation in real time.
"To me the atoms and sub atomic components that constitute rocks are invention like entities."
Most of them are actually produced inside suns via a natural process called thermal nucleosynthesis or stellar nucleosynthesis, and we have observed it from our own sun in real time too.
"That’s my personal belief, and there is no good reason to assume it is irrational."
Considering we have no reason to believe it, and many good scientific ones not to, there is.
"Similarly, I believe a living cell is an invention like entity."
I am sure you do, I am sure you believe in all sorts of things without very good reasons to do so. That is but one of the ways we are different.
"Given that, there is no good reason to think belief in an inventor/creator is irrational."
Only the same 'no god reasons' that most of us believe that believers in fairies, unicorns, and dragons are irrational.
"There is no good reason to assume an invention like entity such as an atom or living cell must not have an inventor or creator."
You are assuming that they are 'invention like entities', a statement as presumptive and couched with baggage as 'creator', and bound to make anyone dismiss it for the question begging confirmation bias that it obviously is.
"You claim that black holes don't emit anything."
As far as we know, at this moment, they do not. The claim of a signal that is closely related to black hole Hawking radiation (that was analog gravity) was said to have been observed in a laboratory experiment involving optical light pulses. However, the results remain unverifiable and heavily contentious.
"However, apparently the atheist and scientist Hawking claimed they do despite the scientific orthodoxy of the day. His claim was taken to be preposterous, but eventually it was accepted."
Not hardly, it is still quite a highly questionable and hotly debated among actual astrophysicists because of the problem of it currently requiring a particle with an infinite wavelength and the appearance of quantities beyond the planck scale.
"And speaking of Hawking, in one of his books he outlined his view on the evolution of the universe from the big bang onward but acknowledged he can't prove his view, and accepts it on faith."
He only acknowledged that he couldn't prove it with the instruments and data at the time, if he had the data necessary to prove it, he could. He said as much himself.
"He is a deep thinker and a good atheist, partly because he doesn't waste energy vainly trying to claim he has no beliefs, and no faith."
All facts are beliefs, but not all beliefs are facts or even based on them.
"And speaking of evolution, it illustrates, in part, how science establishes fact and I believe it can be very instructive for whose with an open mind. Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and science takes it as a fact. Yet no one observed this primordial soup in which some rudimentary form of life emerged. So science doesn't need to observe something to take it as a fact."
The old 'You weren't there!' argument. By the same logic, since you have never actually been in space, you can't really be sure it is there. It is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest damned arguments ever uttered; and a prime example of how laypeople don't understand a damned thing about science. You are welcome to ignore the libraries full of indirect observation and evidence, and observed speciation using laboratory pressures if you wish. However, the mere fact that you fail to mention them at all tells us not only how dishonest the person using the argument is, but how dishonest the argument is as a whole.
"Too, the fact of evolution was not derived from experimental results, so experiment isn't always required by science to establish fact."
We have used two types of experiments involving evolution. One was on living populations both in the wild and in the lab, the other regarding where and how deep we should find a particular link in fossil evidence.
I passed both, and the results are well documented. The fact that you don't even bother to mention it, tells me all I really need to know.
"I might add to this that Einstein took his theory of relativity as a *fact* prior to any empirical type verification."
Because he had mathematical proof and it was the only viable explanation for observed phenomena. He also hotly disputed the existence of black holes for a great deal of his life, as he didn't believe they existed. People taking their theories as fact may be common, but they are not always right, and the science does not always agree with them. Einstein was forced, in the later years of his life, to admit that black holes might exist. Why? Because he was wrong, and his position was built upon unjustified assumptions much like many of yours appear to be.
"Again, that illustrates that good science doesn't always require experimental or observational verification to establish a fact."
One would hardly call an individuals predilection to believe their own hypothesis 'good science', nor would they argue for the merest fraction of an instant that it so much implies that the hypothesis must be correct.
"One of my underlying points is that atheists on this site seem to think that they must not have beliefs and faith; I think that is destructive to you and your world view. Hawking and some other atheists are high level thinkers who don’t think like you guys do. They are aware of their assumptions and faith and don’t try to deny it."
I am not sure exactly what that has to do with my answers thus far.
"One of your underlying beliefs and faith is, rocks don’t require agency to exist. That is just your faith."
Read a geology textbook. Better yet, talk to actual field geologists. Despite the fact that they will make you rather embarrassed of this particular claim, you will actually learn a little something about the planet you actually live on, and not the imaginary one in your head.
Hi Travis,
1. 'We know that a rock is cooled magma or petrified sediment, and that these things do not require any input but natural processes to occur." You seem to be assuming that magma always existed. But it is pretty obvious that around the time of the Big Bang, it didn't. What precipitated the Big Bang? And what makes it impossible for the Big Bang to be precipitated by a Creator? Travis, your perspective is shaped by your faith that no agency was required for the Big Bang and the development thereafter. Rock, presupposes the Big Bang. Your faith assumes only natural processes prior to the Big Bang, where as other people have a different faith that you disaprove of.
2. "Your implicit claim that a rock does not require agency is your assumption."
It is also a fact in every single instance that it can be verified, but of course you would fail to mention that, wouldn't you...
See section 1. It is your faith that no agency was required to precipitate the big bang.
3. "How do you know it doesn’t require agency?"
Because we can observe it happening naturally in real time, whereas, the only examples of books that have ever been found did not occur naturally.
Well, again, the universe appears to have a long history during which magma didn't always exist. Magma presupposes the big bang and we don't know what precipitated the Big Bang. It could have been some agent involved. You do, however assume that only natural process precipitated the Big Bang. I'm not against you having that faith. I'm just curious what makes most atheists want to avoid or deny their faith.
4. We can observe it in real time, you are literally shitting on geology wholesale now, care to deal with the entire MOUNTAINS of observations by geologists that say you are full of crap? You seem like an angry, yet faithful character. Such mountains of rock did not always exist. Again, the current mountains are the consequence of apparent evolutionary processes subsequent to the big Bang. Your implicit faith is that prior to the Big Bang, only natural process were at work. It is not impossible that some agent was at work, and agent who invented the evolutionary processes. You see, it isn't logically necessary that only natural processes precipitated the big bang. It is only a possibility, and you apparently accept that possibility on faith.
5. Nope, scientific reasons, unlike your apparent faith that rocks must be magicked into existence by fairies despite us observing their formation in real time.
Travis, your tacit presupposition that only natural process could have precipitated the Big Bang is your faith. Nothing wrong with that - I don't see a conflict with faith and science.
6."To me the atoms and sub atomic components that constitute rocks are invention like entities."
Most of them are actually produced inside suns via a natural process called thermal nucleosynthesis or stellar nucleosynthesis, and we have observed it from our own sun in real time too.
So what? We again go to, Where did the suns come from? Similar to your previous comments, you presuppose, assume, believe, that only natural processes could have precipitated the Big Bang. There is nothing anti scientific if you acknowledge your assumptions. In fact it is better science if you are aware of, and acknowledge your unprovable beliefs.
7."Similarly, I believe a living cell is an invention like entity."
I am sure you do, I am sure you believe in all sorts of things without very good reasons to do so. That is but one of the ways we are different.
Travis, your statement with the phrase, "I am sure you believe in all sorts of things without good reason" is just Sophistry. What makes you so sure? there is nothing wrong with differing perspectives. So you believe different fro me. So what? As you have pointed out natural scientists disagree with each other. What is the source in your view of differing views between scientists? And come to think if it, What is the source of differing views between atheists?
8. "There is no good reason to assume an invention like entity such as an atom or living cell must not have an inventor or creator."
You are assuming that they are 'invention like entities', a statement as presumptive and couched with baggage as 'creator', and bound to make anyone dismiss it for the question begging confirmation bias that it obviously is.
Travis you get points for identifying an assumption. And you have assumptions too.
9. All facts are beliefs, but not all beliefs are facts or even based on them.
I agree.
10. "And speaking of evolution, it illustrates, in part, how science establishes fact and I believe it can be very instructive for whose with an open mind. Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and science takes it as a fact. Yet no one observed this primordial soup in which some rudimentary form of life emerged. So science doesn't need to observe something to take it as a fact."
The old 'You weren't there!' argument. By the same logic, since you have never actually been in space, you can't really be sure it is there. It is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest damned arguments ever uttered; and a prime example of how laypeople don't understand a damned thing about science. You are welcome to ignore the libraries full of indirect observation and evidence, and observed speciation using laboratory pressures if you wish. However, the mere fact that you fail to mention them at all tells us not only how dishonest the person using the argument is, but how dishonest the argument is as a whole.
Are you sure you read what I wrote? You seem to be responding to something in your imagination.
11. People taking their theories as fact may be common, but they are not always right, and the science does not always agree with them.
I agree.
I think the best thing you wrote is "Facts are beliefs...."
Besides that I like you bringing up instances of scientists not agreeing with each other, and instances when they made mistakes. That's excellent and unexpected on this site. It was unexpected because I often get the argument form atheists that science is perfect, and atheists are science based, therefore atheists are perfect. Clearly an unproven part of the atheist world view.
Travis, although not perfect, you are a cut above the usual response I get here on Atheist Republic. Keep up the good work. I am still puzzled about what makes atheists want to deny their presuppositions?
"1. 'We know that a rock is cooled magma or petrified sediment, and that these things do not require any input but natural processes to occur." You seem to be assuming that magma always existed. But it is pretty obvious that around the time of the Big Bang, it didn't. What precipitated the Big Bang? And what makes it impossible for the Big Bang to be precipitated by a Creator? Travis, your perspective is shaped by your faith that no agency was required for the Big Bang and the development thereafter. Rock, presupposes the Big Bang. Your faith assumes only natural processes prior to the Big Bang, where as other people have a different faith that you disaprove of."
This is a masturbatory fantasy. You are essentially stating that it isn't enough to state that chicken nuggets came from chickens, but if you don't know where the first egg came from, you don't really know what the nugget was made of. It is stupid, a lame and obvious attempt to move goalposts, and really quite dishonest. If I pick up a rock, I can actually find out how it formed and where it came from, I do not NEED to account for the big bang to do so. This was, perhaps, the most retarded argument ever squirted out upon the internet.
"2. "Your implicit claim that a rock does not require agency is your assumption."
It is also a fact in every single instance that it can be verified, but of course you would fail to mention that, wouldn't you...
See section 1. It is your faith that no agency was required to precipitate the big bang."
More ignorance or incompetence.
"3. "How do you know it doesn’t require agency?"
Because we can observe it happening naturally in real time, whereas, the only examples of books that have ever been found did not occur naturally.
Well, again, the universe appears to have a long history during which magma didn't always exist.
You know what also didn't always exist? You. So it eminently possible that if you ever have children, I can tell them that they don't exist. Squirt this puerile nonsense somewhere else.
4. Such mountains of rock did not always exist.
Again, we don't need to explain where the universe or planet came from to determine how rocks form today, you massive boob.
"Travis, your tacit presupposition that only natural process could have precipitated the Big Bang is your faith."
We haven't even discussed the big bang, yet, and I don't think I want to with you. I don't know what caused the big bang, and I don't need to just to be able to tell where a rock came from, you slimy con.
"So what? We again go to, Where did the suns come from?"
Your appeals to infinite regression are silly and stupefied.
"Travis, your statement with the phrase, "I am sure you believe in all sorts of things without good reason" is just Sophistry. What makes you so sure? there is nothing wrong with differing perspectives. So you believe different fro me. So what? As you have pointed out natural scientists disagree with each other. What is the source in your view of differing views between scientists? And come to think if it, What is the source of differing views between atheists?"
No, it isn't just sophistry. I don't use the fact that I do not know, or cannot explain a thing, to posit nonsensical and paradoxically impossible beings as the cause of them.
"Travis you get points for identifying an assumption. And you have assumptions too."
Nope, I don't assume intent without cause, you do.
"Are you sure you read what I wrote?"
Yep, I did, and addressed it directly.
"I think the best thing you wrote is "Facts are beliefs....""
Don't leave off the second part, as that is the one that applies to you.
"Besides that I like you bringing up instances of scientists not agreeing with each other, and instances when they made mistakes. That's excellent and unexpected on this site. It was unexpected because I often get the argument form atheists that science is perfect, and atheists are science based, therefore atheists are perfect. Clearly an unproven part of the atheist world view."
I have not, in a single instance ever, heard an atheist argue that science is perfect or omniscient. They usually only argue that it is the BEST method for determining validity, which is different. While I constantly hear religious people argue that if enough people believe something hard enough, that must make it true!
Travis you are obviously very angry that the universe had a beginning and you can't prove your faith about its beginning. Your anger has nothing to do with me.
1. We haven't even discussed the big bang, yet, and I don't think I want to with you. I don't know what caused the big bang, and I don't need to just to be able to tell where a rock came from, you slimy con.
Its obvious Travis, that "you slimy con" has nothing to do with science or your faith about natural processes. I suspect that when Einstein was forced to admit he was mistaken about something, he was much more gracious.
So anyway, I'll try this again:
"And speaking of evolution, it illustrates, in part, how science establishes fact and I believe it can be very instructive for whose with an open mind. Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and science takes it as a fact. Yet no one observed this primordial soup in which some rudimentary form of life emerged. So science doesn't need to observe something to take it as a fact."
You see Travis, I believe in evolution, and I take it as a fact. Her eis a quote from my statement: "Personally I believe in the theory of evolution..."
Apparently you have some problem with that, but I am not sure what it is.
Too, you obviously want to discuss magma after it existed, and not before it existed. That's an arbitrary cut off that happens to suit your personal faith, and your desire to not discuss origins, and to avoid an infinite regression of natural processes. You are in fear and trembling of the topic of what precipitated the big bang because your world view will imply that it is an infinite regression of natural processes. In my view there is nothing wrong with such a faith. But I am puzzled about what makes many atheists so worried about it? You (atheists) seem to want to be perceived as having a special corner on the truth that none else has, but you also sense that the foundation for such a special corner on the truth is a phantom.
You see, Travis, science is tied to unprovable assumptions, presuppositions, and implications. But you can't accept that because it interferes with your personal subjective faith.
I'm glad you acknowledge science is not perfect or omniscient. That's not the impression I get from some other atheists on this site.
Here is the reason you are so fundamentally intellectually bankrupt:
The question was about how rocks formed. If I asked a question about how a big mac was formed, would we talk about the evolution of cows? No. Would we talk about the parents of the cow the beef came from? No. Would we talk about biogenesis or abiogenesis? No. No reasonable person would, because they would understand what the hell we are talking about, and wouldn't feel the need to forever shift goalposts in an infinite regression of causes to the very beginnings of the fucking universe just to explain a goddamned burger. Why? Because it doesn't add anything relevant to the conversation about how big macs are made.
When we talk about rocks, and how they formed, we are limiting our discussion to the formation of rocks. We are NOT talking about the big bang, or any other such nonsense unrelated to the direct formation of the rocks. The mere fact that you felt it necessary to use such a slippery, SLIMY, fucking argument tells anybody all they really need to know about your position.
Hi Travis,
The thread title was does Dawkins exist, the apparent creator of a book, and that was compared to existence of a universe creator God.
So no, the question was not How rocks formed. You wish the question was that, and you wish you could arbitrarily change the topic. So if you think how rocks formed is relevant to an atheist website my best suggestion is for you to start your own thread on how rocks formed and relate that topic to atheism. I await your thread on that topic and if you have any thing of substance to say, I might join in, but I doubt geology can prove your atheist world view.
In the meantime, could you give me a reference for your statement -
"He only acknowledged that he couldn't prove it with the instruments and data at the time, if he had the data necessary to prove it, he could. He said as much himself."
as I would like to look it up. Essentially what you are claiming is he could prove it without any premise. Travis all proofs are tied in some way to one or more assumptions. You are trying to convince me there are proofs without any presuppositions. I'm not sure I buy that Travis.
I wrote earlier that I believe in evolution, and accept it as fact. You then went on some rant about outer space. You seem to be very sensitive about scientific fact where no direct observation was or could be made. I'm not myself. What's your problem?
Travis, you are an angry person obsessed with items irrelevant to the thread topic, and it has nothing to do with me. You write as if you are being persecuted. If you carry on in your life like you carry on here, you are going to crack if you haven't already.
Acceptance of the obvious is key Travis. You want some scientific foundational certitudes that prove the atheist perspective, but it doesn't exist. Its a fairy tale that some atheists cherish. The smart ones know and accept there is no such foundation.
"So no, the question was not How rocks formed."
Anyone who reads our discussion will easily be able to see the bait and switch you are using here, so I needn't even spell it out. You are the one who said that we couldn't really know how rocks formed. You said "I don’t accept you can prove “rocks don’t require agency” to exist; rather, you just believe it." Then, when I pressured you on the point, you started shifting from the formation of those rocks to the beginning of the damn universe. Basically stating that if you can't explain the existence of the whole universe, you can't explain the existence of anything in it, which is the slimiest goddamned argument I have ever heard.
As far as Hawking, the man who said "I believe there are no questions that science can't answer about a physical universe" would never have claimed that science is unable to answer a question about that physical universe if it had the appropriate data.
Now, to make sure I am not taking the man out of context, I will quote the passage in full:
"I believe there are no questions that science can't answer about a physical universe. Although we don't yet have the full understanding of the laws of nature, I think we will eventually find a complete unified theory. Some people would claim that things like love, joy and beauty belong to a different category from science and can't be described in scientific terms, but I think they can now be explained by the theory of evolution."
He has also said:
"When we understand string theory, we will know how the universe began. It won't have much effect on how we live, but it is important to understand where we come from and what we can expect to find as we explore."
So....
And as far as me going on "some rant about outer space", I will repost the relevant part for others to decide for themselves if I went on an unrelated tangent or not:
""And speaking of evolution, it illustrates, in part, how science establishes fact and I believe it can be very instructive for whose with an open mind. Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and science takes it as a fact. Yet no one observed this primordial soup in which some rudimentary form of life emerged. So science doesn't need to observe something to take it as a fact."
The old 'You weren't there!' argument. By the same logic, since you have never actually been in space, you can't really be sure it is there. It is, quite possibly, one of the dumbest damned arguments ever uttered; and a prime example of how laypeople don't understand a damned thing about science. You are welcome to ignore the libraries full of indirect observation and evidence, and observed speciation using laboratory pressures if you wish. However, the mere fact that you fail to mention them at all tells us not only how dishonest the person using the argument is, but how dishonest the argument is as a whole."
You were falsely conflating the scientific confidence in evolution with religious faith, and that is simply bullshit, as we have tons of evidence and even experimental observations that you seem to completely ignore in your attempt at saying "you are just as bad as we are". In the end, we are left with one simple question:
Is faith without evidence reasonable?
If not then I am not sure how anyone could pretend to argue that belief in a creator, with no evidence, is reasonable.
"The old 'You weren't there!' argument. By the same logic, since you have never actually been in space, you can't really be sure it is there."
Travis, I am not making any "you weren't there" argument.
Also when I speak of evolution, I don't just mean the evolution of life, but also of the in animate physical universe.
"You are welcome to ignore the libraries full of indirect observation and evidence, and observed speciation using laboratory pressures if you wish. However, the mere fact that you fail to mention them at all tells us not only how dishonest the person using the argument is, but how dishonest the argument is as a whole."
But I am not ignoring it Travis. If you itemized some or all of the "libraries full of stuff" such as fossils, I say it seems reasonable to me. Then I'd ask, So what? I believe in the theory of evolution. I take is as a fact. Somehow trying to get you to accept that is like trying to get 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack.
""I believe there are no questions that science can't answer about a physical universe. Although we don't yet have the full understanding of the laws of nature, I think we will eventually find a complete unified theory. Some people would claim that things like love, joy and beauty belong to a different category from science and can't be described in scientific terms, but I think they can now be explained by the theory of evolution."
Travis, I'd like a reference for this - book and page number.
I believe that physics will eventually answer all questions about the inanimate dimension of the universe, except what happened prior to the Big Bang. I'm not convinced there will be any direct evidence about that. Moreover, it is obvious to me that love, joy, and beauty rely on the laws of physics and chemistry, but they are not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. That point there is a thread in itself. I may discuss that in a different thread. In the meantime, I'll just say that is Hawking's faith. He is drawing a preconceived conclusion. Stated another way, it is his presupposition that love and joy are reducible to physics and chemistry. That's metaphysics, and the reason why it is, is obvious.
There is no bait and switch, Travis. The topic is epistemological: I believe the book the blind watchmaker is a creation, so it is reasonable to believe there is a creator of it. Similarly, I believe an atom and a living cell look like inventions/creations, so it is reasonable to believe there is a creator/ inventor. I think I should mention that this is not proof of the existence of a creator, rather it demonstrates it is reasonable to believe it.
"You were falsely conflating the scientific confidence in evolution with religious faith, and that is simply bullshit, as we have tons of evidence and even experimental observations that you seem to completely ignore in your attempt at saying "you are just as bad as we are". In the end, we are left with one simple question:
Is faith without evidence reasonable?"
You are falsely creating a division between faith and evidence, faith and fact. There is no such division in reality. You sound like a Positivist. The history of epistemology in the last century clearly shows positivism is kaput. It has been shown to be metaphysics, the very thing it set out to separate itself from.
The division between faith and fact that you assume is a fairy tale that you obviously cherish. That's your faith. Similarly, Hawkings apparent claim that love and joy is reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry is a faith.
One of your assumptions seems to be that since I am a theist, I must reject science. If you assume that it is false. There really is no conflict between faith and science, as it is obvious scientists have faith too.
Is faith without evidence reasonable? Well Hawking, as you claim, has faith that joy and love is reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. Apparently Hawking and you believe in Physicalism. That's metaphysics. That's your faith.
My position is Physicalism, the theory that everything in the universe can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry is incoherent. That is worthy of a thread in itself.
So to return to your question, is faith without evidence reasonable? Physicalism has not sufficient evidence to prove it, yet apparently you and Hawking believe it. That's faith without evidence. Positivism, is your faith too.
I say again, I believe human knowledge is a correct inference reached within a true system.
You say, implicitly, human knowledge is a pool of indubitably true "data" from which all other indubitably true knowledge is derived. Further you imply that atheism is proven based on your indubitably true "data". I think the indubitably true "data" is a fairy tale that you cherish. You have had plently of opportunity to offer some indubitably true "data" to prove your point, but so far have failed. So far, what I get from atheists to prove your faith is stuff like "Pepse has more calories than coke", and "we know how rocks form"" .....so what? Get down to brass tacks Travis. You seem to be making the leap of faith that since we know how rocks form, atheism is indubitable true. If that is what you are implying, its a fairy tale.
So far you have avoided my question: if science is based in indubitably true data, what makes scientists disagree sometimes? What is the source of error in science if it is indeed based in indubitably true data? If science is based in indubitably true data, how come they end up sometimes abandoning a theory in favor of another one?
Moreover, I believe a living cell, (and an atom) is an invention like entity, so it is reasonable to believe there is a creator/inventor. You can argue that a living cell (and an atom) is not an invention like entity if you want, but you can't prove it, so it is your faith.
You see Travis, You don't have "data" that proves an atom and a living cell are not invention like entities, yet you simply believe it.
So I ask you, is *your* faith without evidence reasonable? Too, you have no data that proves psychology, for example, is reducible to physics and chemistry. For instance, what data do you have to show that the Gestalt Theory of perception is explainable in terms of/reducible to the of the laws of physics and chemistry?
Travis, the upshot is, you have faith too. Your faith that a living cell is not an invention like entity isn't different from any faith I have.
Apollo,
Once again you have failed to understand the difference between "fact" and "theory".
I feel sorry for Travis, having stooped to your level of personal attacks.
he doesn't want to, he is just trolling with us.
he could have googled it if he wanted
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
but it is clear that he is just fishing at us, and he has shown us a fine example of a typical theist that is so desperate in his effort, that he has to completely redefine facts, logic and common sens to make his belief fit.
(although it still does not fit)
Though i have to admit, most theists are not this hypocritical with themselves and others, at least not with others. :)
Jeff,
Thanks for the link of some view about verification of facts. It helps me see where you are coming from. It is a bit oversimplified but I'll quote somthing from it that I think makes sense: -
"However, facts by themselves are worthless unless we put them in context, draw conclusions, and, thus, give them meaning."
I agree with that. So Travis made some claims to "facts" about magma. But as your link says facts all by themselves are worthless. You link says, and I agree, facts require context. What Travis did was to arbitrarily cut off the larger context so that the discussion was confined to "rock formation". In the context of the thread, rock formation is meaningless.
Also your link states "a fact is verifiable". But it doesn't offer any clear principles of verification. Look at the words used by your link: The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume...."assume" is a key word.
So thank you Jeff for providing me with a link that supports my view that all facts rely on one or more assumptions.
I say again, the context is "Does Dawkins exist? Is it reasonable for me to believe he exists without direct observation of him? My answer was yes. That does not mean, as Travis pointed out, that my conclusion he exists is indubitably true. Travis pointed out that some authors use pen names, and so using my method one could be mistaken. But so what. Travis also pointed out that Einstein held mistaken beliefs, and Hawking made a very controversial claim about black holes. It is my opinion base on extensive study, that anything anyone thinks they know could be false. In other words, facts are never 100% proven. Travis said as much himself when he said facts are beliefs.
Travis also said not all beliefs are facts. I believe that too. And it is clear that he and some, but not all atheists believe that there is a foundation of certitudes that indubitably proves the atheist perspective. But it ain't so. That's the atheist fairy tale. Atheism has no foundation. It is a system of beliefs which ultimately relies on the individual judgment of the particular atheist.
For example, go back to the link you provided and look at what it said: "The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume that measuring devices or records or memories are correct."
"if one can assume" is a matter of evaluation and personal judgment. Therefore, personal values and judgment are always involved in determining fact.
Obviously, one persons values and judgment may not agree with another. My evaluation capacity and my judgment say atheism, although defensible, has no indubitably true foundation. Ultimately its a faith.
Once you see that, and accept it, and acknowledge it you will have achieved a higher level in your thinking. some other atheists have achieved it, you can too.
It amazes me how much bull you can pull on something which is stated clearly
They are different, admit it else no one will take you seriously.
Because they are different, they are treated differently.
Basic common sens.
"one can assume"
I already replied to this in the fact vs belief topic.
Just because all have some different degree of confidence it does not mean they are all faith.(one of those degrees)
It all has to do with level of confidence, thus a fact has a very high level of confidence while faith has very low, and that is why we rely on facts in science and not on faith based claims.
No one claimed that facts are 100% proven, except you, the only thing we know 100% sure is that:
"I think therefore I am".
That does not mean that you can put everything in the same bag.
The link showed you the difference between them and why they have a different level of confidence.
Eg "a fact is verifiable" while a belief is not.
"But it doesn't offer any clear principles of verification"
Principle? what are you smoking?
"verifiable" means it can be verified over and over again by testing. There are no principles that are relevant to my point.
""Atheism has no foundation. It is a system of beliefs which ultimately relies on the individual judgment of the particular atheist."
Again you dare repeat this nonsense to me, after ignoring my reply to this very subject.
This is the very last warning you will get about this, you either reply to my post and not just state it like an idiot or I will report you for trolling and insulting us all.
Watch this and learn what Atheism means, don't dare insult us anymore without replying to this video first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk
This level of dishonesty and direct avoidance of key points is childish, you do not even try to understand what we are telling you.
It makes you look stupid and unreasonable.
You should be ashamed of yourself, you are indeed shaming theists with this level of immaturity.
"Just because all have some different degree of confidence it does not mean they are all faith.'
"The link showed you the difference between them and why they have a different level of confidence.
Eg "a fact is verifiable" while a belief is not."
I agree with Travis who wrote, a fact is a belief, but not all beliefs are facts. So Travis and I seem to disagree with you and your link.
I believe "human knowledge is a correct inference reached within a true system."
(A "true system", for instance could be exemplified by physics working towards a "theory of everything", which, incidentally, has not yet been achieved.)
"It all has to do with level of confidence, thus a fact has a very high level of confidence while faith has very low, and that is why we rely on facts in science and not on faith based claims."
I agree there are degrees of confidence. And when I ask about things which atheists have great confidence in I get "Pepsi has more calories that coke" And I explained it is a universal claim, and I explained further that universals can not be proven. further more, stuff like "Pepsi has more calories than Coke" does not imply or justify that lack of belief in a god is warranted. I'm more interested in relevant items you take to be a fact and that you believe justifies a lack of belief in God.
Note that I am not claiming lack of belief in god is unjustified. I think it is defensible. But even if it is defensible, it doesn't prove that belief in god is unreasonable.
"the only thing we know 100% sure is that:
"I think therefore I am".
Descartes was indeed influential. I hope you realize he was part of a philosophy that posited a mind/body duality, sometimes seen as a soul/body duality. Ultimately such a duality is incoherent as he and his followers could not show how the immaterial mind or soul connected to the body. So, "I think therefore I am" is a claim made by the part Descartes claimed was the immaterial mind or soul. Me thinks you are in a mine field. You realize that some theists draw upon an ontology like Descartes to imagine (foolishly) that the mind or soul is immaterial, eternal, and goes to heaven. For myself, I don't believe in such a duality, but suit yourself.
In any case, Descartes relies on his own thinking that he exists for his certitude, which seems to be at odds with the notion of objectivity. Objectivity is the notion that truth is achieved out there, outside the person. It is the notion that truth is decided by some external (to the person) fixed criteria for truth. But Descartes idea is truth is based in his own thinking. so if you believe in Descartes i think you are a rationalist. Obn the other hand, if you believe in objective "data" outside you mind, you would likely be some sort of empiricist. Historically rationalists and empiricists didn't get along with each other. the link you directed me to is more empiricist oriented, while Descartes is a rationalist.
I point that out to help you define for yourself what your epistemology and ontology is.
"The link showed you the difference between them and why they have a different level of confidence.
Eg "a fact is verifiable" while a belief is not."
It depends on what you mean by "verifiable". Typically empiricists appeal to "sense data" or some form of it for verification. Rationalists appeal to reasonableness for verification. So when you switch between Descartes, the rationalist, and empiricism, you are mixing two types of "verifiable". so, to quote you:-
""verifiable" means it can be verified over and over again by testing. There are no principles that are relevant to my point." I agree that you have no clear coherent principles. You see if you are a rationalist, "testing" means checking to see if your conclusions are reasonable. But if you are an empiricist, testing means empirical testing. If you don't mind, please clarify.
About your youtube video:
I agree one can suspend judgment, or lack belief, or not decide. He appeals to William Graham Summer who is apparently a Critical Realist, who said - "they can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty...." I agree with that. However, I am a Post Critical Realist, as was the atheist scientist whose thought influenced me the most. I hope you don't hold that against me. I hope you do not succumb to the belief that Post Critical realism is bad just because I happen to be a theist. That would be black and white thinking.
I might add that some atheists on this site have claimed the existence of God is a fairy tale. That implies that person is taking a position, and not simply suspending judgment or lacking belief. When they say God is a fairy tale they are meaning God, like the Unicorn, does not exist. If they said I don't know if it is a fair tale or not, then they are suspending judgment.
The video author states, concerning a creator God: irresolvable, because No procedure available to us could reliably establish the existence or non-existence of such an unscientific entity. But "unscientific entity" is a value judgment. When he states that he is implicitly starting to define what he thinks is scientific knowledge. too, there are issues in science that to date are unresolvable. The issue of what constitutes "verification" isn't resolved despite what you or others may believe. For instance, if one prunes out God from some system of knowledge on empirical grounds, and applies the empirical criteria evenly, you might have to prune out the primordial evolutionary soup as the origin of life because the latter has not and can not be empirically observed. So if, according to the video, a creator God is an "unscientific entity" it may be that the primordial evolutionary soup is an "unscientific entity' In my opinion, this notion of "unscientific entity" deserves some skepticism, and further critical examination before I accept it. If he and you insist I accept some undefined concept of "unscientific entity" uncritically, that would depart from Descartes method of doubt, which you apparently like.
He said, "Gods don't feature among the things I believe exist". That too deserves some critical study before acceptance.
If I was to say, "Unicorns don't feature among the things I believe exist" would it be reasonable for one to interpret that as "I believe unicorns don't exist"? If so, is it reasonable to interpret his statement as claiming gods don't exist? Or alternately, it could be unicorns exist, but I don't believe it.
he is saying he has a set of things he believes exist, and god isn't one of them. but he hasn't stated what other category he puts god in, ie god doesn't exist, or maybe he exists, but I don't believe it.
Oh, I get it. He is trying to avoid taking a position of faith. In that case, it is important to study the things he believes exist to see what his criteria is for believing in the existence of some entity.
It is yet to be determined what he means by "believe" and "faith" for comparison purposes. He uses the phrase, "insupportable by logic or evidence" in connection with "faith based", so for the time being, I take that as his definition of faith. Too, for the time being I take, "supportable by logic or evidence as his criteria for believing in the existence of some entity. so for example,
The book "the Blind Watchmaker' looks like a creation/invention, so I believe there is a creator (of it).
The living cell looks like an invention, so I believe there is an inventor.
I think both those fit his criteria for supported by logic or evidence. The fact that he doesn't include God in the set of entities he believes exist is his personal prerogative, but his criteria for excluding god from that set of beliefs remains elusive.
I think he would agree
1. a living cell exists. that belief is empirical and rational. among my beliefs is also,
2. a living cell is an invention like entity. He might not agree with that. but on what grounds? What logic and or emperical facts could prove it is not an invention like entity? But in the meantime,
3. a creator of living cells exists (is a belief that is logically coherent with 1. and 2.
So so far, in your video, I find that he has no practical criteria to logically or empirically exclude "I believe a creator god exists" from the set of entities one can believe exists.
Thus, despite the definition of atheism as a lack of belief, it is still reasonable for one to believe God exists. (Too, since he referrs to logic, see the book, "God and other minds" by Plantinga. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Other_Minds
In order for me to take the author of the video seriously on one point, that belief in God isn't supported by logic, he'd have to address Plantinga's work.
The video claims theistic claims have no valid foundation and collapse under critical scrutiny. (does he apply critical scrutiny to the things he believes exist? In order to be skeptical, and critical like him, I'd have to say no.)
I don't believe rocks and dogs are atheist, so that part has no effect on me. Atheism can be a lack of belief in a creator God, but that doesn't mean it is unreasonable to believe in God. (See planting's work for example).
hes sayd, "I reject theistic claims" So far so good. presumably one claim he rejects is, "God exists". But his rejection isn't a claim that god does not exist because that would, as he states, take a position of faith. It follows from that, that of the things he does believe exists, he doesn't rely on any unprovable assumptions. To be skeptical, as you say I should be, I doubt that of the things he believes exist, there are no unprovable assumptions. Faith is the reliance on one or more unprovable assumptions.
"When we lack belief in gods we are free to recognize that we alone fill our world with love and compassion, or fear and violence"
Theists are free to accept responsibility for their actions too. The fact that a minority of theists are irresponsible isn't indicative of all theists. Similarly, as pointed out, the atheist Stalin commuted great atrocities, and I doubt he accepted responsibility for it: more likely he rationalized it as some sort of duty to the communist state and proletariat.
The idea that one must be atheist in order to be free to accept individual responsibility is part of his world view that he didn't prove. the atheist Stalin not only murdered missions of his own people, he engaged in a massive land grab by not returning territories to their rightful owners. The theist Reagan, engaged in a non-violent strategy aimed at the economic collapse of the USSR, and a strategy aimed at getting those godless leaders to "tear down that wall". Only then did the land Stain stole get returned.
the belief that one must be an atheist in order to accept individual responsibility is not featured among those I believe. There is no guarantee that an atheist will be moral, or accept responsibility for their actions.
Atheists are can be irresponsible and destructive just like everybody else.
@Apollo
I find it very peculiar that your willing to write such comprehensive answers over and over, but as soon as someone asks you a straight question about your faith or asks you to support your claims, you simply omit to answer.
You are not very gracious in this regard. Are you avoiding the discomfort or are you simply in denial?
Some examples:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/27265
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/27258
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/27317
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/27268
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/27310
Pragmatic, I'm pretty sure I didn't read them yet. Not ignoring them, just have to do one thing at a time.
"I agree with Travis who wrote, a fact is a belief"
I don't care what Travis said.
Travis most likely said in the sens that if you get down to what can be verifiable to us humans, one could say that everything can be an OPINION at that point.
(He mixed opinion with belief which is an understandable mistake)
Here is where I immediately jumped on the level of confidence.
And yet you dare bring this subject up as if you cannot understand what is being said.
"The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume that measuring devices or records or memories are correct."
Yes because the level of confidence in "measuring devices or records or memories" have a high level of confidence.
Did you understand it now?
"I agree there are degrees of confidence."
So if you agree, you can never threat Faith and Fact in the same manner. They are completely not the same.
Which makes you OP post total Rubish.
A fact has a high level of confidence and that is why you should rely on it more.
Faith has constantly proven and still proves that it gets most things wrong:
(eg: different religions, 99% must be wrong if not 100%)
"I'm more interested in relevant items you take to be a fact and that you believe justifies a lack of belief in God. "
I do not have a belief with regards to any god, I simply do not know if any god exists.
However if you meant the theistic god, then yes, it is proven to be false and most of all EVIL.
You failed thus far to reply to anything anybody presented on this subject.
That video had 1 of the many arguments why the biblical god is false and contradicts logic.
You again chose to ignore it.
"two types of "verifiable"
Ow please, don't make me laugh, you are making a generalization fallacy that all Rationalists/Empiricist, are stereotypical.
The truth is that there is only one reality and it does not matter what you are labeled, if you are looking for the truth you will have to be able to analyze objectively both perspectives and more.
Verifiable means that it can be verified with testing, there is no other meaning.
(the idea that nearly nothing is 100% sure is a well know thing and it is assumed when making statements)
Only a person which really has nothing to offer will fall so low to bring this subject up.
You also chose to ignore to apologize for accusing unjustly all atheist:
""Atheism has no foundation. It is a system of beliefs which ultimately relies on the individual judgment of the particular atheist."
You are basically seeing the atheists who are also something else and trying to put the blame on the atheist. (as if being atheist had anything to do with their other beliefs)
Basically if an atheist raped a child, then "Atheism has no foundation"
This is the exact argument you are making.
Insulting and outright stupid.
Atheism means lack of belief in the theistic god claim, but apart from being an atheist, a person can have beliefs like:
1 - believing that a particular god does not exist
or
2 - believing that no possible god exists.
or
3 - raping a child is a good thing(not that I know any expect some priests)
Those are separate beliefs separate from the fact that they are also atheists.
Get it into your thick skull.
If we judge theists with your method there won't be any more theists for sure.
"Atheists are can be irresponsible and destructive just like everybody else. "
Yes, we agree so?
no one claimed the opposite here.
You are inventing claims YOU WISH we said because clearly you know you lost the argument.
"Travis most likely said in the sens that if you get down to what can be verifiable to us humans, one could say that everything can be an OPINION at that point."
Indeed. One has the ability to accept a certain fact, or not, there are many people that deny basic facts about reality. Peoples ideas about reality are directly related to what facts they accept about it, or what 'beliefs' they have. While most atheists at least TRY to have their internal model of reality match up to the real external universe, through examination of that universe. Most theists seem more concerned with having the real external universe warp into their internal model of reality, because of those 'beliefs', and care not a whit for what is actually real or true.
1." I don't care what Travis said." I still agree with Travis, and I lack belief in your claims. I think you use the word belief as always equivalent to faith, whereas Travis and I do not. I hope you can consider the possibility this is a semantical issue. the claim facts are beliefs is an implicit acknowledgement that what is considered a fact could be mistaken. It could be mistaken because as the link you provided stated, there are *assumptions* made in establishing fact. Two people will only agree on a fact *if* they both have the same assumption(s). I think you have the idea that facts are immutable static entities that are externally and indubitably verified. I lack belief in that idea.
2. 'you can never threat Faith and Fact in the same manner" I don't treat faith and fact in the exact same manner. I think you equate the word belief with faith. I don't and Travis apparently doesn't either. Sometimes the word belief = the meaning of faith, and sometimes it doesn't depending on the context.
3."They are completely not the same." I lack belief in that. For example, the idea that the shortest distance between two points was a straight line was accepted a s axiomatic. Anyone who claimed it was possible the axiom was possibly wrong would be ridiculed. However, that axiom is not longer considered true due to a belief in curved space. Now the short distance between two points is along a curve. so Jeff, I lack belief in your concept of facts. You have faith in your concept of facts, but I don't.
4. 'I do not have a belief with regards to any god, I simply do not know if any god exists." Nothing wrong with that.
5. "However if you meant the theistic god, then yes, it is proven to be false and most of all EVIL.
You failed thus far to reply to anything anybody presented on this subject.
That video had 1 of the many arguments why the biblical god is false and contradicts logic.
You again chose to ignore it."
I think we need to take a closer look at that, but not in this thread. But I will say all logical arguments require a premise/assumption. did you identify his assumption in his logic? Do you uncritically accept his assumptions?
6. "the idea that nearly nothing is 100% sure is a well know thing and it is assumed when making statements" True. So I lack belief in your claims to immutable fact, and your idea of immutable proof of this or that. You appear to be 100% sure of all your claims.
7. "The truth is that there is only one reality" So your metaphysics is realism.. Nothing wrong with that, but not all would agree with you. How would you convince them if they did not already share your metaphysics?
8. "if you are looking for the truth you will have to be able to analyze objectively both perspectives and more". What do you believe by "objective". How can you be objective when you have to make choices in your search for truth? I was convinced by an atheist scientist that it doesn't exist. You ignore his insights, so obviously you are subjective. I lack belief in objectivity.
9." Basically if an atheist raped a child, then "Atheism has no foundation"
This is the exact argument you are making." I lack belief in that. No theory has a foundation, not just atheism. You were appealing to a foundational type theory of knowledge to prove your claims/theories. But there is no foundation to any theory in the positivist-empiricist sense.
10. "you know you lost the argument" What argument?
The thread is about does Dawkins exist? compared to does (creator) God exist?
a) A book called the Blind Watchmaker looks like a invention/creation to me, so it is reasonable to believe there was a creator of the book.
b) Atoms and living cells look like inventions/creations. So it is reasonable to believe there was a creator of them. Those two statements are coherent with each other.
trying to distract attention away from the topic doesn't alter the reasonableness of of belief in a creator of things that look like creations.
At a later date I will give a more complete response to the video.
"I lack belief in your claims."
Mine were not claims, but facts you seem not to know.
Like what is the difference between belief/opinion/fact.
That you keep mixing up to confuse yourself even more.
You are not confusing sane people here.
" there are *assumptions* made in establishing fact."
Yes those assumptions are like; what we see is actually what there is, and a bunch more.
Those assumptions have a very high degree of confidence and thus can represent facts.
Stop falling back to the same argument like a broken record.
Unless you show that those assumptions are not with a very high degree of confidence(thus different from low degree eg: belief) your argument is flawed to the core.
Stop making the fallacious assumption that all assumptions are of the same degree of confidence.
STOP
"I think you use the word belief as always equivalent to faith"
Yes faith is a type of belief, the worst type of belief in fact, you cannot get worse then that.
One could call it blind belief, like the fools have.
You believe in a contradictory object/claim that contradicts logic/reason itself without doubting.
Like a robot.
Also in the link i provided there were the difference between opinion and belief, you completely ignored them to support your argument like the troll you are.
You are constantly mixing an opinion which follows some logic and belief which follows no logic at all.
Travis was referring to an opinion there so stop trying to gain support for your very stupid claims.
" I don't treat faith and fact in the exact same manner."
You just did, those "assumptions" lead to facts and you are treating them as"maybe" flawed assumptions like belief is.
Eg: you are treating the assumption that we breath for real(not we just think we do) as some maybe assumption like a possible god could exist because maybe there are hints of creation.
That assumption has a high degree of confidence and you are like an idiot calling it JUST an assumption, like the assumptions a belief makes.
IT IS NOT.
Facts are based on high degree of confidence assumptions like the 5 senses are real etc..
They are nothing even close to the assumptions of a belief.
Accept this fact (not a claim) instead of being an idiot.
"shortest distance between two points was a straight line"
That is not a fact, it was an axiom of physics, there's difference. Educated Opinion
It would become a fact if and only if, some assumptions are clearly declared
Eg:
-The assumption that those 2 points are points that can be observed and measure.
-The assumption that only current accepted physics are used for this calculation.
Under those assumptions and some more(which are of a high degree of confidence(some less) that axiom can be considered a fact. Because those assumptions fall under the observable universe.
The bent distance of space time is a hypothesis at best, and you cannot use it as a way to discredit the current well established axiom when those assumptions are declared.(sometimes they are assumed)
The shortest distance between 2 points on a sphere is a curve. (again assuming that you must follow the surface of the sphere/round object) The shortest distance between 2 points would still be a strait line from one to the other if the round object can be cut strait.
There is so much confusion in your head that you are not making any sens.
fact is something you can observe(given the assumption that what you see is actually there) and test.
All possible points cannot be observed thus it is not a fact.(without that assumption)
Get your facts strait.(ironic)
"You appear to be 100% sure of all your claims."
because i did not make claims but stated facts.
And I am 100% sure that those are called facts.
You need to go back to school and learn the basics.
Start by going to the link and see if what you call facts are actually facts and not opinions or beliefs.
" I lack belief in objectivity."
You can be stupid enough to not believe that a punch from my fist breaks your nose, but trust me if I was there right next to you I will send it flying to your nose.
Then we will see if there is an objective reality that we share.
I will see if I feel your nose, and you will check if you still have a nose.
If we both feel something touch, then we are objectively connected in one reality.
You are not subjectively experiencing a different reality then mine because you are chatting with me right now dumb ass.(under the assumption that we exist, which has a very high degree of confidence)
(I can be sure 100% that I exist but I cannot be sure that the others exist 100%)
"I lack belief in that."
Stop trolling, you can only lack belief when I make a claim and I have not yet.
just stated well known facts/assumptions that you seem ignorant to.
"No theory has a foundation, not just atheism."
I was just quoting you dumb ass.
The foundation is something you brought up because you have nothing to say to support the idea that theism is a reasonable claim.
10 a) b)
Even if we grant the creator idea, it does not mean a theistic god.
You haven't yet presented a case for a theistic god, but ignored everything regarding it.
=it is still an unreasonable belief and you are back where you started.
An absurd unrealistic, contradictory claim that is logically impossible.
Dawkins may exist because his existence is not absurd unrealistic, contradictory claim that is logically impossible.
Jeff, perhaps we can make some headway in a more efficient way by the following.
I believe in the theory of evolution, no only as the origin of species, but as the origin of life. I take it as a fact.
The way I use the word "believe" and the way I use the word "fact" is simply the way I use them. Some scientists, maybe all, use the words "believe" and "fact" in the same way I do.
Obviously you disagree with the way I use them. I don't care. You have different meaning for those words, and you insist, like an inquisitor that I better agree with you, or you will report me to some grand inquisitor who, you say will banish me. I don't care. Similarly, I have encountered fundamentalist Christians who did preciously what you do to me. They say I better abandon my belief in evolution and believe like them or they will report me to some pastor (Grand inquisitor) and have me banished. I don't care.
You, like they, are very rigid and closed minded.
We all have *a* framework within which we seek truth. The framework is our presuppositions many of which we are not aware of as we seek truth. When we encounter an anomaly to our perspective, we may then wonder if something is awry with our framework for knowledge.
Having said that, please critique my belief in evolution from the perspective of your link outlining their definitions of fact, belief, opinion and so on. Is my belief in evolution just opinion? a fact? a faith? or what?
We have to keep in mind that the evolutionary origin of life was not observed, can not be observed, will never be observed. Even the origin of species - the apparent spontaneous alteration of genes was not observed. Even so, I take it as a fact. Am I wrong to do that? Is it unscientific for a scientist to take it as a fact? If you believe in evolution what verification and validation process did you do prior to accepting it?
"I believe in the theory of evolution, no only as the origin of species, but as the origin of life. I take it as a fact."
Ow boy
I just explained it to you that evolution does not deal with origin of life on this planet as a fact, but as a hypothesis.
"inquisitor"
Yes stop trolling or i will report you.
" I take it as a fact."
Your can only take a hypothesis on faith. or assume that it is correct.
You can ONLY observe facts, stop mixing things up.
"Some scientists, maybe all, use the words "believe" and "fact" in the same way I do. "
Nope they don't, maybe in your biased mind you think so, but not in reality.
"Obviously you disagree with the way I use them."
NO, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your claim that fact and faith are the same thing.
You are making the claim and using your own faith based claim to support other arguments like an idiot.
The burden of proof is in your ball park.
"You, like they, are very rigid and closed minded. "
No, I'm very patient by warning you first in the hope you change your offensive attitude.
I'm a very open minded person, unlike you.
You still fail to even support any of your claims without using baseless claims like fact= belief.
The only close minded person here is you.
Try to even think of the possibility that your god could could be an evil god and then you would be open minded.
"When we encounter an anomaly to our perspective, we may then wonder if something is awry with our framework for knowledge."
All of us pointed a lot of anomalies in your framework yet you seem in denial and are not open minded to even search for the truth.
-Like a loving god that should protect and take care of innocent children, instead he chooses to drown them and separate them from their mothers arms in a horrible experience of drowning.
-Or a father that should forgive his loved children decides to create eternal torture for his own children who just happen to disagree with him and his actions.
-Which good character creates the most evil thing ever imagined Eternal torture?
"Is my belief in evolution just opinion? a fact? a faith? or what?"
Your belief is faith.
Pretty obvious answer isn't it, but you find it so hard to understand it, why?
"evolutionary origin of life was not observed"
Thus it is not a fact.
"apparent spontaneous alteration of genes was not observed"
Therefor not a fact. Claims of historical events are not a fact.
"Even so, I take it as a fact."
It is a fact that it is not a fact, you are just admitting that you "believe" a dog is a cat with that statement.
You are taking it on faith that something not a fact, is indeed a fact.
See how stupid you look to sane people.
"Am I wrong to do that?"
YES
Understand that there is something wrong with you and maybe you will start making some progress.
"Is it unscientific for a scientist to take it as a fact?"
It is not only Unscientific but it is FALSE, a lie, not the truth.
There is no effort there to search for the truth.
"If you believe in evolution what verification and validation process did you do prior to accepting it? "
Evolution is a fact because it can be observed in the labs, do some research about it and you can see it for yourself.
That history happened through evolution is not a fact, but an educated opinion, it is a possible way that it could have happened.
Until we find a better way, it is the current answer of how life grew on earth.
About origin of life on this planet, we still do not know, evolution does not explain that part well.
We need a better hypothesis and that is what science is for.
If you care about the truth you need to abandon faith and embrace doubt and science.
"I believe in the theory of evolution, no only as the origin of species, but as the origin of life. I take it as a fact."
Ow boy
I just explained it to you that evolution does not deal with origin of life on this planet as a fact, but as a hypothesis.
That's your personal view that it is a hypothesis only.
Accepting your terminology for a while, do you believe the hypothesis has merit?
If so, why?
How would you go about validating, testing and verifying the the hypothesis that the origin of life was due to evolution?
In your view are there alternative hypothesis for the origin of life.? If so, what are they? How would they be validated, tested, and verified?
Jeff, tell me what are the problems you see with the theory of evolution.
In the meantime, I lack belief in your Cartisan method of doubt/skepticism. Even so, I am skeptical of your idea of a "fact".
I still take the theory of evolution as a fact. It is plain as day that evn in our lifetime some living things have adapted to threats in their environment. So to say evolution is a hypothesis only is way too skeptical for me.
I don't fall for those ideas of trolling and you will report me. I don''t care.
See you later Jeff.
Not to be pedantic, but Evolution is a scientific theory, not simply either a belief or just any old hypothesis. It is an explanation of a specific set of facts, like the genetic relation of species and endogenous retroviruses, but it itself is a well-established and validated theory. It has graduated, through the gauntlet of verification and nearly a century and a half of review, to being the best scientifically demonstrable explanation of the variation of species on our planet. We have a more direct and thorough understanding of it than the theory of gravity, germ theory, and atomic theory combined.
We have no credible non-religious reason to dismiss the evidence for the theory of evolution, and no credible non-religious reason to accept the evidence for a god. The two or not equal or comparable, the latter belongs firmly in the same category as pixies and unicorns. For all intents and purposes you are arguing that if everyone has beliefs, all beliefs are equal, putting people who believe in a round Earth on equal footing as those that believe in a flat one, and that is simply bad epistemology and logically bankrupt.
As for the origin of life itself, that falls back into another field. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis for how it occurred, and is gaining traction with new discoveries, but that is separate from the theory of evolution and hasn't been demonstrated to the same degree as of yet.
Pages