The God Delusion
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.
That's a good point.
Just wondering if that is just your subjective opinion, or an objective fact? :P
/e If it is just your opinion, I think I'll just say "no thanks". If it is an objective fact, then you got serious problems.
There are two parts to this.
1. Supposing you, or alternately, a person, bought yourself a collector car. The engine would not start. You decided/hypothesized the problem was a carburetor adjustment. Try as you might, no adjustment would help. Finally you gave up on that idea. Is giving up on the idea objective?
2. Some 100 or more years ago, some brainy people had the hypothesis that a criterion, or method, could be formulated to filter out personal beliefs from the quest for knowledge. They believed that such a method, once formulated, would enable them to achieve objective knowedge. They, by roughly 1950, gave up. All attempts to formulate such a criterion failed. This is a matter of historical record.
They gave up. And the reasons they gave up are documented in numerous books and papers all available to those who look.
Your question, is my claim an objective fact, or just subjective opinion? The brainiacs gave up. I've read why they gave up. Seems pretty obvious to me why their attempts disolved into incoherence. If you don't believe me, educate yourself on their path, then try to establish an objective criterian for knowledge yourself. Try to go beyond them. When you give up, you will know. You will know because there won't be any path that hasn't already been tried.
I am not drinking the kool aid of objectivity. None of the posters here are anywhere near the intellect of the Positivists who tried to achieve objectivity, so I'm not buying your claims just cause you say so, or because Sheldon has faith in YouTube videos. None of the posters here who superfically claim objectivity even make the slightest effort to demonstrate it. You get pissed. Just like Fundamentalists who get pissed when asked to prove they get knowledge from prayer. All they do is bluster and roll on the floor trying to convince me that's God gripping them. You guys are just like them, all talk, smoke and mirrors - no valid reliable demonstration.
Another indigestable word salad from Apollo.
Here's a clue for you, Nyarlathotep is pointing out your hilarious own goal, as if your claim objectivity doesn't exist were true, then that claim could only
You are catching on, at least partly. Never in my life have I believed the Bible and similar writings were objective. Theism does not rely on the Bible, or similiar writings. I suspect theism existed prior to any such writings which makes the Bible contingent on theism, not the other way around.
Lots of christians were hammered with the idea that they 'know God because the Bible says so' and thereby seem to have come to the unconscious belief that God relies on the Bible. I think its the other way around.
It is not a case of catching on, I have never considered the bible's of any religion to be objective facts.
They always fail when the claims are subjected to investigation and verification.
Furthermore, considering that theism has almost zero evidence for the god hypothesis without the biblical texts, I would suggest you're going along way to realising it's a man made construct.
there is no valid "God hypothesis". The existence of God is not falsifiable, so can't be a hypothesis. The Bible as history, as science, as reasonable, and claims by Fundamentalists are testable, but that has nothing to do with the existence of God.
What about an "atheist hypothesis". Why don't you formulate your own hypothesis then prove it. You guys are all into negativity. Nothing proactive to offer society?
Okay so let me get this straight in my head.
You describe yourself as a Christian
You discard the bible as anything but a book of words and not to be taken any more seriously than any other book
You consider that everything is subjective,
Have I misunderstood your position?
Really? That's a tad silly and over dramatic... to be honest I would happily put it to you that i have personally done more for society then most theists have.
The problem between atheists and theists is the meeting of a burden of proof.
We are expected to believe a God created all things and so fourth... and furthermore, religion is to be respected, yet it cannot be publically criticised without a backlash.
Yet, the bible's and Quaran etc.. are simply rehashes of prior religions, they have no evidential support, we know how humans evolved, how the earth and solar system were created.
The evidence consistently dismisses theistic claims and always demonstrates a natural explanation for all things without the need to suspend the laws of physics or nature.
I don't think anyone would actually have an issue with religion if it was open to criticism and not protected legally.
Theism appears to have adopted a safe space where no one can touch it, this makes it awfully difficult for non believers to respect it or it's practioners.
At least that's my opinion...
You're asking someone to make the hole from a doughnut. Atheism is not an assertion or a claim or a belief, hence it no more requires a valid hypothesis than not believing in unicorns. The argument that is does is a special pleading fallacy.
Can you really be this stupid, or are you being deliberately obtuse in the mistaken belief it makes you look profound?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... You are the WEINER of the stupid comment award today. Congratulations. APOLLO SAID: "What about an "atheist hypothesis?"
I LOVE IT.
Here you go buddy. FACT 1 - 1000 atheists I talked to said they did not believe in gods.
HYPOTHESIS: Atheists are people who do not believe in Gods.
I challenge you to debunk my hypothesis. I'm betting this baby makes it all the way to an actual "THEORY OF ATHEISM." Theories are models that describe bodies of evidence. All the evidence supports the idea that Atheists are people who do not believe in gods.
If I may, my friend, I am no expert on any religion. You posted:
"......I have never considered the bible's of any religion to be objective facts."
As I understand it, the "Bible" is only the scriptures for Judaism/Christianity .
Neither biblical claims for the supernatural, nor any deity are objectively evidenced. You keep reeling off these unevidenced subjective opinions Apollo, yet despite thousands of words from you, not once has the evidence you claim to have, been remotely demonstrated? Your tap dance is hilarious.
The fact that humans had a propensity for superstition before they produced the bible doesn't remotely evidence the deities they imagined were real, quite the opposite in fact, it shows an inherent bias in favour of an idea no one can demonstrate any tangible objective evidence for.
Apollo, you wrote, “ Its obvious objectivity doesn't exist.”
Do you posit then, that morality is subjective?
I believe that some morals are built into creation, but I can't prove it. The prohibition against murder seems to be universial. Murder is condemed by all cultures, it seems. Even so, some cultures kill people and eat them. Apparently this is not seen as murder, as they don't kill and eat their own tribe. That would be murder. So apparently, "murder" is prohibited, but situaionally defined.
Prohibitions against stealing is fairly universial, and so possibly built into nature (creation). But again there are exceptions, so I can't prove that universial either. It was OK for the Allies to steal from the Nazi's for example; but normally prohibited. In Biblical times, obviously, the prohibition against murder did not apply to killing enemies of the nation. Same today in secular society. (so what's changed by secular society?)
Lying. False witness. Generally that is looked down upon so could be built into nature (creation). Again there are exceptions, depending on circumstances. In WW2, for example, Dutch, French and other resisters to Nazi rule lied through their teeth to oppose them. I'm glad they did.
Morality seems to be situationally defined, and a matter of judgement in the situation.
I suppose many Christians are worried that atheism will result in rampant immorality. I doubt it based on my unprovable belief that morality is built into nature (creation). Some form of morality has got ya, regardless of personal beliefs. Moral propensity to be loyal to a friend is cross cultural, and transcends personal beliefs, for example. Psychopaths and sociopaths are clearly exceptions.
OK. You are a Religious Absolutist.
What in your religious absolutist beliefs cannot be replace by secular values?
Huh? I don't see the connection between situational ethics, and absolutism.
I don't believe in the religious/secular split. its an artifical, abstraction. it doesn't doesn't exist in reality. If you insist it does, that's your metaphysics.
Are you saying murdering your friend is OK just to prove you are not an absolutist, rather a secularist? What are you talking about.
By the way, my absolutist associates say I am a relativist. LOL. I have been formally booted from the "absolutist" circles. But I'm sure you will have an "objective" way to "prove" them mistaken. They won't believe you, however.
Thus your beliefs do not exist. And you are an absolutist. You are spewing your bullshit and telling us that either we are to believe you or we are pond scum in your book. That is the definition of absolutist.
You are definitely NOT a relativist. Regardless of what your herd of retards say. And tell them I called them that.
Firstly your claims about morality are demonstrable subjective, they cannot be otherwise since you deny objectivity exists.
Secondly could you please tell us why, in your subjective opinion, murder or rape are wrong or immoral?
Lastly there us no evidence to support creationism. You have failed to demonstrate any yourself, and the arguments you've offered are demonstrably fallacious, and have been shown to be so. Usually using little more than argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, to try and reverse the burden of proof onto atheism.
Evolution and natural selection could easily have produced a propensity for humans to have an inbuilt aversion to liars, murderers, and adulterers, people shunned by their tribe or expelled from it would have been a lot less likely to survive long enough to reproduce their genes. In over 160 years of global scientific scrutiny ALL the evidence supports evolution, we have no evidence at all for creationism, not one shred.
There is plenty of objective research to show that atheists are at least as moral as theists in similar situations. The argument from morality some theists have championed on here seems little more than argument from assertion fallacy to me. it involves the most obviously circular reasoning.
From this post (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/god-delusion?page=6#comment-122456)
Can you provide irrefutable objective hard empirical evidence that this statement is true?
Otherwise, you have just proven that objectivity is objectively proven.
Damn it, just when I thought your stock couldn't rise any higher after getting rid of lalaland...
Also there is an entire skeleton of a creature named "Little Foot" in a collection in South Africa.
that is precipitating a rethinking of evolutionary theory.
You seem like the Pope of old, very resistant to new ideas.
What 'rethinking of evolutionary theory' are you referring to? All this took place twenty years ago! The theory remains utterly undisturbed.
It took so long to remove each part of the fossil in Sterkfontein, suggestions were tendered as to exactly which hominid species Little Foot belonged to, Austrolpithecus Africanus or Afarensis being the two most probable. When sufficient quantities of the skeleton were recovered and examined it was decided Little Foot belonged to a third species of the genus, Austrolpithecus prometheus following comparisons with previous fossils of that species found both in another site at Sterkfontein and Makapansgat.
Evolutionary theory remains utterly undisturbed. Yes I mention this a second time because its important to keep in mind.
One should really read the articles one posts before making misleading statements.
Maybe the Pope of old also had a lack of comprehension skills?
Yeah you were funny for a while, like a puppy pissing on its own legs and not understanding why its feet are wet. Now I'm just bored cleaning up your piss.
Species evolution is a scientific fact, if you want to deny that and make yourself look rediculous, then I'd rather you didn't involve me. You still can't demonstrate a shred of evidence for your superstitious religious beliefs, and I think you need to focus on that.
I know there is an epistemological and intellectual split between the nonsense you post, and the cogent rational objections to it. You are either suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect, or you're trolling. Though I cannot rule out both of course.
@Sheldon Re: To Apollo - "You are either suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect, or you're trolling."
Hey, dollars to donuts he isn't smart enough to understand the Dunning-Kruger Effect.... *sudden look of realization*... Oh, wait....
The key to comedy istiming...
fuckit...sunofabitch...as you were...
@Sheldon Re: "fuckit...sunofabitch...as you were..."
ROFLMAO.... Sorry, Shelly, I just couldn't resist on that one... *still laughing*... *tears in eyes*....