Comments | jetfx: Context is Everything

jetfx

Context is Everything

Dec 12, 2007 14:29

Piddling around the internet on my day off when I should be writing the next brilliant science fiction novel (currently pages of plotless background), I tend to come across lots of wonderful gems that show how the large majority of us have not learned to properly interpret the media around us. That any news is never the full story and that feeding ( Read more... )

philosophy, politics

Comments 15

jeff_duntemann December 13 2007, 02:56:02 UTC

Hate to say it, but that shooting was here in Colorado Springs (where I live) and not Denver. In fact, it's the very same church that gave us Ted Haggard.

Religious relativism isn't exactly opinion. It comes out of the difficulty that an awful lot of things in religion are not amenable to objective argument and logic, much less proof. Even taken in its proper context, a great deal of sacred writing is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Two people who differ on a religious question could both be right. We have neither the mental equipment nor the information to fully grasp supernatural and divine realities, and so we muddle by as best we can, knowing that we don't all muddle by in precisely the same way.

i realize this statement is anecdotal, but ... pithhelmet December 13 2007, 03:36:20 UTC

As a Christian, it pains me to say that every avowed atheist I've ever known has been honorable and tried to live an ethical life. I cannot say that about avowed religious folk, or even about myself.

It's not purely anecdotal. amfmampmadbc December 14 2007, 19:52:19 UTC

There's statistical evidence that legitimates your finding that atheists are generally moral people. I don't think the existence of effective alternatives lifestyles should upset you.

As an agnostic, I must at least thank you for the honesty.

Re: i realize this statement is anecdotal, but ... jetfx December 15 2007, 01:58:52 UTC

People are people, regardless of their religious opinions. In the end though, it does pay to be nice. Our civilization would have failed without any sort of moral code.

amfmampmadbc December 14 2007, 20:08:03 UTC

I agree with a lot of this, but why are you an atheist? I always wonder about atheists in general. They seem to advocate logic, and condemn dogmatism, yet they are dogmatic and illogical ( ... )

jetfx December 15 2007, 02:03:26 UTC

See comment below. It wouldn't post as a reply to you.

jetfx December 15 2007, 02:03:03 UTC

Now, I've never understood why people consider atheism a belief system. The only thing we have common is what we don't think exists. We don't not believe in god. It's not an issue of faith, it's an issue of evidence. With a lack of evidence, we don't think god exists. Belief is such an absolute word. I realize there is a possibility I might be wrong, but I think it's quite unlikely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We're not just another flavour of the religious spectrum, but have opted out of it entirely ( ... )

amfmampmadbc December 15 2007, 03:09:21 UTC

First of all, I only started this debate because you seem like an open minded individual. Second of all, look up the definition of atheism before I continue my argument, that way we're at least discussing the same issue.

There is NO proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof that God DOES exist. Therefore, both claims can serve as a null hypothesis. Therefore, the claim that god does NOT EXIST is just as extraordinary as the claim that god DOES EXIST.

In FACT, the question is beyond us. Consider, as an extreme, the Kantian perspective.

God can't exist and not exist, as you said, BUT we don't know which condition is the case. It's IRRELEVANT, because the question is BEYOND US. To believe that you can answer that question is to combat the irrefutable Kantian perspective that only perception can be proven. It is THUS egocentric, or anthropocentric.

By the way, your argument was beautifully written and i respect it highly.

jetfx December 15 2007, 05:58:43 UTC

Quickly checking the definition of atheism, since you asked me to, atheism is at least a lack of a belief in deities. It does include the positive denial of the the existence of god, but that is best known as strong atheism, but atheism at its base is non belief rather than denial.

"God exists" is a hypothesis. When one makes a hypothesis, one is responsible for the proof, the 'burdern of proof'. Simply stating that a hypothesis cannot be disproved is actually a logical fallacy called negative proof. As an atheist I would only have to refute any proof of god, not bring forward proof of not god. "God does not exist" is actually the default position, not a counter hypothesis, because then it implies that there is some sort of other default, which is logically impossible in case between existence and non-existence. For all statements about reality, non-existence is the default state. Any hypothesis that states the existence of something must be proved. You can't prove non-existence, it's not logically possible ( ... )

amfmampmadbc December 15 2007, 06:22:55 UTC

From your source: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." In other words, Atheists Believe that there is No God ( ... )

jetfx December 16 2007, 04:21:23 UTC

I still don't understand where you're getting this idea that atheism is dogmatic. What articles of faith make up this 'religion'? That we're united by what we don't think exists? Besides atheism is an issue of evidence, not faith. I don't blindingly 'believe' in the non-existence of god. I do not fall into that trap, because atheism isn't a matter of faith ( ... )

Thread 8