Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[JohnDG]

What should be stated in this thread is that human beings theist, atheist or whatever will always be irrational because it is our nature to be.

Also Vinny you must learn that even nothing is something it just represents our ignorance. Because as stated before it begins not to even matter.

You can't conduct your self in a cold logical matter because you are not a computer, although you attempt to it is futile and you lose your composure quite often.

That being said there are as many reasons to be an atheist as there are to be a theist you cannot classify people into a specific group because were unpredictable and refuse to follow the same logical paths.

[Kirbmarc]

What should be stated in this thread is that human beings theist, atheist or whatever will always be irrational because it is our nature to be

Atheism isn't a position. It's refusing to believe the cliams of others. Sure, a person can become an atheist because of irrational reasons (i.e. the infamous example of people "losing their faith" because of a tragic event in their lives) but atheism is line with reason simply because it doesn't make any positive claim, it simply refuses to assume anything that hasn't been scientifically proven.

That being said there are as many reasons to be an atheist as there are to be a theist

Theists (and deists) make claims based on flawed logic. Atheists refuse to make claims, simply disbelieve in other people's claims and point out while the theistic and deistic claims are flawed.

you cannot classify people into a specific group because were unpredictable and refuse to follow the same logical paths.

this is true. Indeed, atheism isn't a group because it isn't an ideology, it's the refusal of other people's idelogies. Atheists have no common ideas other than the refusal ofother people's ideas.

[Gilgamesh]

Even if you do indeed think this is funny enough to continue posting - is it really that funny?

Yes. It comes in many variations, too.

---

What in Davy Jones’ locker did ye just bark at me, ye scurvy bilgerat? I’ll have ye know I be the meanest cutthroat on the seven seas, and I’ve led numerous raids on fishing villages, and raped over 300 wenches. I be trained in hit-and-run pillaging and be the deadliest with a pistol of all the captains on the high seas. Ye be nothing to me but another source o’ swag. I’ll have yer guts for garters and keel haul ye like never been done before, hear me true. You think ye can hide behind your newfangled computing device? Think twice on that, scallywag. As we parley I be contacting my secret network o’ pirates across the sea and yer port is being tracked right now so ye better prepare for the typhoon, weevil. The kind o’ monsoon that’ll wipe ye off the map. You’re sharkbait, fool. I can sail anywhere, in any waters, and can kill ye in o’er seven hundred ways, and that be just with me hook and fist. Not only do I be top o’ the line with a cutlass, but I have an entire pirate fleet at my beck and call and I’ll damned sure use it all to wipe yer arse off o’ the world, ye dog. If only ye had had the foresight to know what devilish wrath your jibe was about to incur, ye might have belayed the comment. But ye couldn’t, ye didn’t, and now ye’ll pay the ultimate toll, you buffoon. I’ll shit fury all over ye and ye’ll drown in the depths o’ it. You’re fish food now, lad.

---

Also,

it seems rather passive aggressive to me.

Only rather?

[JohnDG]

[quote='Kirbmarc' pid='371173' dateline='1354877545']

What should be stated in this thread is that human beings theist, atheist or whatever will always be irrational because it is our nature to be

Atheism isn't a position. It's refusing to believe the cliams of others. Sure, a person can become an atheist because of irrational reasons (i.e. the infamous example of people "losing their faith" because of a tragic event in their lives) but atheism is line with reason simply because it doesn't make any positive claim, it simply refuses to assume anything that hasn't been scientifically proven.

The point was human beings in general will always be irrational and make irrational choice's such as ingesting poisons for enjoyment.

[Kirbmarc]

The point was human beings in general will always be irrational and make irrational choice's such as ingesting poisons for enjoyment.

Sure. But this is not what is the object of the debate on this thread. We are discussing philosophical assumptions, not human behavior.

[Ben Davis]

How the fuck can it be improbable and certain at the same time you fuckwit?

Jesus fucking wept; are you being deliberately stupid to try & avoid conceding? I never claimed that they were 'improbable and certain at the same time'. You don't even seem to understand the construction of your own example! Let me walk you through it:

Statement 1:

Improbable event: My cup of coffee floating up towards the ceiling at 6:30 pm

This is the prediction; the implication is that its probability must be stated prior to the deadline of 6:30. For the sake of this exercise, we're classifying this event as arbitrarily 'improbable' (the actual probability is irrelevant).

Statement 2:

Rhythm claims the event becomes a certainty at 6:30 pm 1:1

This is the event actually occurring. It's not a prediction but factual data. We know that the event has occurred because it's stated that it has become a certainty with a probability of 1:1. It would be impossible to make those statements without recording factual data which demonstrates that the event has occurred.

Statement 3:

6:31 pm, a 1:1 event, predicted to be inevitable, has not taken place

This statement is erroneous if predicated on the previous 2. The event has happened. That was made explicit in Statement 2 by the qualifier "the event becomes a certainty at 6:30 pm 1:1"

It's your example with your definitions and you can't even draw a sensible conclusion from it. And you dare to call me a fuckwit on that basis?

In this thread, you've been disingenuous, intellectually dishonest and stubborn beyond the point of being proven wrong.

[Angrboda]

What should be stated in this thread is that human beings theist, atheist or whatever will always be irrational because it is our nature to be

Atheism isn't a position. It's refusing to believe the cliams of others. Sure, a person can become an atheist because of irrational reasons (i.e. the infamous example of people "losing their faith" because of a tragic event in their lives) but atheism is line with reason simply because it doesn't make any positive claim, it simply refuses to assume anything that hasn't been scientifically proven.

Why 'scientifically proven' ? Ignoring the difficulties with this concept, this seems to be something added, that it is a refusal to believe claims of a specific nature, but, only if those refusals are based on science or scientific reasons. I think this is a reasonably accurate summary of what many atheists consider the litmus test, but this is subsuming a lot more than "lack of belief". There's a whole epistemology here.

[Kirbmarc]

gnoring the difficulties with this concept, this seems to be something added, that it is a refusal to believe claims of a specific nature, but, only if those refusals are based on science or scientific reasons. I think this is a reasonably accurate summary of what many atheists consider the litmus test, but this is subsuming a lot more than "lack of belief". There's a whole epistemology here.

There is, but its' an epistemology based on scientific reason, not an irrational, emotive choice as John DG was arguing. Atheism does not make irrational claims unless you believe science to be irrational. Atheism is the only position coherent with the epistemology behind science.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Rythm & Vinnie
While Rythm is advocating the bayesian a priori probability concept "Given A, what are the odds of A? pff, 100% of course!", vinnie seems to be assuming the lack of such knowledge, which would be the reality when no Universe exists "What are the odds of A, given nothing? Some guy came up with this very small number."
You're arguing for two different things and at each other's hair for the other's lack of common ground.... -.-' while being both right...

I already gave the nod to the differences between calculations made before the fact and after. Pages ago. The reason that the conversation didn't terminate there isn't exactly a mystery though-

Vinny can't remove A and still blather on about the possibility of a universe from god. He needs A as a given (because A is the "evidence" for the assertion in the first place). Unfortunately, that removes any relevance of probability and makes his assertions and conclusions impotent.

Strangely, he would also like to claim that the universe, known to exist, is improbable, but he could only do so by means of not assuming A (here again, the universe existing)...which is unfortunate, because again A -is- a given.

I appreciate the attempt to bridge a gap, so to speak, but in this case, with this particular apologist, I'm not interest, no such bridge is possible, and we're not arguing for different things, we're certainly not both correct.

[pocaracas]

Rythm, you're starting off at two different positions.
Yours is that we know this Universe exists.
Vinnie's position is that he doesn't know that the universe exists.
And then you proceed to calculate your probabilities.... and of course you arrive at different results. Both results are correct, given the prior knowledge you're putting into the calculations.

Now you may argue that it doesn't make sense to neglect the usage of the prior knowledge of "the universe exists". But, after having read everything that I've read from you, I'd expect that you'd have make this bit clear by now... but no.
Because you didn't make it clear, vinnie kept going with his assumption...
You should now that you have to make everything crystal clear when you're talking to an apologist, right? If you leave them some wiggle room, they'll go in there and keep wiggling away.