Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[LastPoet]

What the hell is going on here?

[pocaracas]

LP, remember the auto-merge that got disabled so you could kudos each individual reply?... that's what.

[Mister Agenda]

Second.  My argument was not to deal with atheism.  As stated I wanted to talk about imaginary friends.  Though I must state I would find a mind body dualist atheist rather paradoxical.  As their lack of theistic belief logically stems from the lack of empirical or explicit evidence.  For them to willingly accept circumstantial or implicit evidence (which science for the most part does.  Think proof of a black hole) then I would be forced to defer to the statements of one Immanuel Kant, "There is no argument to prove the existence of god nor is there one to disprove the existence of god.  However, there is not more implied (circumstantial) existence than that of a god."

---

Maybe you should give up projecting what you think atheists must or should think and become open to learning what they actually do think. A lack of theistic belief can logically stem from many origins, including never having been indoctrinated to have one. You've uncovered a nest of skeptics here, which is exactly for what you say your are looking, but skeptics have a tendency to like words to be used precisely, especially in debates. If what atheists actually think is not a topic of interest for you, it will be easy for you to avoid derailing your own thread by focusing on the imaginary friend thing and not on what your imaginary atheists think.

[Mister Agenda]

Then kindly stop conflating atheism with anything but...y'know, atheism.

Might we say that atheism like evolution is comprised of sub elements to it?

Evolution maybe said to be the theory which arise out of chaos theory, naturalism, genetics, and natural selection.

As such we may say that Atheism is comprised of several sub elements.

Atheism seems to be comprised of realativism, empiricism/materialism, and skepticism.

The element which I am focusing on is the empiricism/materialism portion.

Sigh. No. There are no subelements to atheism. There aren't any to theism either. It's binary: do you believe at least one deity is actually real, yes or no? If yes, theist; if no, atheist.

Evolution is a theory based on observations and confirmed hypotheses. Genetics and chaos theory weren't even known to Darwin when he formulated the theory. Natural selection is the mechanism that explains the theory and is part and parce of it.

It's not as such.

It only seems to be comprised of these things if you have serious troubles distinguishing which of those things is not like the others.

You can certainly focus on that if you like, but it's not a portion of atheism. Atheism and theism can be features or parts of belief systems, ideologies, life stances, religions, or world views; but those things can't be a part of atheism or theism, which are merely differing opinions on the subject of whether any gods are real.

[Mister Agenda]

[quote pid='948347' dateline='1432241904']
So if I then ask "why do you not believe in god?" is your answer "because."?

If your answer is "I have no proof" then the question becomes what you mean by proof.  To which it is likely you mean empirical proof.  In which case welcome to empiricism.

or

You may answer that "I have not experience it myself."  In which case your answer is relativistic.  Welcome to relativism.

Hence, Atheism is not solely atheism.  In praise of your person, I do not think you are such a simple being as to say you do not believe "because."

The answer will depend on the individual atheist, because there's no particular view that's 'part' of atheism; therefore it's possible to have atheists with different views. Although the answer to your question is likely to tell you a lot more about the person than just knowing they're an atheist will.
Atheism is solely atheism. Theism is solely theism. But atheists are not solely atheists; any more than theists are solely theists. Atheism and theism are simple. Atheists and theists are complicated. Because they're people.

[Mister Agenda]

*Bolding mine*

It's like Wile E. Coyote just showed up to pitch the virtues of ACME products and his own superior bird catching skills.

Indeed.  He states Atheism is simply to not believe in god.  Nothing more.  So if asked why he may not give a reason.  

If he gives a reason than that reason comprises part of his atheism; which now is more than simply to not believe in god.

Thus his disbelief has no reason, or his reason is part of his disbelief and his definition of atheism is not simply disbelief.

Okay, the English reasoning isn't working for you. You said you were good at math. How about you express that in Boolean algebra and see what happens?

[Mister Agenda]

Indeed another one.  There are a little more than a billion of us 

Which interestingly enough makes for a funny thing.  If utility is determined by what brings about the most good for the most people then it is built upon argumentum ad numerum (argument to the number) in which case the validity of a position is determined by the number of people who hold that position.  So if a more than a billion people say something is correct is it not thereby determined as ethically correct under utilitarianism even if it is not necessarily morally correct?  I am going to have to give that some thought.

Nonetheless.  It is a pleasure to meet you.

There are not nearly that many Catholics on AtheistForums.org.

The 'greatest good for the greatest number' is an axiom, not an argument; so the fallacy does not apply in this case, so the validity of a position is not determined by the number of people who hold the position. So if more than a billion people say something is correct it is not thereby determined as ethically correct under utilitarianism; which is concerned with what is good for people, not what they wish to be considered good.

[Mister Agenda]

This is the first time I have ever posted on a forum.  So I am not familiar with the way or means of doing anything.

Now THAT is a good thing to mention in your intro thread.

[Anima]

Nice job ... and so it remains to be seen whether or not this can account for the creation of a universe. This is obviously a super-interesting topic (for science geeks anyway, and although I'm a molecular biologist, I've taken quite a few physics courses, as you had to for EE). So I wonder how the possible existence of a multiverse effects the theology of the Catholic church?

I doubt it will have little impact. Omnipresence and all. Argument will likely attest that just as one person may engage in multiple chess games so to might God engage in multiple existences. Also the latest version of the multiverse which I have heard was M-Theory. By which infinite number of Universal membranes exists in 11th dimensional space and at times collide with one another creating any number of "big bangs" by which properties of one universe may be transferred to another. Naturally as correlation is set between God and the single proactive cause without cause of all it would be argued that God is the cause of the 11th dimensional space (which is why you did not see him when you flew into the clouds )

It even remains to be seen whether or not some other underlying cause exists (i.e. even if this hypothesis is largely true, is there something else causing things like quantum fluctuations)? The answer is of course ... we don't entirely know. But it is possible that this hypothesis describes a non-particle space that represents the end of the chain of causation (though I should say, one major problem I've always had with cosmological arguments is they're premised on human intuition, and I'm not a fan of measuring scientific possibilities against human intuition, since humans really only have the capacity to understand things, roughly speaking, between grains of sand and mountains, we did not evolve in a way that enables us to understand quantum mechanics intuitively, as I'm sure you'd agree).

While agree that we were not able to intuitively understand quantum mechanics. I have faith in the transcendental nature of the human intellect to understand that which is beyond direct anecdotal sensibilities. It is for this reason why I am in agreement with Kant and not willing to limit myself to synthetic aposteriori alone as evidence or proof in order to further understanding and seek to have synthetic apriori supported by what is experienced (less we say the equations which state the Moon, Uranus, and Neptune should and are not there actually prove what is there is not).

Personally, I've accepted the fact that we don't know everything. In my mind it's okay to say that "we don't know" ... more investigation is needed, without feeling the impulse to attribute these things to the myths of our ancestors. For me, an analysis of religion starts with, well, an analysis of religion. What do they claim today, what were they claiming yesterday, the day before that, the century before that, and so on.

In like manner I accept there is much I do not know and will continue to work to understand. As I said much earlier in this thread; God cannot serve as the foundation of an argument though he may be the conclusion. However, I do contest your means of analysis of religion. I think religion like science should evolve with our understanding of the world (that was why religion, specifically Catholicism, has been a ardent supporter of scientific study and learning. To understand the Creator by means of the creation). Otherwise I would say what does science claim today, what did it claim yesterday, the day before, and a century before? Seems like a snake oil salesman refining their pitch right?

And the fact remains that religious theology continues to rely on a god of gaps argument, and by now so many of those gaps have closed, the credibility of these arguments are strained.

I would say science as a field of study is reliant on positing a plug of gaps argument. Then by assuming the plug and further analysis it affirms or rejects the plug not in accordance with the objective truth but rather the effective truth (a big distinction as made earlier by noting that which looks, walks, and quacks like a duck is not necessarily a duck while being effectively a duck). Now the limitation of science as expressed is that it does not determine the truth of the matter as much as it determines, which fanciful explanation is most effective in describing the anecdotal observations.

Just as in your quantum mechanics example the gap is filled with virtual particles that effectively facilitate our understanding of spooky action at a short distance between actual particles until such time as they are effectively dethroned by a better fanciful explanation. Give the current gap filler of virtual particles we then proceed to assume this is true and extend virtual particles to construct the entire quantum foam upon which quantum processes occur. In this way virtual particles are serving as the quantum god of gaps.

Generally the new fanciful explanation subsumes the old rather than refutes it or the old fanciful explanation is considered a special case and not refuted by the new, in such a manner as to be consider a shifting of the goal posts. By your argument science becomes untrustworthy due to the great majority of fanciful explanations being bullshit or being subsumed into new theories in continuation of bullshit under another name. So should you continue to buy the snake oil science is selling?

Moreover, I like Pope Francis so much that I really don't want to spend very much time criticizing (he's almost as left wing as I am, with the exception of issues like gay and reproductive rights, albeit I understand that no Pope could change the churches position on these issues in a credible way, but even in these sensitive areas, he's not very dogmatic, which again is commendable).

Funny thing is I am not a fan of Pope Francis. I think he is too ambiguous in what he states such that people construe things from him that he is not saying. I have heard tons of people tell me how he is changing the Catholic Church for the better and has said things that no pope before him would have. I will be the first to tell you he has not said anything different than was understood in the 30+ years I have been catholic. It was always held that Atheist and Agnostics may go to heaven (It is called men of good faith), that any number of persons of immoral conduct are welcome in the church (condemn the sin not the sinner), clergy are asexual so there is no such thing to us as gay or straight clergy.

Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in having a decent society where people care about each other as opposed to wasting huge amounts of time and energy battling with religionists over questions that we'll probably never resolve. I'd be happy enough if people became a little more skeptical, to the point where they no longer feel like they have a mandate from a god instructing them to commit murder or inhibit the rights of others and so on (as far as I'm concerned, I love our Bill of Rights, and I think that people have a right to their beliefs, again, as long as they're not impeding the rights of others).

On this we are in agreement. As the original argument of this thread started out and was supported in the long post to Nestor, to endeavor to have a decent society by means solely of ethical restriction is to result in a society focused on the ends rather than the means of conduct. In order for you to have the decent society you prefer you are going to need moral appeal to a fictitious entity as determinate of right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.

Like the Catholic church wants to say that a small collection of cells, which are not sentient in any reasonable sense, somehow comprise "life" ... and as absurd as I may think that position is, I'm not bothered by the fact that people hold this view, I'm only bothered when these views inform our public policy). This is why we have a judicial branch of government. To enforce our Bill of Rights, which is to say that we're a secular democracy founded upon a separation of church and state, and thus where religious dogmas appear in our public policy, our court system should strike it down. But then, our courts are only as good as the justices who sit on the bench, and there's always the possibility that we could return to a dark and theocratic society (especially in a reactionary culture, where the religious feel threatened by the encroachment of other faiths, like Islam, and instead of dealing with that threat in an enlightened way, it's very easy for a society to reflexively go down the path of tribalism).

1. Umm... the bill of rights is heavily based on the rights determined of persons by the Catholic Church during the inquisitions throughout Europe (in order to avoid witch hunts) and the rights outlined in the Magna Carta as determined and written by the Catholic Church. YOUR WELCOME
2. In accordance with the law the bill of rights may be amended by means of constitutional change by which the religious dogma of the majority (which is not contra to public policy but is generally considered public policy) may supersede the authority of even the Supreme Court.

But again, for me, religious arguments are not persuasive. It's as if on his fifth attempt, the snake oil salesman refined his sales pitch. Those earlier concoctions did in fact have some curative effect, even though it wasn't obvious at the time, and so I never lied. It's just that you'll need a dose of my new concoction to realize those benefits. Ahhhhhh

Hello!! Placebo effect!! It only works if you believed it would

(although I still reserve the right to pick on Christian Scientists, because it's really fun to pick on Tom Cruise and his flaky sheeple, and their anti-science posture really does need to be challenged, because it's potentially harmful, like some people do really need psychotropic drugs, even though we may overuse these drugs ... but in that case, it's capitalism not science causing the problems)?

HA HA. I agree. I may believe in an imaginary guy in the sky who watches everything you do (even in the shower ) but those people are crazy!!

And also, here in the US, evangelicals are a real problem. They are in fact influencing public policy, literally going as far as changing history books to conform with their essentially mythical version of American history, they work hard to keep real science out of our schools, and so if we want to remain economically competitive and intellectually progressive, we have to challenge this crap.

We are once again on the same page in regards to this. Sola scriptura is the worst thing ever!! Literal interpretation of the bible was never the intention nor was the utilization of the bible as the end all be all of all knowledge!! "Beware the man of one book." - Saint Augustine

At the same time, I'm real apprehensive about Pope Francis' call for a truce of sorts with atheism (I think that really reflects a church that's worried about the increasing secularism of Europe, and to a lesser extent, the US). Pope's die, our next Pope could be another Benedict type (or worse), and so I'm not gonna team up with the RCC just because the current Pope seems like a really nice guy, who seems so devoted to socialism that he might be willing to roll out a sleeping bag and do some protesting with us. Nonetheless, I have worked with Catholic groups (and some Episcopalian clergy members) during occupy wall street (which I was somewhat involved in), and consider many of them to be good friends (I've maintained those relationships, because they're good people who give a shit). And incidentally, I've always viewed Jesus as the first famous anarchist (and I really think that somewhere along the way, some Roman inserted that bullshit about 'give to Caesar' ... since it's so inconsistent with everything else Jesus said, and so obviously self-serving for the then existing Roman government). I'm willing to view Jesus as an anarcho-socialist superhero of sorts, just not a godman.

I really think people misinterpret the give to cesar part. Simply because they do not properly recognize who is Cesar. Most hold it to be the government, but what it is properly understood to be is us, human society. We are Cesar! This is why Jesus later states to reconcile with your brother before you seek to reconcile with god, there are two great commandment and in the second lies the first (love one another as I have loved you). I swear to God every time I hear someone say "We God has forgiven me" I want to drop kick them in the face. God is not the only one you offended so he can forgive you all he wants, but you still have to reconcile with the rest of us!

[The Grand Nudger]

I love sifting through posts to find the hidden turds.

 In order for you to have the decent society you prefer you are going to need moral appeal to a fictitious entity as determinate of right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.

-another "Why be good?" from a catholic.....   

Sure, a person -could- make that appeal..and many do. There's no necessity, no need. If you feel a need, then...by all means, continue to do so. Whatever keeps your hands from strangling people is a-ok with me.