Why I'm an Atheist

[Tubby]

Focalor, go to your local library and grab any book in the non-fiction section. Any book. Chances are there will be 'facts' in that book which will have been outdated and contradicted by more recent 'facts'.

This applies as much to you and your precious 'books of knowledge' today as it did to those who argued the 'facts' in those dusty old library books yesterday... As it will apply to those who argue the 'facts' of tomorrow... ad nauseum.

And as the discoverer of this great profundity, you've elected to embrace a position of epistemological nihilism?

Quadz, what the fuck is 'epistemological nihilism'? Seriously...?

I'm not quite as brilliant as I appear (nearly, but not quite). 

[Tubby]

Focalor, go to your local library and grab any book in the non-fiction section. Any book. Chances are there will be 'facts' in that book which will have been outdated and contradicted by more recent 'facts'.

This applies as much to you and your precious 'books of knowledge' today as it did to those who argued the 'facts' in those dusty old library books yesterday... As it will apply to those who argue the 'facts' of tomorrow... ad nauseum.

If you have a new theory, that explains everything, and is more accurate, let's hear it.

Let's take the stretch and say you weren't trying to reinvent natural selection.  We're back to my original post, where you get owned again and again : (

 

Focalor, I don't have any 'new' theory, nor have I ever professed to.

All I'm doing is taking the theories that we as human beings have thus far developed and trying to apply them to what I believe explains the world / universe / whatever in the way that makes most sense to me.

I am fully open to the idea that anything I say on this thread may be (and probably will be) shot down by my children and your children in the generations of thinkers to come.

[quadz]

Quadz, what the fuck is 'epistemological nihilism'? Seriously...?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="epistemological nihilism"

Was that so hard?

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=162921&start=0

Epistemological nihilism is a brand of extreme skepticism which claims that there is absolutely no knowledge. [...] It goes something like this: there can be no true knowledge because the tool we use to gather knowledge--logic and rationality--cannot be proven to be correct. They simply assume that they are right and any attempt to prove their correctness would beg the question since it would use logic and rationality in its proof. Basically, if there is no independent source capable of verifying the truthfulness of our truth seeking instruments, they must be considered unable to accumulate any true knowledge.

Thus my question:

another good reason to be a little removed from too much information whilst subsequently acknowledging that one has no facts.

So you're into epistemological nihilism?

[Tubby]

Ok thanks Quadz.

Wow. So it seems I'm an Epistemological Nihilist.

Is there a church for Epistemological Nihilists which I can attend, Quadz? Maybe something like The Church of Latter Day Epistemological Nihilists???

Can't I just be a Christian or a Hindu instead? So much easier to pronounce...     

[reaper]

All I'm doing is taking the theories that we as human beings have thus far developed and trying to apply them to what I believe explains the world / universe / whatever in the way that makes most sense to me.

while ignoring the apples and oranges components of your analogies and stereotyping people

 

[Tubby]

All I'm doing is taking the theories that we as human beings have thus far developed and trying to apply them to what I believe explains the world / universe / whatever in the way that makes most sense to me.

while ignoring the apples and oranges components of your analogies and stereotyping people

 

Reaper, I'm not ignoring them. In fact, I think I've learned a whole heap of stuff from the people who have posted in this thread:


1. Abuse, insult, and attack anyone who dares to challenge your preconcieved religious notions.

2. Expect the full wrath of god as foretold in the Bible should you dare to question the wisdom of the Almighty.

3. People are generally closed to new ideas.

4. People are not as far removed from other animals as many of them would like to believe.

5. When people are unable to argue constructively, they resort to personal insults and abuse.


They should teach this stuff in school...

 

[reaper]

reaper: look here, it's a circle, you said it was square, hey here's a proof showing it
tubby: so I was saying that it's a square you know

p.s, you should listen to some politicians dodge questions, because you certainly need some work on it

"
The variations and fluctuations of the price of tea in china causes a dichotomous Nero-psychological imbalance in those who cannot ponder the importance of what is reality and fact versus what is fiction in juxtaposition to the critical matters facing society today. In other words, if they didn't drink tea, they would not have to worry about the price of it in China. Then could then spend their time concerning themselves with what is really important. However, they lack the ability to contemplate such. Therefore, they should stop drinking tea and start drinking Coca Cola Blak or Russian Vodka.
"

[Tubby]

Reaper, I'm just calling a circle a circle as I see it, and a square a square as I see it.

Anyway, moving on...

As for 'natural selection' in the context of this discussion, let's just say it's the closest we (human beings) have come to trying to explain ourselves and the world around us. Like I said, the theory has it's flaws, but it seems a helluva lot more plausable than some unseen entity in the sky creating us out of dust in one day...

Many people ask how such a complex thing as a human being could have evolved from a primordial pool of slime. A favourite Creationist argument is to cite the example of the human eye - they ask 'how, without intelligent design, could something as perfect as the human eye come into being?'

It's a fair question, but what they convieniently seem to dismiss are the 'intelligent designs' of the eyes of what they consider to be lesser creatures: For example; the housefly, the spider, or the ant.

Surely no Creationist will dispute that the eyes of these creatures are 'less developed' than those of our own? So, take another step back and consider the 'eyes' of an earthworm or a slug.

These are not hypothetical eyes. You can find them out in your back yard right now if you care to go and look.

Then, take one more step back and consider the eyes of bacteria and algae. But wait - Bacteria and algae dont have eyes!

That's right, but many do have photosensitive receptors which are - guess what - the progenitor to that wonderful human eye which 'could only have been created by intelligent design'.

Understand this and you'll understand how humans could - over the course of millions of years - have evolved out of a primordial pool of slime.

In other words, maybe we're not as great as we think we are. Maybe, one day, we were just two simple cells which happened to come together in the right place at the right time. And maybe our 'magnificient eyes' are simply a product of those two cells joining, dividing, evolving.

Yes: Evolving.

[|iR|Focalor]

Focalor, go to your local library and grab any book in the non-fiction section. Any book. Chances are there will be 'facts' in that book which will have been outdated and contradicted by more recent 'facts'.

This applies as much to you and your precious 'books of knowledge' today as it did to those who argued the 'facts' in those dusty old library books yesterday... As it will apply to those who argue the 'facts' of tomorrow... ad nauseum.

You aren't into thinking your ideas through very well. That's one reason why I'd rather stick to "book knowledge" than your "fresh insights", at least it's correct.

You aren't just wrong, you're TOTALLY FUCKIN' WRONG! Facts WERE facts. Facts ARE facts. Facts WILL BE facts tomorrow. The Nazi's lost World War 2: that's a fact. 2+2=4: that's a fact. Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

I await yet another "wow them with bullshit" smoke and mirrors response to laugh at.

[quadz]

Wow. So it seems I'm an Epistemological Nihilist.

Indeed.  Although I suspect it's more likely you're just intellectually lazy, and that your lassitude has led you to a position of epistemological nihilism by default.

If you aren't lazy, I'd recommend you may wish to research the numerous arguments against epistemological nihilism as a philosophy/ideology.

Unfortunately, experience so far suggests you're unlikely to even bother performing the most trivial web search on your own.

So here's a starting point: (I've added the hyperlink to the Gödel reference.)

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=162921&start=0#p1965956

Any form of Nihilism is a result of the intellect crumpling under the disconcerting lack of certainty that exists in every method of describing existence.

No coherent or complete system exists. They either must rely on other systems or contradict themselves (Thank you Mr Gödel.) Thus there is no means of absolute proof for anything, BUT we can trust some ideas as having a high probability of truth.

Science "may only be good for producing bombs and television sets", but I offer the existence of bombs and television sets as evidence that SOMETHING is working and that knowledge is possible.

On a related note, permit me to fix these for you:

Focalor, I don't have any 'new' theory, nor have I ever professed to.

All I'm doing is taking the theories that we as human beings have thus far developed and without bothering to acquire more than a superficial understanding of these theories, trying to apply them to what I believe explains the world / universe / whatever in the way that makes most sense to me--even though intuition has shown itself to be a notoriously poor guide to illuminating the deeper mysteries of nature.

I am fully open to the idea that anything I say on this thread may be (and probably will be) shot down by my children and your children in the generations of thinkers to come.  However, I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of already established scientific theory.  When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards.  However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

OK?

[Tubby]

Focalor, go to your local library and grab any book in the non-fiction section. Any book. Chances are there will be 'facts' in that book which will have been outdated and contradicted by more recent 'facts'.

This applies as much to you and your precious 'books of knowledge' today as it did to those who argued the 'facts' in those dusty old library books yesterday... As it will apply to those who argue the 'facts' of tomorrow... ad nauseum.

You aren't into thinking your ideas through very well. That's one reason why I'd rather stick to "book knowledge" than your "fresh insights", at least it's correct.

You aren't just wrong, you're TOTALLY FUCKIN' WRONG! Facts WERE facts. Facts ARE facts. Facts WILL BE facts tomorrow. The Nazi's lost World War 2: that's a fact. 2+2=4: that's a fact. Name me one single instance in which a previous "fact" is no longer a "fact". Keep in mind that I said "fact" and put quotes around it to emphasize it. People thinking the world is flat and that boats fall off the side and get eaten by monsters is NOT A FACT, and NEVER WAS A FACT.

I await yet another "wow them with bullshit" smoke and mirrors response to laugh at.

That's a fair reply, Focalor. I can't argue with the fact that 2+2=4, or that the Nazis lost WW2.

What I am saying - and what I already said - is that this thread is about something which cannot be argued on 'facts' alone.

Remember, we're talking about belief (or otherwise) in god. That's as much a philisophical as a scientific question, and, as such, we need to get over our anal obsession with science and 'facts' in order to discuss it.

[haunted]

I can't argue with the fact that 2+2=4

2+2 may not equal 4, you can't rely on the mathematical facts concerning basic addition alone... The sum could be something entirely different than 4. I am just saying that you should not entirely base your decision on facts.

[Tubby]

in the face of already established scientific theory.

It's exactly here that you and I part ways, Quadz.

I've tried to explain my position on this several times. If you haven't got it yet, then you're never going to get it.

[quadz]

in the face of already established scientific theory.

It's exactly here that you and I part ways, Quadz.

I've tried to explain my position on this several times. If you haven't got it yet, then you're never going to get it.

Cute.

Was my summary of your position correct, or not?  And if not, which part did I get wrong?

Here's the summary again:

I am closed to the idea that the things I say on this thread can be shown to be incorrect in the face of already established scientific theory.  When faced with such an eventuality I will instead invoke a form of selective epistemological nihilism by which I will claim that because scientific theories can be shown historically to be subject to refinement over time, with newer more accurate theories replacing older theories, that therefore no immutable facts exist, and I shall on this basis assert that my own hypotheses should be exempt from any critique based on present day scientific standards.  However, this exemption will expire at some future date, when our children have progressed sufficiently to subject my hypotheses to criticism based on their present day scientific standards.

[Arm0r]

in the face of already established scientific theory.

It's exactly here that you and I part ways, Quadz.

I've tried to explain my position on this several times. If you haven't got it yet, then you're never going to get it.

Oh we know your position and it's not from any factual standpoint, you think your own theory is just as applicable as people who have worked hard and provided evidence to establish their theory.  Your guesses about anything aren't anywhere near as valuable as the people who have actually tested theirs and have built mountains of information concerning theirs....you won't see the difference, true to form I don't expect you to.