300 réponses à ce sujet

[Liamv2]

God this thered needs locking BAD

[Zobo]

Blight Nug wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...
Not believing in an intelligent designer and actively believing there isn't one are two very different things.  Very few scientifically minded atheists would make the assertion that "There is noIntelligent designer of the universe".  You are setting up a straw man, albeit probably unintentionally.  The statement should read something like this:  "There is little to no credible evidence for the existence of a designer, thus I feel belief in one is not justified." That is far more representative of the position that an atheist such as myself holds, and is a conclusion based on inquiry rather than an assumption.  
Note that I have no interest in arguing with you over which is ultimately correct, theism or atheism.  I do not prosteletize.  I merely wish to correct an error which you (and many others) seem to have in your understanding of what atheism is and what it isn't.

Zobo wrote...All wrong. There is no pre-assumption that there is no intelligent designer.Also for the question of complexity in life on earth the answer is evolution and newer has it been build on pre-assumptions of that there is no god. It has been build on evidence such as fossil records, genetic code, anatomical studies, observations etc. Charles Darwin was a believer, he didn't construct the famous evolution theory because of loosing his faith, he actually lost his faith as a result of his evolution theory. Can you see the major difference here? Also there are so many things proving evolution even The Catholic Church actually had to accept it.

It is an assumption in regards to origin of the universe and evolution. We must assume no powerful intelligent agent ever tampered with what we observed if we want to theorize how natural forces alone have created what we see. These atheistic scientific theories are later used as evidence against belief in a supreme designer because "they explain everything already so there is no need to invoke a god". Each worldview forms a cycle than continues to validate itself. Whether the scientists make a strong claim on the designer or not is irrelevant to the fact that their theories only function assuming there isn't one (that interfered with the world).
I'm not claiming all atheists came to their worldviews with assumptions to start with, I'm saying there are scientific theories that have atheistic assumptions, and set a cycle in motion. 
The theory of evolution is a interpretation of observations that assumes natural laws were the only relevant agents in the origin of biological complexity and variety. Darwin observed that natural laws can change biological life, so he hypothesized that all biological life was created by the changing force of nature alone. This hypothesis includes the assumption that no supreme being interfered, though not a personal assumption at that point. Once the theory became stronger, he recognized the incompatibility of his theory and his religion and concluded his theory was more substantiated. This doesn't change the fact that his theory had a non-biblical assumption that destined it to go against his religious faith.

Sorry, but that's all I can say except I can simply copy-paste my tirade about Darwin once again. It seems you just don't understand what a word "pre-assumption" means.

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

All this discussions usually boils to the same.

Atheists thinking themselves smarter, more educated, more rational, more whatever - thus looking down on religious folk. If not outright saying, they imply the above things in their posts.
Religious folk retaliate and thus spark a flame war.

I've been on hunderds of forums and seen thousands of religious debates. 99 times out of 100 it's the atheist that starts it.

And now, atheists are going to feel insulted and will start formulating a rebuttal/reply, completely ignoring that that same outrage they feel now is what religious folk feel when they are looking down at them and implying their superiority.

See how easy it is? It is for this exact reason I avoid talking about religion at all.
Religion = worldview.
Atheism = worldview.
They run trough every facet of our life. When you attack it, poeple WILL react.

Atheists are as much a mixed bag as religious individuals. If one side or another starts an arguement it is based on a seperate facet of their character. I don't hesitate to say that your numbers are skewed.

I've met religious individuals who insulted me for not believing, saying I'm going to hell, x, y and z. I've met atheists who think that any religious person is an indoctrinated fool blindly following a conspiracy. I used to be one.
I've also met individuals of both sides who could just brush off the fact that whoever they were talking to did not believe the same.
Both sides have individuals who believe the other is composed of idiots. Both sides have perfectly decent individuals as well.

There is no outrage. There is no superiority. Belief or lack thereof does not make an individual any better or worse than another. There are a dozen better ways to judge an individual.

Despite your seemingly neutral tone, you have also lumped atheists and the religious into groups, atheists as having superiority complexes and believers as merely acting in rebuttal. This happens, but is not the only way these arguements begin. Religious folk are just as often at fault.

[Auintus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Let this die, man. It really isn't necessary.

Video games aren't necessary, but they are entertaining. 

[Auintus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Video games aren't necessary, but they are entertaining. 

Video games don't descend into petty squabbles with people RAEGing and insulting each oth--

what am I saying. This is BSN.

Hence the entertainment. Nobody's really getting hurt. Besides, I need entertainment until ME3: Omega is released.

[Eternal Phoenix]

NO.

[Xilizhra]

Elton John is dead wrote...

NO.

You seem to want a great deal for other people to not have fun.

[jackofalltrades456]

Of course you can't, you silly goose. Everyone knows you're not allowed have choices in a Dragon Age game.

[Pelle6666]

I figure they will let us be skeptical at least. Of course they won't turn the game into a religious identity simulator but since there have already been several occasions in both Da and Me where the subject have come up and the player had the chance to choose a stance. The different beliefs of the people in Thedas also indicate that none will be "proven" right or wrong in the games.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

I'm amazed this thread is still going. Well carry on...

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 24 novembre 2012 - 02:55 .

[frag971]

Hard to be an atheist when believing something that may or may not exist is a valid counter-argument. That argument falls apart when a fireball hits your face. there is no faith when proven real.

[HiddenInWar]

Whatever floats your boat.

[Urzon]

I had to look around for the proper term, but i think it best describes my thoughts on the matter: Apathetic agnosticism.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) acknowledges that any amount of debate can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.
Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.

There is no real point in argueing. Like it says above, neither side can prove what it's says is true.

So drop it already....

[ultimatekotorfan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

All this discussions usually boils to the same.

Atheists thinking themselves smarter, more educated, more rational, more whatever - thus looking down on religious folk. If not outright saying, they imply the above things in their posts.
Religious folk retaliate and thus spark a flame war.

I've been on hunderds of forums and seen thousands of religious debates. 99 times out of 100 it's the atheist that starts it.

And now, atheists are going to feel insulted and will start formulating a rebuttal/reply, completely ignoring that that same outrage they feel now is what religious folk feel when they are looking down at them and implying their superiority.

See how easy it is? It is for this exact reason I avoid talking about religion at all.
Religion = worldview.
Atheism = worldview.
They run trough every facet of our life. When you attack it, poeple WILL react.

Nice attempt at faking neutrality while blatantly applying a broad brush to the behaviors of both atheists and theists.

[Heimdall]

Urzon wrote...

I had to look around for the proper term, but i think it best describes my thoughts on the matter: Apathetic agnosticism.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) acknowledges that any amount of debate can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.
Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.

There is no real point in argueing. Like it says above, neither side can prove what it's says is true.

So drop it already....

Amen to that

[Eternal Phoenix]

This thread didn't need to be revived but seeing as it is...

No OP. No.

[Fast Jimmy]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Urzon wrote...

I had to look around for the proper term, but i think it best describes my thoughts on the matter: Apathetic agnosticism.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) acknowledges that any amount of debate can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.
Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.

There is no real point in argueing. Like it says above, neither side can prove what it's says is true.

So drop it already....

Amen to that

Reviving a nine day old thread by agreeing that people just need to drop it is just... I mean, come on, dude. 

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Reviving a nine day old thread by agreeing that people just need to drop it is just... I mean, come on, dude. 

I came to it through an indirect link and didn't notice it was 9 days old until after I posted 

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 02 décembre 2012 - 09:06 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

EntropicAngel wrote...


what am I saying. This is BSN.

Correction:

This is the internet.

[Medhia Nox]

Why would the belief in nothing need representation?

I wasn't aware the next game was going to be modeled after the Council of Nicea.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zobo wrote...

Sorry, but that's all I can say except I can simply copy-paste my tirade about Darwin once again. It seems you just don't understand what a word "pre-assumption" means.

I'm afraid the other guy is right.
Science really doesn't have all the answers - not even close - and in may cases it takes theoreis and runs with them. Sometimes they even become holy cows, as unscientific as it sounds.

Scaince fails (and will always fail) to explain the creation of the universe.
And every single (unprovable) theory they have is even more redicolous then "god did it". Yet they belive in those theories...do you go out and call them out on it?

[Lotion Soronarr]

ultimatekotorfan wrote...
Nice attempt at faking neutrality while blatantly applying a broad brush to the behaviors of both atheists and theists.

I am merely stating my experience.
Never did say it was statisticly representative.