Author Topic: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism  (Read 34918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2012, 01:22:39 PM »
I suppose the main problem here is that any people seem to think that atheism really means "lack of belief" in any gods (which means that the slimy rhetoric that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, etc, fervently preach is ultimately achieving its dishonest goal).

Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #106 on: March 13, 2012, 01:25:38 PM »
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2012, 01:36:05 PM »
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.

But not proof.  And also faith is absolutely needed to believe in a god.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2012, 01:46:36 PM »
It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.

But not proof.  And also faith is absolutely needed to believe in a god.

That's silly. Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads "Hey, I created the universe - God. P.S. what's up, bitches"? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?

Frankly, this whole thread reeks of scientism - that knowledge can only be arrived at through scientific inquiry and empirical, physical evidence.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2012, 01:47:12 PM »
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.

do you have sources for this?

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2012, 01:52:13 PM »
I suppose the main problem here is that any people seem to think that atheism really means "lack of belief" in any gods (which means that the slimy rhetoric that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, etc, fervently preach is ultimately achieving its dishonest goal).

Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.

So conversely, the only people that are theists are people that do not have even     
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% doubt that god exists.
I am pretty sure that that person does not, and never has, existed.
I would hazard a guess that, since we are human, and that we have no proof, we are all basically on a sliding scale of agnosticism.


It's also amusing that many of the posters here seem to think that theists arrive and sustain their belief in God not through reason, but blind faith. Again, theology and large areas of philosophy (as silly as you may think they are) are concerned with arriving and explaining God's existence through logos, reason and logic, not blind, unsubstantiated faith.

For all the "reasoning", "logic", and "logos", it is still a guess.  Nothing more.  They may not be blind faith, but they are leaps of faith nonetheless.  There have been many assertions throughout history that were thought out with the available level of "reason", and "logic" and philosophy that ended up being absloute jokes.  Believing in a higher being is fine.  I think there are some good arguements for it.  Belief in a specific version of god, like the christian god, to be correct = :lol to me.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #111 on: March 13, 2012, 02:06:12 PM »
Quote
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2012, 02:06:45 PM »
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.

do you have sources for this?

No he doesn't, because it isn't correct.  That is the one narrow definition that fits in best with his beliefs.
In a more broad sense is a rejection of belief.  That does not rule out doubt.  If it did, then the same would apply to Theism, where a believer who had even a nano second of doubt would then be agnostic.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #113 on: March 13, 2012, 02:07:41 PM »
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
Both of these are rather silly. Why would you believe something without claiming knowledge?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36084
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #114 on: March 13, 2012, 02:09:03 PM »
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
Both of these are rather silly. Why would you believe something without claiming knowledge?

Probability? I believe I won't die tomorrow, but I don't know it.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15236
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #115 on: March 13, 2012, 02:15:33 PM »
I go to work for a couple of hours and I fell *WAAAY* behind. 

I will read up...but I just bid a job and got hired, so I'm going to be busy for a couple of days instead of sitting on a couch.   

Be patient with me.

I honestly feel I'm being misunderstood here.

One thing I will clarify.   Someone said that I'm admitting there is no empirical evidence for God.   This is a twisting of what I said.    I said "by the same argument"...in other words, there is NO LESS empirical evidence for God than there is for evolution. 

No matter what data you present, more than one conclusion can be drawn.   To draw any conclusion at all (for something you did not personally witness) requires a measure of what you would call "faith"...   Not a blind faith, but a faith based on conclusions drawn from facts.    It's just that different people interpret the facts in different ways. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #116 on: March 13, 2012, 02:20:59 PM »
If there was the same amount of evidence for a god as there was for evolution, everyone would be believers.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #117 on: March 13, 2012, 02:24:01 PM »
Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism. Anything less than that (ie: God may or may not exist, yet I don't think God exists) is agnosticism, coupled with personal biographical statements on one's views on the existence of God. If a person still acts obstinately and decides to redefine this as atheism, then it follows that such an individual is mired in semantical ignorance.

do you have sources for this?

No he doesn't, because it isn't correct.  That is the one narrow definition that fits in best with his beliefs.
In a more broad sense is a rejection of belief.  That does not rule out doubt.  If it did, then the same would apply to Theism, where a believer who had even a nano second of doubt would then be agnostic.

Eric, I ignored Catfish's post for a reason. I just don't even know how to respond to this adequately. It would just seem too hopeless.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15236
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #118 on: March 13, 2012, 02:26:26 PM »
After doing a bit of reading....I can see that I miscommunicated myself...and for that I apologize.   I'm obviously not using proper terminology, and that is my fault.

I was trying to communicate the idea of something far more drastic than a fly changing into another type of fly or a dog changing into another type of dog.    I don't know what the proper terminology is for what I'm trying to communicate....I'll have to do some more digging.   (I obviously have to refresh my memory on a few of the particulars...)

Again...I'm sorry for miscommunicating my idea.   
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #119 on: March 13, 2012, 02:36:52 PM »
I was trying to communicate the idea of something far more drastic than a fly changing into another type of fly or a dog changing into another type of dog.    I don't know what the proper terminology is for what I'm trying to communicate....I'll have to do some more digging.   (I obviously have to refresh my memory on a few of the particulars...)

Who claims such a thing? I hope you're not saying evolution makes the claim that dogs turn into flies.

If you want to see what Evolution says about our development, I invite you to go here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

and do the fun exercise of clicklng successively on the next higher branch of the phylogenic tree (it's always on the right of the page, called "Scientific Classification"). What you're essentially doing is going backwards in time that way, and I always find that fascinating, to see how the organisms get simpler and simpler.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #120 on: March 13, 2012, 02:38:44 PM »
If there was the same amount of evidence for a god as there was for evolution, everyone would be believers.
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
Just as it just 'seems right' to some people to choose to place thier Faith and beliefs in God. Nothing wrong with that either.
  Where these two different points of view always come to a head is when one side or the other insist that they are right and the other is wrong. Always going to happen and be there. It's difficult as well to discuss it in a forum environment where typed words can't express the emotion behind their meaning and things may be misunderstood one way or the other.
 
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Silver Tears

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2519
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #121 on: March 13, 2012, 02:39:38 PM »
Agnostic theist = believes there to be a god but does not claim knowledge such
Agnostic atheist = does not believe there to be a god and does not claim knowledge of such
Both of these are rather silly. Why would you believe something without claiming knowledge?

They make perfect sense to me, you can believe something while at the same time accepting that you can't actually know for sure. Isn't that kind of the nature of belief anyway?

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #122 on: March 13, 2012, 02:40:34 PM »
That is the definition of FAITH.  I don't know X outright, but I believe in X fully.  Faith.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline Silver Tears

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2519
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #123 on: March 13, 2012, 02:41:32 PM »
Oh ok, I think I use those words kind of interchangeably then  :lol

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #124 on: March 13, 2012, 02:43:25 PM »
If there was the same amount of evidence for a god as there was for evolution, everyone would be believers.
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.

this is such an old argument.. a theory is not the same as an hypothesis, which is what intelligent design is, they are not equal.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15236
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #125 on: March 13, 2012, 02:43:55 PM »
I see the progression of ideas....and to me, it just fits the pattern of an artists creation.   You start with an idea, then you move on and make something more complex, that gives you an idea to make something else along the same lines, then an inspiration to make something more complex...  each thing an individual creation progressing an idea into the next.    Separate, but inspired from.    Every time I see the pattern...especially as an artist...I see a pattern of progressing ideas.  It's a beautiful thing.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #126 on: March 13, 2012, 02:44:03 PM »
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
Just as it just 'seems right' to some people to choose to place thier Faith and beliefs in God. Nothing wrong with that either.

I'm sorry gmiller, but I don't really know what to say after your post here. You're arguing as if this was the 1850s when there was indeed scarce evidence. It's the year 2012, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt.

I mean, I have to ask the question here: Do you guys not read news? There's about monthly some news about new tantalizing evidence of our origin and the origin of our solar system. Is this not on the websites you read, or do you intentionally skip it?

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #127 on: March 13, 2012, 02:48:20 PM »
I see the progression of ideas....and to me, it just fits the pattern of an artists creation.   You start with an idea, then you move on and make something more complex, that gives you an idea to make something else along the same lines, then an inspiration to make something more complex...  each thing an individual creation progressing an idea into the next.    Separate, but inspired from.    Every time I see the pattern...especially as an artist...I see a pattern of progressing ideas.  It's a beautiful thing.

None of this, again, is proof.  This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design.  Which is fine.  But it's not proof.  It is your own interpretation after looking at things.  Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence.  This is a deduction you have made on your own.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #128 on: March 13, 2012, 02:48:53 PM »
I see the progression of ideas....and to me, it just fits the pattern of an artists creation.   You start with an idea, then you move on and make something more complex, that gives you an idea to make something else along the same lines, then an inspiration to make something more complex...  each thing an individual creation progressing an idea into the next.    Separate, but inspired from.    Every time I see the pattern...especially as an artist...I see a pattern of progressing ideas.  It's a beautiful thing.
Yes, it is a beautiful thing. Life is a beautiful and complex and astonishing thing.

I'm confused about what you're saying here, though. You seem to acknowledge that evolution is true, and that, for whatever reason, complex things came from simpler things. So why reject evolution? It seems like you already believe in it, even if you want to argue that God is the one making the genes mutate.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #129 on: March 13, 2012, 02:52:31 PM »
None of this, again, is proof.  This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design.  Which is fine.  But it's not proof.  It is your own interpretation after looking at things.  Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence.  This is a deduction you have made on your own.

I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #130 on: March 13, 2012, 02:55:20 PM »
None of this, again, is proof.  This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design.  Which is fine.  But it's not proof.  It is your own interpretation after looking at things.  Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence.  This is a deduction you have made on your own.

I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?

Stop arguing with me on this.  There is no wordly proof that god exists.  There will never be worldly proof of a god.  God and proof, don't go together.  This has been my point the whole time.  God is based on faith.  God only exists through faith.  There is no proof. 
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #131 on: March 13, 2012, 02:56:05 PM »
None of this, again, is proof.  This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design.  Which is fine.  But it's not proof.  It is your own interpretation after looking at things.  Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence.  This is a deduction you have made on your own.

I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?

I think he meant in relation to evolution, he's not asking for evidence for God he's saying that the evidence in the natural world points towards a system without God.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #132 on: March 13, 2012, 02:57:10 PM »
Evolution is a theory.....just as I suppose athiests and agnostics suggest 'God' is. Evolution still hasn't proven that the spurs behind a Ball Pythons reproductive glans are actually remnants of legs from long ago. It's a 'theory' but still hasn't been proven through fossil records. Just as man 'evolving' is a theory...unable to be proven by any 'hard evidence', just connect the dot theories. It just 'seems right' to some people for whatever reasons they have.
Just as it just 'seems right' to some people to choose to place thier Faith and beliefs in God. Nothing wrong with that either.

I'm sorry gmiller, but I don't really know what to say after your post here. You're arguing as if this was the 1850s when there was indeed scarce evidence. It's the year 2012, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt.

rumborak
I'm not looking for you or any other member to give me a great retort. I think that your view and the view of other members who don't believe in God or are agnostic/athiest....whatever.....I think your views are perfectly clear. And they are all very lucid and compelling.
  I often pass on commenting in P/R due to the simple fact that a lot of the times the comments towards those who admit to be Christian or believe in God seem to be condescending. Like I tried to imply though, that may not be the intention behind a comment you make or a fellow 'non-believer'....but that is how it comes off to me.
  You and others may believe that evolution is beyond a reasonable doubt.....I don't. But that isn't due to lack of evidence or any other scientific advances.....it is quite remarkable the strides science has made. My position is based on the fact that I believe in something that non-believers don't. That not only is there a God who is responsible for existance....but there is an enemy of man who does anything in his power to assure that man does not believe in God, and included in that could be a very elaborate scientific method. I know that is an entire sepereate thread and that type of 'childish' thought is looked down upon by those who believe themselves to be mentally superior to 'believers', but that's the way I see it. 
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #133 on: March 13, 2012, 02:58:59 PM »
None of this, again, is proof.  This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design.  Which is fine.  But it's not proof.  It is your own interpretation after looking at things.  Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence.  This is a deduction you have made on your own.

I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?

I think he meant in relation to evolution, he's not asking for evidence for God he's saying that the evidence in the natural world points towards a system without God.

I would vehemently state otherwise. Besides, what is bothersome is his repeated characterization of believing in God as being simply a matter of "faith," dude.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #134 on: March 13, 2012, 03:00:15 PM »
Do you guys not read news? There's about monthly some news about new tantalizing evidence of our origin and the origin of our solar system. Is this not on the websites you read, or do you intentionally skip it?

rumborak
I love all stories related to our universe and what we uncover about it. But again, I attribute the astonishing things we find out about it to God and the grand design, not a haphazard flash of luck.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #135 on: March 13, 2012, 03:02:42 PM »
Isn't there a danger to mis-attributing things to God though? That is, wouldn't you think God actually cares about you fully comprehending what he was involved in, and equally importantly, what not?

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #136 on: March 13, 2012, 03:12:23 PM »
Isn't there a danger to mis-attributing things to God though? That is, wouldn't you think God actually cares about you fully comprehending what he was involved in, and equally importantly, what not?

rumborak
I think when it comes to something as grand and as fluid as the Universe (to me) there is no way it operarates without God being involved. Likewise, when it comes to the evolution of life on our planet....that just doesn't 'happen' in a matter of fact haphazard manner so I attribute all life to having Gods "fingerprints" all over it. I am not a believer who utterly thwarts all thought of evolution....I would think that something as profound as God is capable of things that we as humans just aren't able to understand.
  There's no question in my mind that God would/could/can/did/has/ will continue to use science and all it's laws to fulfill his will.   
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #137 on: March 13, 2012, 03:17:26 PM »
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #138 on: March 13, 2012, 03:19:19 PM »
None of this, again, is proof.  This is all you putting faith that their is a creator and grand design.  Which is fine.  But it's not proof.  It is your own interpretation after looking at things.  Again, this is not proof of anything or evidence.  This is a deduction you have made on your own.

I ask again, "Are we to place God in a test tube? Or to arrive at God through a scientific hypothesis? What would you even define as proof? A grand celestial letter in the cosmos that reads 'Hey, I created the universe - God'? Would that even be enough? How long would it take for atheists to proclaim that such a cosmic letter is merely the product of chance and that such a cosmic message was bound to exist in one of our (purely imaginary) infinite parallel universes?

I think he meant in relation to evolution, he's not asking for evidence for God he's saying that the evidence in the natural world points towards a system without God.

I would vehemently state otherwise. Besides, what is bothersome is his repeated characterization of believing in God as being simply a matter of "faith," dude.

It is a matter of faith though.  It absolutely is a matter of faith.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19148
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #139 on: March 13, 2012, 03:20:36 PM »
I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.
I'm down with that big time. Like I tried to say earlier....I don't see how this life/our planet etc. is possible without the two.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind