"10 Things Christians and Atheists Must Agree On"-- an interesting article

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

I'm a bit confused here. Were you arguing that atheists believe that what can't be seen doesn't exist?

Gah, I meant that people who only believe in things their limited senses can "prove" are ****tards.

I think you're coming pretty close to calling Arch a ****tard 

Edit: Or maybe not. I think I might be getting Arch's brand of philosohpy mixed up with someone else's.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Basically, logic allows you to never get a wrong answer assuming that you start from a premise that's true.

Prove it.

It's a classic philosophical problem.

Logic requires a framework, which is not at all the same as circular reasoning.

Good guesses are nothing like knowledge, things you can know for certain. If I know something in the strictest sense then I should never look back at it. The only way it can be wrong is if I made a mistake in my initial reasoning.
If I very strongly suspect something then I can accept new evidence and see that it might have been wrong. This is a humongous difference.

As above.
Also, I was actually being extremely pedantic. As far as I am aware, it is simply (but annoyingly) impossible to know anything beyond the fact that you (and only you) exist. Everything beyond that is based on assumptions (for example, that an objective reality exists, that other human-looking-things have minds similar to your own, and so on).

 

[MountainBlade]

Well yeah, but its not for Christianity or Atheism its for inbetween, so its not biased because its not favoring a certain side its favoring a compromise...If that makes sense.

Sort of...though it's not what I'd call unbiased. It's also sad that whoever made that is trying to sound reasonable and unassuming but ends up making presumptions of his own. What a ****.

Logic requires a framework, which is not at all the same as circular reasoning.

Good guesses are nothing like knowledge, things you can know for certain. If I know something in the strictest sense then I should never look back at it. The only way it can be wrong is if I made a mistake in my initial reasoning.
If I very strongly suspect something then I can accept new evidence and see that it might have been wrong. This is a humongous difference.

As above.
Also, I was actually being extremely pedantic. As far as I am aware, it is simply (but annoyingly) impossible to know anything beyond the fact that you (and only you) exist. Everything beyond that is based on assumptions (for example, that an objective reality exists, that other human-looking-things have minds similar to your own, and so on).

Prove what? That circular reasoning is not the same as a logical framework? As for the second point, you are correct when talking about the outside world.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

And since when is atheism incorrect?

...except if you're a pedantic agnostic like I'm not.

 

[Merentha]

Well yeah, but its not for Christianity or Atheism its for inbetween, so its not biased because its not favoring a certain side its favoring a compromise...If that makes sense.

That's no damn middle-ground.  Its simply less dogmatic Christianity.  Where the **** does every other world religion factor into your trite, inane "middle ground"?

I think you're coming pretty close to calling Arch a ****tard 

On a few things, Arch is a ****tard. 

Gah, I meant that people who only believe in things their limited senses can "prove" are ****tards.

Eh, if I can't see it, feel it, perceive it, or in any way be aware of it, or see, feel, perceive, or be aware of any of its effects, it might as well not exist.  I'm okay with that. 

 

[Moss]

This article makes the usual mistake and I'm never going to get tired of saying this. Atheism is not a religion. There is no church, no leaders, no dogma and no holy text. It's just a whole bunch of people with different ideas and no religion.

I have about as much in common with an atheist like say, Arch, as Wicka has with Opus Dei.

I think there's always going to be this same stupid argument until people realise that atheism isn't about disbelieving in god, but about not believing in god. But for someone whose always going to approach it from a standpoint that god exists and atheists don't believe in him/her/it, then it's going to be a hard distinction to make.

I have no reason to believe in god, so I don't. I don't disbelieve in god, I just never believed in the first place.

 

[Worbah]

I think you're coming pretty close to calling Arch a ****tard 

On a few things, Arch is a ****tard. 

Gah, I meant that people who only believe in things their limited senses can "prove" are ****tards.

Eh, if I can't see it, feel it, perceive it, or in any way be aware of it, or see, feel, perceive, or be aware of any of its effects, it might as well not exist.  I'm okay with that. 

You won't feel that way when the invisible rape-bugs of Yuggoth visit you, and the police will claim you were buggered to death by your neighbours. Well, alright, you can feel them violating you, but it will be too late for you. The rape-bugs shall use your corpse as a breeding ground and slay us all. Thus spake Abdul Alhazred.

 

[Ilex]

1. Thing atheists and christians must agree on:

You can't know **** about anything and don't pretend you do and even if you did you have no way of proving it.

 

[Worbah]

1. Thing atheists and christians must agree on:

You can't know **** about anything and don't pretend you do and even if you did you have no way of proving it.

Aye! Blood for the Blood God, skulls for the Skull Throne!

 

[Voutare]

1. Thing atheists and christians must agree on:

You can't know **** about anything and don't pretend you do and even if you did you have no way of proving it.

Yeah. I agree with that.

 

[Instag0]

Okay, I need to clear a few things up. Atheism does not imply anti-religious views, nor belief in evolution, nor belief in the big bang. It simply defines one who has no belief in a deity.

Personally, I think my atheistic views on religion, evolution, and the creation (or lack thereof) of the universe are unique. With religion, I think it serves as an important part of the cumulative mind & culture of humanity, and I find some sort of evolutionary theory (not necessarily Darwin's word-by-word) to be the most practical and reasonable way in which things came to be. On the other hand, I don't think the universe ever was created. I think it always has simply been, is, and will be.

As far as the universe goes, I think its fashion is cyclical rather than linear. There is no start or end, just the path in which it cycles. I hypothesize that the universe cycles endlessly through Big Crunches & Big Bangs (all stuff comes together, blows apart, ad infinitum) simply because it makes no sense that, classically, 'nothing came from nothing and everything became what it is from nothing.' My thoughts on theism are similar in the way that I find existence of gods to be nonsense.

To start, I find it easier to understand things when 'god, who has always been, is, and will be, created the universe' is simplified to 'the universe has always been, is, and will be.' I find it perfectly acceptable to believe in a world devoid of a god. Furthermore, there are so many damn religions, with so many damn gods, I just can't understand how one god or set of gods could be the true and right choice. Gods, from religion to religion, are all so different, and the stories contained within the holy texts so diverse that I don't accept the universality-of-god-theory either.

And Darwin's evolution has its holes, but the gross text of it is ultimately right.

13 Spider Bloody Chain, I think that all answers your questions, but feel free to ask more.

 

[gamerwiz09]

Well yeah, but its not for Christianity or Atheism its for inbetween, so its not biased because its not favoring a certain side its favoring a compromise...If that makes sense.

That's no damn middle-ground.  Its simply less dogmatic Christianity.  Where the **** does every other world religion factor into your trite, inane "middle ground"? 

Well, like I said, I'm not sure that makes sense. Yes, it is biased, I just didn't see it that way at first. And I'm not supporting or pushing this "middle-ground". I've already said I'm an atheist. Those pictures weren't meant to be taken seriously anyway, so calm the **** down.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Mountainblade,

I was asking you to prove that logic (induction or deduction) will give you the right answers if your premises are true. Try to do that without circular reasoning.

 

[Mage246]

This isn't some philosophical discussion on the nature of knowledge and logic, so there's no point to your argument. It's completely academic.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'm aware of that. And it's extremely obvious from my earlier posts, just while we're being pointlessly snippy.

Also, thanks but it's not my argument.

 

[Archonsod]

1. Thing atheists and christians must agree on:

You can't know **** about anything and don't pretend you do and even if you did you have no way of proving it.

Also:

Crush the weak, steal their **** and blame it on someone else.

 

[MountainBlade]

Mountainblade,

I was asking you to prove that logic (induction or deduction) will give you the right answers if your premises are true. Try to do that without circular reasoning.

I never claimed it did. I said it was true within the framework. Whether or not that has any relation on the outside world doesn't matter; it's still true.

But that does sound like an interesting problem. Does it have a name that I can google or something? Or maybe you have a link?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I said it was true within the framework.

Good point... although maybe even that is untestible.
I don't have a link unfortunately, but I'm sure google would turn up something.