while we can't prove or disprove the existence of the teapot definitively, we should believe for all intents and purposes that it doesn't exist
giving plausibility to irrational gods is not nearly as pragmatic as atheism
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
while we can't prove or disprove the existence of the teapot definitively, we should believe for all intents and purposes that it doesn't exist
giving plausibility to irrational gods is not nearly as pragmatic as atheism
If they don't claim to know for sure that a god exists, they would be agnostic(whether they like it or not lol).
What percentage of doubt do you give your belief system?
Lionheart1337
Member
Why can't people read past Dawkins and Hitchens?
What does this mean?
He wants people to stop using concise, perfectly structured arguments because we didn't word them ourselves.
we are being marked on originality apparently.
Maybe he means that they're the big "celebrity" atheists out there, but there's more obscure (and possibly better) philosophers that don't get read as much.
At least, I hope that's what he meant.
They're not good philosophers to begin with. Some would say. Others would say they are not philosophers per say.
From 1 to 99% depending on what book I read. I was once convinced that I didn't exist.*
They're not good philsophers to begin with. Some would say. Others would say they are not philosphers per say.
From 1 to 99% depending on what book I read. I was once convinced that I didn't exist.
You don't
you are nothing
now this sounds interesting!
Sanky Panky
Banned
Woah this thread blew up so I'll just respond to a few comments
Unfortunately, there is no fine line between the results of that experiment, and the origin of genetic information (DNA) which is necessary for life. It's a huge 0 or 1 binary.
Creation strikes at the core of the belief in a higher power or the lack of one. If you don't believe God exists, then you MUST adhere to the notion that natural processes account for the creation of life. If abiogenesis seems like the only option, and it utterly fails in explaining life's origin, then you have to back up your unfounded faith in natural origins.
So you ascribe everything to natural causes, but can't do the same to the origin of life. It certainly does weaken your position.
Abiogenesis is like trying to launch a rocket into space, when it is naturally impossible to get the fuel burning, and for all parts to come together. I suggest you read up on abiogenesis papers. Poor Stanley Miller (the "father" of abiogenesis) died of old age having to retract all his and others' works, to finally conclude that he has no idea how it could work. Scientists went from DNA to RNA to PNA (simpler to much simpler) in trying to explain what came first. They are reduced to believing that since natural process can create one tiny component of PNA, nature might create the others (without any empirical evidence). This is a faith-based proposition.
Abiogenesis is atributing supernatural powers to molecules and energy, unbacked by actual experimentation. It's perfectly fine if scientists want to have this belief, jus don't call it scientific.
Kinitari said:
Unfortunately, there is no fine line between the results of that experiment, and the origin of genetic information (DNA) which is necessary for life. It's a huge 0 or 1 binary.
Creation strikes at the core of the belief in a higher power or the lack of one. If you don't believe God exists, then you MUST adhere to the notion that natural processes account for the creation of life. If abiogenesis seems like the only option, and it utterly fails in explaining life's origin, then you have to back up your unfounded faith in natural origins.
So you ascribe everything to natural causes, but can't do the same to the origin of life. It certainly does weaken your position.
Mario said:
Abiogenesis is like trying to launch a rocket into space, when it is naturally impossible to get the fuel burning, and for all parts to come together. I suggest you read up on abiogenesis papers. Poor Stanley Miller (the "father" of abiogenesis) died of old age having to retract all his and others' works, to finally conclude that he has no idea how it could work. Scientists went from DNA to RNA to PNA (simpler to much simpler) in trying to explain what came first. They are reduced to believing that since natural process can create one tiny component of PNA, nature might create the others (without any empirical evidence). This is a faith-based proposition.
Log4Girlz said:
Abiogenesis is atributing supernatural powers to molecules and energy, unbacked by actual experimentation. It's perfectly fine if scientists want to have this belief, jus don't call it scientific.
What supernatural powers would those be?
So by your logic, it is more pragmatic to believe with certainty that no alien life exists anywhere in the universe, than to admit the possibility that it may exist. You think that certainty about things we have no knowledge of is more rational than skepticism and doubt?
Philosophy interests me. And other forms of philosophy rather than this subject, if I'm honest.
New atheism, is dull for me, or rather celebrity atheism, as I call it. No offense, to Dawkins, he is a brilliant scientist, but a poor author trying his hand at philosophy [okay that's unfair, I'll admit]; so much rhetoric in his work. Sheesh. I'm not wise, and I'm not his choir, so they just roll off me like water off a duck's back.
if you believe in the christian god, then you believe he is more than simply the undiscovered mystery of abiogenesis.
and im pretty sure you have stated that you are infact a christian, correct?
hes also a figurehead for something he strongly believes in which is still a minority and the most discriminated against minority. and one of the few brave enough to butt heads with the insane people inhabiting fox news and the like.
popularity and accessibility of quips from one of the "horsemen" allow for a more streamlined discussion, and theres nothing wrong with that
No it doesn't.
No scentist or skeptic thinks there is no chance of alien life, because life already arose once in our own solar system. There is a precedent.
It is pragmatic to assume there is life out there, seeing there are billions and billions of solar systems.
Are you new to skeptical inquiry?
No it doesn't? I wasn't asking a do or does not question.
not at all
there is plenty of knowledge supporting the possibility of extraterrestrial life
The only knowledge we have is that life exists on Earth. What is this "plenty of knowledge" you speak of?
But we can't prove it one way or another right now. So why shouldn't we just assume it doesn't exist?
I am sorry, I thought your post was written that was.
It doesn't really change anything though, you a still wrong about what skepticism is.
EDIT: No one said "absolutely it exists 100%", we are saying it probably exists. There is always the off chance we are alone in the universe, but with billions of possibilities of habitable planets in the universe, it is unlikely.
astrobiology is a comprehensive study on that
the amount of possibly inhabitable planets is massive
its a progressive study that is finding new answers and evidence, which cannot be said for any kind of deity ever.
your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.
The Molecule works in mysterious ways...
Is there life in the universe? Yes, we are an example of that. The study of astronomy has shown the universe to be vast beyond words, with octillions of stars and recent studies suggesting that on average, every star in the milkyway, a non-descript galaxy has a planet. The certainty of extraterrestrial life is nearly 100%. This is not an irrational view.
Wrong how? Skepticism means doubt. Since you have no way of knowing what created the universe or whether a higher power is influencing it, the most rational position is to be skeptical of any claims rather than to claim yourself to know with certainty that it does or does not exist.
If you want to claim that you know for sure that no higher power exists, knock yourself out, but like it or not you are then operating with the same kind of faith as the theist is. You cannot say you hold the most rational or pragmatic position when you make a certainty claim about something you have no means of knowing or experiencing.
Nearly 100%? Doesn't sound too scientific. Can you be a little more accurate? Do you mean like 90%? 95%? 99.9999997%? Or are you just pulling that number out of thin air?
It's a probability thing - a probability based roughly on the knowledge extrapolated from other principles and information.
In the case of the space teapot - knowing that teapots are pretty much, necessarily of human construction (as it is a human cultural artifact), and knowing that there is no other sentient life form in our solar system other than ourselves - and assuming aliens have a very low possibility of entering our solar system...
It's only fair to assume that the presence of a mysterious teapot floating between a couple planets in this solar system is extraordinarily low - so low as to be practically impossible.
Similarly; assuming material laws, the unmeasurability of god things, the improbability of guessing the correct god out of an infinite pantheon... theism is also extra-improbable, leaving room for only a-theism (in this case, I mean in the sense of independent of theism, rather than anti-theism).
But aliens on the other hand - assuming the probability of abiogenesis, with the vast perceptibly infinite (as in super large ^2) universe, is not at all improbable. Although you can make the argument that our chance of encountering aliens is very very improbable.
I think... if we qualified our statements with statements of confidence, we'd have a lot fewer arguments on the internet (maybe also a lot less 'fun'?). It's an unfortunate part of human nature that we're more ready to take the easy route of misinterpreting or going for the low hanging fruit - in order to 'win', or 'assert our dominance', rather than providing argumentative charity and interpreting arguments in the strongest form that you can percieve (and muster an argument against).
At worst, you restate your charitable interpretation, and it elucidates and informs both parties in a manner that hadn't previously been considered.
The first relevant question to be asking is, "is it possible for life to exist in the universe?" The answer is yes, with the evidence being life on Earth. The next question is, "under what conditions is it possible for life to exist in the universe?" The answer would be Earth-like conditions, and some other hypotheticals based on exotic organisms we've found under extreme conditions, and hypotheticals based on our understanding of chemistry and biology, like proposed silicon-based life. We then gather observational data and make approximate calculations as to the number of Earth-like or Whatever-like planets in the immensely vast known universe. The end result can be classified as "plenty of knowledge" when it comes to determining plausibility.
So the most rational position is to make no certain claim about the existence of leprechauns?
cutmeamango
Banned
While they are concise arguments, you are incorrect.
While they (Russell, Hume, Engels, Kant) are not obscure (everyone loves quoting Russell's teapot), you are almost correct.
Well, they are argumentalists basically, there is no reflection about the subject, but arguments against the subset of one perspective, the abrahamic theism (I do understand the "if one is wrong, all are" by the way).
But my problem is considering their words the Bible (heh). Saying other definitions (or other reasonings) are factually incorrect bugs me to no tomorrow. There was even a post in one of the recent that referred evolution to Dawkins. Even Dawkins would want to slap him.
I mean some even say they read the WHOLE bible, why not read some GOOD philosophers too if the subject interests you?
Right, but in the meantime, is the most rational position to take one where we make a certainty claim that aliens do or do not exist, or a position where we do not make a certainty claim one way or the other? Is it more rational to claim to know aliens do or don't exist, or to admit not to knowing?
That is the question I was asking. Not whether it is likely or not that aliens exist.
In the case of aliens, which are life forms in the known universe, earthlings are a precedent. It is more rational to say you may or may not know the exact likelyhood of their existence. The concept of aliens is grounded on rational thought processes.
But what about claims of a specific alien race which we have no precedent or observational evidence to support. Like an alien race of tall, blue eyed, blonde humanoid birds named Clarice?
I can comfortably assume such an alien race does not exist. The more specific the claim, the more confidently I can dismiss it.
Sanky Panky
Banned
The idea that DNA would cumulatively form by applying the same forces that would break it appart (undirected energy).
Uchip said:
Yes and I'm a non-practicing Catholic.
This is a pretty gross over simplification of abiogenesis to the point of not being accurate. It is clear you can only conceive of a magical means of the origin of life.
I know for sure aliens exist.
I know for sure aliens don't exist.
I don't know whether aliens exist.
Which is the most rational position to take?
We don't have any precedent or observational evidence of ANY alien race, so what difference does it make?
So then there is no business discussing unproven aspects of science. It does not back religion.
The thread was intended to question the theists that believe that they have some kind of proof behind their religion.
In this specific example of aliens, number 3.
The greater the claim, the greater the evidence. The claim that alien life exists in the universe is not a large leap in logic considering the precedent of life on earth and the scale of the known universe. The more specific detail we get into, the greater the claim becomes, and suddenly we need specific undeniable truth if we start getting into the exact physical morphology and name they give their own race.
That was what was just explained. What's the non-magical version of abiogenesis?
Sanky Panky
Banned
Please enlighten us as to why it is innacurate. It's what Stanley Miller did in his experiment.
I'm just holding atheists to the same standards, that's all.
Thank you. That was my only point. There is a reason most atheists are also agnostic. And that is that they realize the possibility that a higher power in some form may exist.
It is more rational to admit the possibility that it exists -- if for no other reason than to admit to our inconceivably limited experience in the universe -- than to claim you know with certainty that it doesn't. Once you cross the line and say that you know for certain there is no god or higher power of any kind, you are relying on the exact same kind of faith as the theist.
Which is why I said that agnostic atheism is the most rational and pragmatic position to start from. It assumes the least and makes no unprovable claims.
It is a gross over simplification. By what you described we would assume the experiment was to specifically create dna using unspecific energy.
You constantly try to attempt to equate a scientific field, with a monstrous amount of research and experimentation with religious faith whos claims can never be tested or experimented. How are they being held to the same standards?
Notice how I said "In this specific example". We are familiar with life in the universe. Alien life is simply life on a place other than earth. This is not a stretch of logic. We do not operate solely on faith when making the claim that alien life exists elsewhere.
There is no precedent for gods or higher level beings, such as leprechauns. So which is the more rational position?
1. No leprechauns exist.
2. I am not sure leprechauns exist.
3. Leprechauns exist.
I would say the first would be the most rational. Do you dispute this?
God is a man made concept though. Would you have the same reasoning for Santa Claus? or for the flying spaghetti monster? Also looking at how many galaxies exist in the Universe and just the small probability that we are alone in the Universe, believing that Aliens exist for sure is a perfectly valid stance.
That's quite the backpedalling if I've ever seen some.
First that's not what you originally said at all, second you're completely ignoring the fact that the scientific method (in a simple, proto-version) started before Christianity was born, was vastly improved (in what is more or less its modern form, by the introduction of experimental practises) in non christian regions while Christianity widespread in Europe, and finally reached Western Europe when Christianity started to go south. Quite a departure from your original statement that the scientific method was derived from christianity and you're basically completely ignoring 80% of the wiki article I just posted. Unless you're going to pretend that babylonians, egyptians, greeks, persians and muslims were christian, you're utterly wrong.
And while most european scientists were christian back then (more by default than anything), their research and discoveries had nothing to do with supernatural beliefs/religion. When it had something to do with that, it was a complete failure (Newton believed in alchemy for instance).
That particular experiment was not meant to declare "that's it, we figured it out guys! Life started that way" at all. It's just a tiny fraction of it, ie under chemical conditions close to what earth's was at the time, aminoacids can form. That's it. Don't be as daft as Ray Comfort.
If you don't have evidence of alien life, and then you make the claim that aliens do exist elsewhere, then you ARE operating on faith. You really don't understand how this works, do you?
Sanky Panky
Banned
That is the end goal, yes. And there is nothing BUT unspecified energy in the atmosphere. An intelligent being would be the one to provide that specified energy.
When the monstrous amount of research and experiemntation points the other way, you can form beliefs in something that can never be tested or experimented. ThAT is the natural origin of life.
That experiment is still the basis of abiogenesis. The current debate now is mostly what was the earth like back then, because the amino acids never amount to anything under all conditions, as you keep applying energy. They break apart or don't form.
No, it is trust in the knowledge we have accumulated as a species and the precedent that we are a life form in the universe. It is not a baseless claim.
If I make the claim that a specific alien race exists, then I am acting on solely faith and would be equivalent to religious faith, which is baseless.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
You are trying so hard not to admit that it takes faith to believe in the unproven, we have no knowledge of any alien life form and for you to believe in it takes faith. You should know that Faith is not exclusive to religion.
LOL, watching you squirm is funny. So making the claim that aliens definitely do exist in the universe, DESPITE HAVING NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THEM, is not an example of faith, it's "trust". Oh how fun these word games are.
I wish I could play some more but I have to get to work.
- Status