Lay it all out!

So he's aware of his own anti-religious bias?

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » 235 comments
Jul 7, 2017
Big Think posted:
Lawrence Krauss on How to Develop Your Critical Thinking Skills
Watch Video
So he's aware of his own anti-religious bias?
7
Jul 7, 2017
I think it's pretty obvious that we can say that most of the stuff that the major religions say has been disproved by science. All of the major religions were created when humans had an extremely limited understanding of the universe so when the Bible says the earth is 10,000 years old, it's very easy to say that is incorrect.
21
Jul 7, 2017
Hue Man said:
I think it's pretty obvious that we can say that most of the stuff that the major religions say has been disproved by science. All of the major religions were created when humans had an extremely limited understanding of the universe so when the Bible says the earth is 10,000 years old, it's very easy to say that is incorrect.
the Bible doesn't say that.
2
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77 said:
the Bible doesn't say that.
that depends on which of the many, many interpretations you ascribe to.
1
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77 said:
the Bible doesn't say that.
I bet if you show him some evidence for a particular religion, he'll take that religion more seriously. Until then, well... The anti-hearsay "bias" is totally justified.
18
Jul 7, 2017
My point is, there's plenty of totally rational explanations out there for any given topic. His bias will draw him to illogical ones which he will then use to fit his narrative. We all do it.
4
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77, science has no bias.
5
Jul 7, 2017
Xero said:
soldieroftruth77, science has no bias.
i agree, but he is a human, with a bias.
1
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77 said:
i agree, but he is a human, with a bias.
Faith / religion is the antithesis of science.

It's believing something to be true in spite of the evidence and no rational reasoning to believe in it.

So yeah he's probably anti-religious because he's not a gullible ignorant dumbass.

7
Jul 7, 2017
magiclion said:
Faith / religion is the antithesis of science.

It's believing something to be true in spite of the evidence and no rational reasoning to believe in it.

So yeah he's probably anti-religious because he's not a gullible ignorant dumbass.

woah, why the insults? And you're thinking of blind faith, which is bad. Good faith is grounded in reason. Atheists also have belief. They "believe" God doesn't exist. If you say you KNOW he doesn't, you're claiming infinite knowledge.
0
Jul 7, 2017
Stephen Enzor You're making a specific reference to the claim that "God exists". Your point is valid for that claim, but not for the individual that says "I believe in God". If a person claims "God doesn't exist", the same burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim. It goes both ways, which is my point. There are plenty of logical arguments for the possible existence to God (if you really look for them), but it always ends with the "gaps" being filled with faith. Unfortunately there are questions that science can't answer, and filling those gaps with the belief of atheism doesn't "end" the debate.
0
Jul 7, 2017
We cannot be absolutely certain that it is false, but we can, by use of evidence and reason, conclude that it is an unsupported and unsubstantiated claim.

I would argue the debate is closed in the sense that it's at rest indefinitely until evidence or new arguments are presented.

5
Jul 7, 2017
Stephen Enzor said:
We cannot be absolutely certain that it is false, but we can, by use of evidence and reason, conclude that it is an unsupported and unsubstantiated claim.

I would argue the debate is closed in the sense that it's at rest indefinitely until evidence or new arguments are presented.

Yeah I totally get that but I just think there's a misconception that people who believe in God don't have evidence to support their faith. To be fair I constantly criticize fellow Christians when they believe and follow blindly without reason and evidence to support it.
0
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77 said:
Yeah I totally get that but I just think there's a misconception that people who believe in God don't have evidence to support their faith. To be fair I constantly criticize fellow Christians when they believe and follow blindly without reason and evidence to support it.
You still don't know what atheism is.

Not believing in something doesn't mean that you think thing doesn't exist. We are unable to search every inch of the universe.

What religion is somebody who thinks mermaids don't exist ?
What religion is someone thinks flying pigs don't exist ?

What religion is someone who thinks that Thor doesn't exist or a thousand other Gods ?


Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.
It isn't a belief at all.

The sane way bald isn't a hair colour or off a TV channel or not playing golf a sport.

There are plenty of other Gods to believe in and we atheists with respect to them.

Atheists just go one God further.

It's possible Zeus or unicorns or leprechauns exist in the far corner of the universe but it's highly improbable and irrational to consider their existence probable.

This is what Krauss is doing with respect to a deity who has supposedly created the entire universe with billions of galaxies and quadrillions of planets just for a few chosen Homo Sapiens.

7
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77 said:
Yeah I totally get that but I just think there's a misconception that people who believe in God don't have evidence to support their faith. To be fair I constantly criticize fellow Christians when they believe and follow blindly without reason and evidence to support it.
No the burden doesn't work that way.

One doesn't have to prove the non existence of something.

That isn't logical.

You can't just assert an imaginary thing and demand that people prove it doesn't exist.

No atheist actually says that they know for 100% that a supreme deity creator of the universe doesn't exist in some corner of the universe. It certainly seems most unlikely that.

An intelligent alien species creating a simulation, maybe but a God. Hmmmm

However we know 100% for a fact that the God of the bible or Ra or Zeus or Thor doesn't exist.

That's what atheists generally mean when they say that God doesn't exist.
Their referencing the Gods of holy books written by ignorant men who had very limited knowledge of the Earth.
Even the Vatican says the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

That's a euphemistic way of saying that it's a bunch of crap.

6
Jul 8, 2017
Even a religious person is an atheist to all other gods. Atheists just have one less god to lack a belief in.
6
Jul 8, 2017
Andrewlina Jolie said:
Even a religious person is an atheist to all other gods. Atheists just have one less god to lack a belief in.
sure and you have your reasons for disbelieving all of them. As do I, except that I have reason to still believe in one.
0
Jul 8, 2017
Just so you know an atheist is not someone who believes there is no God. Atheists describe anyone who does not believe in God, what they DO believe is irrelevant to the definition.
1
Jul 8, 2017
Otis Miller said:
Just so you know an atheist is not someone who believes there is no God. Atheists describe anyone who does not believe in God, what they DO believe is irrelevant to the definition.
Is it absolutely relevant, because 99% of reality is unexplained, and life's biggest questions cannot be answered by science. So an Atheist, like everybody else, fill those gaps with theories and beliefs.
0
Jul 8, 2017
magiclion said:
No the burden doesn't work that way.

One doesn't have to prove the non existence of something.

That isn't logical.

You can't just assert an imaginary thing and demand that people prove it doesn't exist.

No atheist actually says that they know for 100% that a supreme deity creator of the universe doesn't exist in some corner of the universe. It certainly seems most unlikely that.

An intelligent alien species creating a simulation, maybe but a God. Hmmmm

However we know 100% for a fact that the God of the bible or Ra or Zeus or Thor doesn't exist.

That's what atheists generally mean when they say that God doesn't exist.
Their referencing the Gods of holy books written by ignorant men who had very limited knowledge of the Earth.
Even the Vatican says the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

That's a euphemistic way of saying that it's a bunch of crap.

Aliens? lol ok, and I'm the one committing logical fallacies. The Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, period. So where's your alien evidence?
0
Jul 8, 2017
Yes it's irrelevant to the definition. That is all. It's a matter of semantics.

Most atheists, myself included, accept that a large portion of the universe is unknown and/or unknowable. That's why belief or any kind of theism is dumb in this context.

Yes atheists fill the gaps with theories, but not beliefs. That's the difference.

There's a common misconception that 0 is atheist and 100 is theist, with agnostic in between. In fact atheism covers 0-99 and are not mutually exclusive with agnostics.

2
Jul 8, 2017
+soldieroftruth77
" there's a misconception that people who believe in God don't have evidence to support their faith."
Sounds like you do. If so, I'm really curious what it is.
0
Jul 8, 2017
Otis Miller said:
Yes it's irrelevant to the definition. That is all. It's a matter of semantics.

Most atheists, myself included, accept that a large portion of the universe is unknown and/or unknowable. That's why belief or any kind of theism is dumb in this context.

Yes atheists fill the gaps with theories, but not beliefs. That's the difference.

There's a common misconception that 0 is atheist and 100 is theist, with agnostic in between. In fact atheism covers 0-99 and are not mutually exclusive with agnostics.

So obviously it depends. If an Atheist believes that morality is relative, for example, then that is a belief plain and simple. The moment you imbibe a theory and live your life by it, it becomes a belief. Of course, not all atheists do this, I'm aware.
0
Jul 8, 2017
Jet Ranger said:
+soldieroftruth77
" there's a misconception that people who believe in God don't have evidence to support their faith."
Sounds like you do. If so, I'm really curious what it is.
Indeed I do. I'm not going to give you a full dissertation on the origin of the universe, the meaning or purpose of life, moral objectivity and intrinsic human value, and life after death, but I'll give you one example on origin.

So we now know that the universe had a beginning. We know that no physical quantity can explain the reason for it's own existence, and must always point back further and further. If you look into the cosmological argument for infinite temporal regression, you have to conclude that the universe came from "nothing", as even Krauss himself admits. But to me that's not a valid theory. Because nothing is only capable of producing nothing. But an infinite, immaterial, all powerful being could certainly create something from nothing.

When the "big bang" was discovered several decades ago, the Atheists were in a total uproar to refuse it's validity because it gave too much credence to the "universe had a beginning" claim that Theists had been making for hundreds of years. Great example of bias at work on the opposite end of the spectrum.

0
Jul 8, 2017
Not sure what your point is.
2
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » 235 comments