A Case for Theism

[Ummon]

Dawkins enters the club by being an arrogant prick. Furthermore, despite not being a "strong" atheist, he is consistently used by "strong" atheists in discussion forums such as this.

Which wouldn't be a fault, because how people use my words is not my responsibility.

The question is different: the fact is that all assertions on the probability of God or lack thereof are arbitrary, and Dawkins mistakes non-overlapping fields with one-another, namely metaphysics and science (to remain general).

[black-dragon]

Dawkins enters the club by being an arrogant prick.

Compared to people that not only know that God exists, but know exactly what he wants, doesn't want, hates and doesn't hate...

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Compared to people that not only know that God exists, but know exactly what he wants, doesn't want, hates and doesn't hate...

Strawman argument. Does that make Dawkins any better? We'll get to the Bible-bashers later.

[Ummon]

Or in other words, TG's private vocabulary must be your vocabulary or you are (insert flame about your intelligence here).

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Or in other words, TG's private vocabulary must be your vocabulary or you are (insert flame about your intelligence here).

Ummm, what? Actually, don't bother replying - I don't care. I really can't be bothered your obscurantist gibberish.

Dawkins enters the club by being an arrogant prick.

How does "Dawkins is an arrogant prick" = "Dawkins [does] not realize this philosophical, essential limitation .... of [his] arguments which are only based upon probability"? Whether Dawkins is "arrogant" or humble, rude or pleasant or even fat or thin is totally irrelevant to whether or not he realises that you simply can't make absolute statements about whether or not God exists and can only state your assessment of the probability of that existence. Dawkins does realise this, which is why he is not a "strong" atheist and only says "God almost certainly doesn't exist". He's a "6" on his 7 point gradation between "strong" theism and "strong" atheism, not a "7".

So he may well be an "arroagent prick". Or he may be a rather charming English chap who doesn't suffer fools gladly. And he may be thin rather than fat. None of these things is relevant to your completely erroneous assertion that "Dawkins [does] not realize this philosophical, essential limitation .... of [his] arguments which are only based upon probability". He does.

[IrishHitman]

----> DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD <-------

Now that I've made that clear, I'd like to point out one thing:

Agnosticism (and "weak atheism") is the most we can actually defent with arguments, from a philosophical standpoint. In fact, both strong atheism ("I assert that God does not exist") and theism ("God exists") are undefendable as the arguments of both sides rely upon probability, and therefore, a good measure of faith.

The fact is, that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens do not realize this philosophical, essential limitation (the good thing about philosophy is that you don't need to beat about the bush) of their arguments which are only based upon probability: Their arguments, at best, make it improbable for a god to exist. To claim otherwise is bad faith (pun intended).

Therefore: Agnosticism owns thy arses

By your definition, strong atheism does not exist among rationalist-naturalist type atheists.
Dawkins does actually acknowledge a tiny proportion of agnosticism about God, in that God is EXTREMELY improbable. So extremely improbable that any notion of his existence is negligable in the context of our lives.

They don't seek to absolutely disprove God's existence, as that is an impossibility, though they often utilise language along those lines. They are not trying to appeal to people that are aware of that impossibility, but instead aim at theists who are in doubt.

Dawkins enters the club by being an arrogant prick. Furthermore, despite not being a "strong" atheist, he is consistently used by "strong" atheists in discussion forums such as this.

Hitchens is even more of an arrogant prick than Dawkins. If you liked Dawkins, you'll love Hitchens!

Of course.

Hitchens' arrogance is breathtaking, even to the likes of me...
Just watching his manner on various interviews on American television demonstrates it.
I think he took the idea that "ridicule is the best cure for ridiculous ideas" a bit too far.

Dawkins isn't arrogant, he just criticises religion which automatically brands one as arrogant.
That is apparent when you read his material.
Hitchens is arrogant though.

Neither suffer fools lightly, how each of them deal with them is different.

[Ummon]

Ummm, what? Actually, don't bother replying - I don't care. I really can't be bothered your obscurantist gibberish.

Congratulations: you just confirmed the statement you replied to, completely. An old habit of yours.

My obscurantist gibberish is science, you see. Which reminds me how often people do not really like what they say they like: you for example, are very keen to science when it is easy to grasp (à la Dawkins) but seem to really consider it negatively when it is a bit more complicated. Well, alas, science can be very complicated when it deals with complex subjects.

[Rich86]

Compared to people that not only know that God exists, but know exactly what he wants, doesn't want, hates and doesn't hate...

Well said

[Ummon]

Life is luckily, made of subtle clues.

[Phier]

Life is luckily, made of subtle clues.

I have a friend, a fellow doctor, who see's subtle clues too. He was once involved in the 70's in a minor industrial conspiracy as a student. He found something dangerous (to doctors not patients) in a procedure, and the professional association, which was heavily funded by the company who made it, kept it buried long enough for the company to correct it. It shaped his life unfortunately. Now he sees conspiracies everywhere, milk, vaccines, mercury, every aspect of the government etc. I've avoided ever talking to him about 9/11 because I know where that would go.

The problem with subtle clues for an untestable theory is that you are using weak, circumstantial evidence with multiple explanations, to prove an improbable occurrence.

You can say 'Science is correct, but I see traces of god' all you like, but its simply poetry. Its looking for justification in your head for what you really feel in your heart.

In the end it just makes you a theist, which until recently would have been considered no better than an atheist. Its only these secular times which makes religious groups cling to any educated person who says they believe in god, even if that god is no more than a vague idea who's power is manifested in subtle clues.

[Ummon]

I have a friend, a fellow doctor, who see's subtle clues too. He was once involved in the 70's in a minor industrial conspiracy as a student. He found something dangerous (to doctors not patients) in a procedure, and the professional association, which was heavily funded by the company who made it, kept it buried long enough for the company to correct it. It shaped his life unfortunately. Now he sees conspiracies everywhere, milk, vaccines, mercury, every aspect of the government etc. I've avoided ever talking to him about 9/11 because I know where that would go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semeiotic
http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Medical_sign

Semeiotics is the science of studying signs. There is as you will probably remember, a medical branch as well, concerned with signs and symptoms and their use in diagnosing diseases.

The funny proposal that all conclusion should be founded on a certain (a priori) decision process is three things:

1) unpractical, for reasons related with time constraints.
2) illogical, as intuitive processes often yeld better results for a lesser cost: judges and physicians infact use them, and not the cumbersome equivalent once upon a time supported by cognitive psychology.
3) equally pathological, but in the sense of obsessive-compulsive instead of paranoid tendencies.

Life is the abode of uncertainty, being based on unpredictable processes infact. And not all problems are physical, some are metaphysical. Getting rid of metaphysics is just the escape of those who need a solid ground, much like what atheists say theists do.

It saddens me to hear of your friends predicament, though.

The problem with subtle clues for an untestable theory is that you are using weak, circumstantial evidence with multiple explanations, to prove an improbable occurrence.

I underlined what is subjective in the sentence above for you. Unfortunately, you (I can practically see your thought process by now, and it's not particularly interesting) are assuming that I am not aware of the problems related with scale-invariance and other similar phenomena and you suppose that your knowledge allows you to adjudicate my mental operations efficaciously. A testament to the troubles with subtle clues? In the wrong hands, of course.

You can say 'Science is correct, but I see traces of god' all you like, but its simply poetry. Its looking for justification in your head for what you really feel in your heart.

I have been an atheist for years before beginning to see what it was about.

In the end it just makes you a theist, which until recently would have been considered no better than an atheist. Its only these secular times which makes religious groups cling to any educated person who says they believe in god, even if that god is no more than a vague idea who's power is manifested in subtle clues.

I underlined the subjective part for you, again.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

How is that a strawman? Dawkins is better because he doesn't do that. It's pretty simple.

Better than religion doesn't mean any better than he is now. The fact that the religious chaps are bigger pricks doesn't mean he's less of a prick than he is presently. Comprende?

[KingOfTheIsles]

That's not a strawman, more like a Tu Quoque.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I'm a Dawkins supporter and even I admit he is arrogant. I quite like it, though.

[IrishHitman]

I'm a Dawkins supporter and even I admit he is arrogant. I quite like it, though.

Perhaps what we define as arrogant is different.
He certainly uses ridicule, but that doesn't make him arrogant in my book.
He is certainly capable of constructive argument, and is far less confrontational compared with Hitchens.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

He often "makes claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights", that's all I know.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

He often "makes claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights", that's all I know.

He does? How, when and where? I agree with IrishHitman - simply questioning religion in any way that isn't jolly and half-respectful is enough to brand you as "arrogant". Dawkins is precisely like many of my former lecturers - charming, polite, well-educated Englishmen with ferocious intellects who, if you display stupidity, would smile sweetly and eat you for breakfast.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Hey all!

This thread has moved pretty fast, and I didn't have access to internet last two days, but anyways I wanted to make a brief point about the debate itself in my defense.

Basically, I will totally admit that I haven't got more material or sufficient knowledge to continue gaining material for debate. My point here is that I don't want to give the impression that I, or Creationists in general, are blockheads that refuse to comprehend facts and evidence.

I (and we) do not simply ignore evidence that is leveled, and I don't want to give that impression at all.

However, a lot of the issues brought up here had not been brought up before on the TWC where I was involved.

So, why did I debate at all if I knew I haven't the qualifications to debate advanced physics, chemistry, genetics, mechanics, etc?

Quite simple; I wanted to learn, and I thought a great way to learn would be to debate what I think. This way, I learn about the topic of debate and debate itself.

Am I attempting to fraudulently gain "converts?"

Hardly; I didn't go into this debate to change people's minds. I did it for my own benefit. If I have made anybody think things over and check it out some more, well I'm glad but that's not my objective.

However, I'm not conceding the issue by any means, I'm simply "yielding my time" to someone with greater knowledge and experience than myself. I know that I don't have sufficient knowledge to continue; I think that my beliefs are perfectly defensible, but I am not in the line of expertise to do so.

And I don't think that's a discredit to my viewpoint. In a debate against several college-and-university-educated guys, I simply can't address the more technical issues, that's all.

At any rate, some guys on the forum are under the impression that I kept posting the same stuff over and over regardless of being "disproven." I would like to point out that on no other thread have I gotten very comprehensive responses; thus, I was not repeating the same stuff over and over because I hadn't gotten answers to them.

The beginning post on this thread IS a copy of a previous post. The original post was posted about 5 minutes before. I thought, though, that by putting it in its own thread, I would get more responses!

Here's how it was:

I debated with Tankbuster quite a bit, but that didn't get as far as this one by any means, and then Tankbuster had to leave to study for a few months.

I likewise debated Tigrul, but he never really addressed my questions before he also voluntarily suspended himself.

I debated blackdragon a bit; the substance of his arguments was to ask "why" after each statement I made; it really didn't go anywhere, except posting a lot of smilies.

Duke and I debated a bit about his rather frivilous interpretation of Old Testament verses.

So my debate in other areas was hardly as comprehensive.

At any rate, I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. So, with respect to all of you guys (thanks again for your good attitudes), I will close.

~AM

[The Count(er)]

Well, Ariovistus, I could repeat myself again, you may have missed my previous posts, and I know I may be asking a lot, but could you try to be as comprehensive as possible in explaining what it is you think evolution is, so we can at least get back to the root of the issues you have with our ideas, because most, if not all of your arguments seem to just stem from not actually understanding the theories you are questioning, multiple times not understanding them even on the most basic level, which would be required to question them in the first place, I can help you with evolution, because it's a theory I've become quite familiar with, but as for the rest of the theories you question I would suggest you check your local library and see if they have books on the subject, or possibly to a few google searches so that you do understand them a bit more before you start to question them.

[IrishHitman]

Basically, I will totally admit that I haven't got more material or sufficient knowledge to continue gaining material for debate. My point here is that I don't want to give the impression that I, or Creationists in general, are blockheads that refuse to comprehend facts and evidence.

What impression you give is irrelevent, your comrades in ignorance do a good enough job in making themselves look like blockheads that refuse to comprehend facts and evidence.