Warning: mysql_num_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/virus/new/bbs/Sources/Security.php on line 67
The Antidox
logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-06-02 23:47:29 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Philosophy & Religion

  The Antidox
previous next
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: The Antidox  (Read 1544 times)
The Adversary
Neophyte
*

Gender: Male
Posts: 2
Reputation: 0.00



I am the Adversary

View Profile E-Mail
The Antidox
« on: 2005-11-25 18:08:27 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged

Anyone who tells you they have found the truth has only stopped looking for it.
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4276
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:The Antidox
« Reply #1 on: 2005-11-26 16:45:31 »
Reply with quote

Sorry mate, "Atheism is to faith, as bald is to hair color."

"A" - without
"Theism" - belief in gods. <- plural. All and any.

Atheism comes in two flavors:

Weak atheism, "I don't know whether or not there are gods, but I don't believe in them." and hopefully you can recognise that it doesn't take much thought to recognise that "belief" - asserting a truth value - in the absense of evidence or necessity is foolish.

Strong atheism, "All of the god thingies I have heard of are self-contradictory or contradicted by what we know of the Universe and thus impossible. I don't vest belief in the impossible." - another impeccable logical position. Even when the strong atheist is really strong and asserts "There is nothing I would call a god in this Universe", that atheist is merely making an observation out of experience, and while the rigorous support for this position is lacking, you would need to show her a god thingy which she would concur is a valid god thingy from her perspective in order to be able to make the claim that the atheist's assertion of unbelief in gods represents "faith" on the part of the atheist.

Note that neither position excludes the Atheist from being forced by some evidence to reconsider. Atheism is not incompatible with falsification.


Hermit

PS Technically Agnosticism does require faith, because agnosticism does not speak to the existence of gods (which is assumed), but asserts that the nature of gods is unknowable.
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
The Adversary
Neophyte
*

Gender: Male
Posts: 2
Reputation: 0.00



I am the Adversary

View Profile E-Mail
Re:The Antidox
« Reply #2 on: 2005-11-26 18:05:20 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged

Anyone who tells you they have found the truth has only stopped looking for it.
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4276
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:The Antidox
« Reply #3 on: 2005-11-27 04:09:13 »
Reply with quote

[The Adversary] From dictionary.com: "Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

[Hermit] The confidence is not I submit, "justified confidence".

[Hermit] Certainly I agree that faith has nothing to do with gods. It is to do with "trust". Unfortunately, the trust is dewey eyed and unconditional.

[Hermit] As is often the case, Ambrose Bierce captured it perfectly. "Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

[Hermit] I largely agree with you with much you say on the xian vs atheist issue, but not entirely. You may be giving too much credit to "axioms." And "devout" is not, I imagine, the first word that a literate atheist would choose as a descriptive characterisation even if ernest and sincere. Its more common meanings convey to a discerning nose an overwhelming stench of piety.

[Hermit] Nevertheless, greetings and welcome. Have fun.
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:The Antidox
« Reply #4 on: 2005-11-27 13:23:14 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: The Adversary on 2005-11-26 18:05:20   

Really, my main point is simply that you cannot use logic to refute a non-logical system, only to show that the non-logical system is in fact a non-logical system. 

Using logic to show that a system is non-logical is identical to refuting it.
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:The Antidox
« Reply #5 on: 2005-11-27 13:31:03 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: The Adversary on 2005-11-26 18:05:20   
"Atheism as to faith, as bald is to hair color."

From dictionary.com: "Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

Faith does not have anything, necessarily, to do with a God, a set of gods, or any other sort of metaphysical being.  Atheists have faith in reason, and it is their faith in reason which compels them to declare that gods are inconsistent with this faith.


Your are commiting the equivocation fallacy here, using two different definitions of "faith". The trust that rational people have in the scientific method or the trust I have (most of the time) in my senses is not the faith of Christianity (2nd definition below).

faith (from dictionary.com)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I have faith in rationality (first definition) but I would be reluctant to express it that way because of the confusion with definition 2.
« Last Edit: 2005-11-27 13:31:55 by David Lucifer » Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed