Douglas Nicholas ( Hitchhiker's Guide) Adams (DNA) explained his atheism:
"I am convinced that there is no god. ... I see not a shred of evidence that there is one.
... I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view....
There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon*, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of exxplaining."
* (Referring to the challenge often handed to atheists, "Isn't belief that there is no god just as irrational, arrogant, etc, as belief that there is a god?"
In explaining why it's not, DNA uses the example of the composition of the moon. A century ago, one might be an agnostic about it. If someone says it's rock, someone else might argue that it is composed of Norwegian Beaver Cheese, and neither could prove his/her view. But now that we've been there and brought back samples, only a crackpot would insist it is made of cheese.
Do you agree there's a distinction?
Posts: 6961 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
There certainly is. It's the difference between a hopeful guess and facts. There is a lot more required in order to believe, while science is pure rationality. Theists should have no real problem logically respecting atheist, should they? Could a theist see atheism as a logical possibility (and simply not believe in it)?
Is Douglas Adams really a radical atheist though? +++++++++++++++++ 03-18-06, 10:50 PM jusork There certainly is. It's the difference between a hopeful guess and facts. There is a lot more required in order to believe, while science is pure rationality. Theists should have no real problem logically respecting atheist, should they? Could a theist see atheism as a logical possibility (and simply not believe in it)?
Is Douglas Adams really a radical atheist though?
03-19-06, 01:30 AM babthrower He self-describes as such.
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs (MW)
This is not the way we N. American folks would use the term, but DNA was a Brit.
I feel as he does, but I think of myself as an atheist by faith. I cannot prove that ANY or ALL stories about gods and demons are false. But I'm just so doggoned SURE that gods are human creations that there is no room for doubt.
Isn't this pretty analagous to the theist who is SURE that gods exist independent of human minds? That's why I use the term faith.
But I like DNA's definition better. I think I'll co-opt it.
DNA mentioned also in the same book that he uses the term radical "just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and it's something that I hold seriously."
03-19-06, 10:33 AM juanruiz
quote: There is such a thing as the burden of proof
This is pretty much the crux of the debate between believers and non-believers. The former will always fall back on faith, hence their celebration of it; for the latter that is not enough.
03-19-06, 11:10 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: ... between believers and non-believers. The former will always fall back on faith, hence their celebration of it; for the latter that is not enough.
I'm afraid it has to be. Proving a negative is not possible, where the statement in question is about an invisible, odorless, impalpable, inaudible, untasteable entity.
Can you prove there is no Tooth Fairy, JR? All you can say is that in every single case of which you've had experience, it was the parents who replaced the shed tooth with a coin. But that's no proof at all.
"I sat up all night over the child's bed, and no tooth fairy appeared."
"Ah, that's because the Tooth Fairy chose too remain invisible. You can't just command her to appear whenever you want, you know. She's a magical being, and discloses herself only when she wishes to, and to a select few.
"But give me some money, and I'll see if I can arrange a viewing."
03-19-06, 07:24 PM frankvan It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that God, a creator of every original thing, exists. I, as atheist am under no such obligation, for the simple reason that I do not make any claims regarding the origin of everything. In fact, I simply see no reason to speculate about whether or not the universe always existed, or whether somone or some-thing created it in one fell swoop.Neither do I deny anything about the theists' claims. I think they are superstitious and inconsistent, but that's their prerogative. If their logic is such that 'because everything they have ever known to exist came from some pre-existing source, there must BE some pre-existing source' - that seems both irrefutable, contradictory and silly. IMO.
03-19-06, 09:24 PM juanruiz
quote: It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that God, a creator of every original thing, exists.
I concur with that. But as I noted above, and has been iterated on just about every board I have participated on, faith inevitably enters the picture. Those who have it will not be deterred, those who don't will not be dissuaded. So, we are all always back to square one.
03-20-06, 12:07 AM babthrower Yes, JR, because the question is metaphysical. It is not a question to which ordinary pragmatic or even scientific methods can be applied.
It has been often said both here and elsewhere that that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an undetectable being.
However Frank's point is still a good one.
Suppose I kill and rob someone. If I claim, in my defense, that a Boojum made me do it on threat of death, and as it happens the Boojum cannot be discovered by any method, because of its very nature (undetectability), then the onus is nevertheless on me to produce the Boojum.
It is not on the state to prove that no Boojum exists.
12-21-06, 12:02 PM ZIK
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Douglas Nicholas ( Hitchhiker's Guide) Adams (DNA) explained his atheism:
"I am convinced that there is no god. ... I see not a shred of evidence that there is one.
... I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view....
There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon*, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of exxplaining."
* (Referring to the challenge often handed to atheists, "Isn't belief that there is no god just as irrational, arrogant, etc, as belief that there is a god?"
In explaining why it's not, DNA uses the example of the composition of the moon. A century ago, one might be an agnostic about it. If someone says it's rock, someone else might argue that it is composed of Norwegian Beaver Cheese, and neither could prove his/her view. But now that we've been there and brought back samples, only a crackpot would insist it is made of cheese.
Do you agree there's a distinction?
The fellow is just a malingering lazybones who can't be bothered to exert himself to wrestle with the fundamental questions of existence. Just waiting until others give him reason to believe ANYTHING is surely conclusive proof of the above.
12-21-06, 09:52 PM newnickname He was a malingering lazybones...
Maybe you should have found out a little more about Douglas Adams before making such a sweeping dismissal. Actually, it's pretty obvious that he did spend more time than most talking and writing about 'the fundamental questions of existence' - for example.
I wouldn't presume to guess how much effort he put into wrestling with those questions - how can we know how deeply or bravely someone faces up to questions about Life, The Universe And Everything in the privacy of their own head?
12-22-06, 01:12 AM ZIK Pah! The struggling with these questions should be as sustained as existence itself - until one finds an answer. It should be like the effort one makes to breathe. Becoming an atheist is just a cowardly cop out! Now what he's doing is using ANY excuse to justify this cowardly action and avoid having to exert himself further.
12-22-06, 10:00 AM newnickname And how do you know that Adams' struggling with those questions wasn't as "sustained as existence itself - until one finds an answer"?
Adams wrote and spoke volumes, with an easy wit and charm, about the Big Questions. As I said, we can't know what went on inside his head, but he surely did more than most to show that considering those questions was, for him, "like the effort one makes to breathe". How on earth could you know that it wasn't?
You seem to be arbitrarily describing one line of thought (yours, I guess) as nobly 'wrestling with questions', and another line of thought as lazily using excuses to avoid exertions. You'll need to do a little more, I think, to justify the distinction.
12-22-06, 10:33 AM ZIK The fact that he's now an atheist is proof positive that he's taken the coward's way out. He has no answer to those questions, has he?
12-22-06, 10:47 AM newnickname That becoming an atheist means taking "the coward's way out" is an opinion, not proof positive.
And what's wrong with not having answers to questions? (Actually, Adams, being dead, maybe does have the answers now.) You said wrestling with questions is a good thing, and I'd agree. What you've failed to show is that atheists (and Adams in particular) don't wrestle with questions.
What is odd is using expressions like 'conclusive proof' and'proof positive' when you've demonstrated no such thing.
In my opinion (and it's just an opinion, not proof positive, or anything like it) simply accepting the ready-made answers of whatever religion happens to be in vogue, or handy, during one's lifetime is the lazy option. I wouldn't presume to say anyone in particular does that, though. How can we know how much mental effort went into anyone's personal take on spirituality or 'Life The Universe And Everything'?
12-22-06, 10:48 AM ZIK What is more cowardly than declaring firmly that something you can't even define doesn't exist? The fellow and ALL convinced atheists are nothing but malingering intellectual lazybones who can't be bothered to think! They just prefer their baseless, arbitrary, opinions which takes no effort to form - or throw away again for the latest faddy idea that comes around.
12-22-06, 10:53 AM newnickname
quote: What is more cowardly than declaring firmly that something you can't even define doesn't exist?
Er... refusing to get into the shower because there's a tiny spider there? That's pretty cowardly.
Your question doesn't seem to be connected to what we've been talking about in this thread. I take it you can't answer the points I've raised, or defend the points you've made, and would like to start a different discussion.
quote: The fellow and ALL convinced atheists are nothing but malingering intellectual lazybones who can't be bothered to think! They just prefer their baseless, arbitrary, opinions which takes no effort to form - or throw away again for the latest faddy idea that comes around.
You're just repeating assertions here. It's not very persuasive. These are only your opinions.
12-22-06, 10:58 AM ZIK I didn't think the logic, as simple as it is, would be within the reach of the average atheist. Refusing to acknowledge the truth is cowardice. In this case, the truth is that the atheist doesn't know whether God exists or not. But he lacks the courage to say so and admit his/her ignorance.
I take it you're a convinced atheist?
12-22-06, 11:10 AM FredPuli Zik, do you know that a god exists? Whose version of god is he ( there is quite a choice within monotheistic religions)? And what proof do you offer of his existence?
12-22-06, 11:13 AM ZIK I know that if a glass bottle exists, then glass, its quintessence, MUST also exist.
God, as I know God, is the quintessence of existence. So if ANYTHING exists...
12-22-06, 11:26 AM newnickname
quote: I didn't think the logic, as simple as it is, would be within the reach of the average atheist.
What logic? Could you point it out? All I see are non sequiturs, opinions and empty assertions.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6697 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Pah! How do you make a glass bottle without glass?
I take it you missed the logic of that, eh? And, yet it's so simple! ++++++++++++= 12-22-06, 12:13 PM newnickname There's no logic in that. It's simply a question. Saying that a glass bottle necessitates the existence of glass is just a tautology, not logic. Of course if there's glass, there's glass.
It could be an analogy, but you'd have to put in a lot more work to show that it's a valid analogy for God (the glass) and the universe (the bottle). Even then, it'd be more like poetry than logic. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it isn't proof of anything.
12-22-06, 12:21 PM ZIK This is typical atheistic nonsense! Because it's simple, it's not logical, eh? What piffle!
But to get to the crux of the matter: Without glass, its quintessence, you can't make a glass bottle. Similarly, without the quintessence of existence, you can't have ANY instance of things that exist. Very simple. But precisely because of that it will be beyond those who like to pretend they're very clever, and disdain all simplicity. They prefer meaningless complexity to clear simplicity. Yet truth can only be found where there is clarity and simplicity.
12-22-06, 01:21 PM newnickname
quote: Because it's simple, it's not logical, eh?
I didn't say that. It isn't logical, because it's a repetition. 'Glass bottles are made of glass' - there's no inference there, no chain of connected ideas leading to a useful conclusion. It's just 'glass is glass'.
Your use of "similarly" points up the flaw in your argument. Glass bottles need glass (not a logical argument - a truism) and similarly things that exist need 'the quintessence of existence'. That doesn't follow. I could just as easily say 'glass bottles need glass and similarly Christmas needs Santa'. That doesn't prove Santa exists. You don't have a logical argument there - you have a tautology and a shaky analogy.
I have nothing against clarity or simplicity. Actually, they're kinda cool. But "the quintessence of existence" is a phrase that is neither clear nor simple. Could you clarify what you mean by "the quintessence of existence"?
12-22-06, 01:29 PM ZIK Let's not get silly! "A glass bottle is made from glass" is quite different from "glass is glass". You seem to be struggling with simplicity here.
12-22-06, 01:57 PM newnickname In terms of logic, what is the difference between the two statements?
12-22-06, 02:00 PM ZIK In one case, you're saying glass is necessary for the existence of glass objects. In the other you're saying glass is glass. Very different!
12-22-06, 03:25 PM newnickname You fail to explain the difference in terms of logic, I guess because there is no difference in terms of logic.
Glass is necessary for glass objects to exist. Glass things are made of glass. Plastic bottles are not glass bottles. Plastic is not glass. You can put it into as many iterations as you like, logically it's just spinning a wheel in the sand.
Now, if you had said that a concept of 'bottle' is neccessary for glass to become a glass bottle, and wondered where that abstract idea could come from, and how it affects the physical world, we might be going somewhere. Maybe even wrestling with a question, instead of repeating inane truisms.
12-23-06, 03:48 AM ZIK This is nonsense! Are you really saying to me that you see no difference between the two statements:
1. "Glass is Glass."
2. "And glass objects are necessarily made of glass."
Does that mean then that as far as you're concerned that a glass bottle is just glass and nothing more? Doesn't that make you the same thing as a chimp or rat since all are composed of flesh?
You're not thinking things through here, are you?
12-23-06, 12:06 PM newnickname You still haven't explained the difference between the two statements in terms of logic.
Yes, chimps and rats are different, although made mostly of the same stuff - that's what I was talking about when I mentioned the concept of 'bottle'. But, hey, if I have to spoon-feed you your side of the argument, I might as well talk to myself. Smile
What you've said is that things that are made of glass can't be made without... (wait for it)... glass. You then tried to link this to the notion that existence can't exist without some mystical prerequisite for existence. That's just an analogy, and not a very good one.
You haven't demonstrated at all how the relationship of a glass bottle to glass is the same as the relationship of existence to whatever you mean by 'quintessence of existence'. 'Glass bottles' is not the same kind of concept as existence.
As I said, what you have is a tautology (things made out of glass are made out of glass) and a shaky analogy (glass bottles need glass therefore Christmas needs Santa the universe needs God). At the most, what you have is an illustration of a thought that occurred to you. Fair enough - but it's hardly an accomplishment which gives you the right to 'pah!' at the thoughts of someone like Douglas Adams as not showing enough effort.
As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.
12-23-06, 12:43 PM ZIK I really don't understand why you need so many words. It's really very simple:
You can't make a glass bottle without glass. That is a perfectly logical statement. Unless you can say what you think it lacks.
That has NOTHING to do with your - pardon me - meaniningless statement: "Glass is glass."
Is this true or not?
12-23-06, 01:51 PM newnickname "You can't make a glass bottle without glass" is a perfectly true statement. "Glass is glass" is also a perfectly true statement. They might be the beginning of a logical argument. They might be a premise.
Logically, however, on their own, they invite a "so what?'. What's next? Where's the logical train of ideas that follows? What are you going to infer? (Actually, in your argument, nothing is inferred next - you go on to say that similarly x can't be made without y, but you don't make a logical connection to the premise.)
You still haven't explained in terms of logic what the difference between the two sentences, (or premises) is. Logically, "glass bottles need glass" and "glass is glass" are the same idea - and they are both tautologies. Logically, they are equally unhelpful.
12-23-06, 01:58 PM ZIK "Glass is glass" is a meaningless statement. It offers nothing to the hearer and reader. "A glass bottle is made of glass" tells one that one must have glass first before one can make objects from it. Very important information. They are NOT the same!
For instance, if I say: "A being must exist first before it can act" that is utterly different from: "A being is a being", is it not?
12-23-06, 02:21 PM newnickname You still haven't pointed out the difference between the two statements in terms of logic. "Glass objects are made of glass" is exactly as tautologous, in terms of logic, as "glass is glass". There's no extra logical argument there in "made of" compared to "is".
"A being must exist first before it can act" is a different statement, with more complex concepts. And, if the defintion of "being" includes the idea of 'something which exists and can act (in some manner)', which is surely fair enough, then it is also a tautology.
What kind of 'being' is it that doesn't exist, or act at all? That's not a 'being'. Logically, 'beings must exist before they act' is really just defining the word 'being' rather than telling us anything new. Where's the 'therefore'? What's next?
You seem to be stuck at the stage of premises.
12-23-06, 02:24 PM ZIK So do you regard a glass object as identical to the compound glass? Do you regard flesh as identical to a human body? Do you regard an iron rod as identical to the element iron?
Furthermore? Do you think a glass bottle is identical to a glass rod since both are made of glass?
12-23-06, 02:25 PM newnickname No. That's why I mentioned the concept of 'bottle' several posts back.
12-23-06, 02:26 PM ZIK So a glass bottle is different from glass?
12-23-06, 02:29 PM newnickname Yes. Well done. It has the concept of 'bottle'.
12-23-06, 03:46 PM ZIK So why do you claim that that: "Glass is glass," is the same as "A glass bottle requires glass for its making"? You were wrong there, weren't you?
12-23-06, 06:35 PM newnickname "A glass bottle requires glass" is the same logically as "glass is glass". You still haven't described the difference in terms of logic.
"A glass bottle is different from just glass, because it has the concept of bottle" is a more interesting thought. We have to consider, as I said, how a concept can affect the physical world, and the idea of form. This train of thought could introduce us to some of the ideas of Plato.
Congratulations - with a little extra effort, you've arrived at a point where some wrestlers with the big questions were a few millenia ago. Douglas Adams probably learned about it in high school - so I still don't see that you're in any position to 'pah!' him.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Do make up your mind: If "Glass is required to make a glass bottle" is the same as "Glass is glass" then you're in effect saying than a glass object is identical to glass. If a few posts ago you conceded they were different. Which is it? ++++++++++++++++++++= 12-24-06, 11:34 AM newnickname Ah. I thought you had it.
On the one hand, we have "Hey, guys, this glass bottle is made of... (dramatic pause)... glass" Embarrassed silence. Much studying of shoes, and nervous smiling. That's "glass is required to make a glass bottle".
On the other hand, we have, "Hey, guys, here's a lump of glass and here's a glass bottle. Can you pin down what the difference is between the two? Can we describe it, weigh it, touch it? What is is it exactly? What is the concept of bottle, where does it come from and how does an intangible affect the physical world?" Rapt attention. Much furrowing of brows, and wrestling with ideas. That's "a glass bottle is different from just glass, because it has the concept of bottle".
('Theory of Forms typically refers to Plato's belief that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the real world...
...These Forms represent the essence of various objects: they are that without which, a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core, it is the essence, of all of them. Plato held that the World of Forms was separate from our own world and also the true basis of reality. Forms are, in this way, the most pure of all things. Furthermore, Plato believed that true knowledge/intelligence was the ability for a person to grasp the world of Forms with their mind.
A Form is aspatial (outside the world) and atemporal (outside of time). Atemporal, that is, it does not exist within any time period. It did not start, there is no duration in time, and it will not end. It is not eternal. It exists outside of time. Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space. They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental...' Theory of forms)
If you can't grasp the difference between the two ways of looking at the bottle, I don't think I can explain it any more clearly. Maybe we need someone as smart and articulate as Douglas Adams to help.
12-24-06, 03:33 PM ZIK How do you prove YOUR existence- BEYOND DOUBT - even if only to yourself. Do you know?
If you can't prove that, what CAN you prove?
12-24-06, 04:30 PM newnickname Nothing. We can't actually prove anything.
Welcome to skepticism - another area of philosophy that was developed thousands of years ago, and which Adams probably knew inside out in his teens.
You seem to have dropped the 'glass bottle' theme. Is that because you finally got it, or are we going to have to go over it again several posts down the line?
I guess there isn't much hope of you withdrawing your characterising of Adams as a lazy and inadequate thinker.
How about your answering my point?
'As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.'
12-24-06, 04:36 PM ZIK Hahahahahahah! So you're telling me you can't even prove - EVEN TO YOURSELF - that you ezist? That you're not sure you exist? Hahhahahahaha!
12-24-06, 04:42 PM newnickname Yes. It's an idea covered in almost any introduction to philosophy. I'm surprised you haven't come across it before.
I guess there isn't much hope of you withdrawing your characterising of Adams as a lazy and inadequate thinker.
How about your answering my point?
'As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.'
12-24-06, 04:54 PM ZIK Listen: To be able to post here, you MUST exist FIRST, mustn't you?
To be able to make ANY argument, or even think it, you MUST exist FIRST, must you not?
12-24-06, 05:00 PM newnickname No. How would you define 'you', to begin with? And how can I (if there is such a thing as 'I') be sure that 'I' am posting or making an argument?
But I don't think I need to be teaching you Philosophy 101, when you can surely find resources on the web, or evening classes which will do it better.
How about you answering some of my points for a change?
'I guess there isn't much hope of you withdrawing your characterising of Adams as a lazy and inadequate thinker.
'As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.'
12-24-06, 05:03 PM ZIK So you're not the one posting here? Or you're not sure?
12-24-06, 05:08 PM newnickname It's impossible to be sure, as any first year philosophy student knows.
'I guess there isn't much hope of you withdrawing your characterising of Adams as a lazy and inadequate thinker.
'As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.'
12-24-06, 05:09 PM ZIK So when you posted just now who was responsible? Santa Claus? Hahahahahaha!
12-24-06, 05:13 PM newnickname Are you going to withdraw your characterising of Adams as a lazy and inadequate thinker?
Certainly, judging by your hilarity, some basic concepts of philosophy - of wrestling with the big questions - seem to be novel to you. What, then, puts you in a position to look down on Adams as a thinker?
As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.
12-24-06, 05:16 PM ZIK I see no reason why I should withdraw anything. I'm not even sure you're the one making the request. Afterall YOU AREN'T, are you? Hahhahahahaha!
12-24-06, 05:20 PM newnickname I'm glad the notion tickles you so much. The Ancient Greeks probably chuckled a bit when they came up with it, too. If you can't see now why you should withdraw anything, I guess there's little point in explaining.
As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.
12-24-06, 05:26 PM ZIK How do you know you've ever read ANYTHING about the Greeks? You're not sure of ANYTHING, are you?
12-24-06, 05:29 PM newnickname Yes, that's right. We can't be sure of anything. You've certainly grasped the right end of the stick with this idea, anyway. Good job!
As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.
12-24-06, 05:32 PM ZIK Little point telling me about the Greeks then, eh? You can't be sure of ANYTHING regarding them, can you?
12-24-06, 05:38 PM newnickname Nope.
As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.
12-24-06, 05:41 PM ZIK Similarly, you have no idea whether what your friend that you keep quoting is saying makes any sense, do you? You're sure of NOTHING remember.
12-24-06, 05:43 PM newnickname Yes, yes. I realise skepticism is a novelty to you, but how about giving it a rest for a moment, and answering my point? You might have noticed it:
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Originally posted by newnickname: Yes, yes. I realise skepticism is a novelty to you, but how about giving it a rest for a moment, and answering my point? You might have noticed it:
As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.
YOUR point? I thought you weren't sure there waa a you. Are you changing your mind on that? ++++++++++++++++ 12-24-06, 05:52 PM newnickname No, I'm not changing my mind. I'm not sure there is a me. I guess skepticism has a new fan.
This is like having bought your kid a drum for Christmas. At first, it's nice to see the delight in his face at the shiny new toy, but eventually you begin to wonder if he'll ever put it down.
I take it your stalling means you can't answer those points.
12-25-06, 12:34 PM newnickname You seem to feel that this philosophical uncertainty stops everything. It doesn't mean we should all just lie down and die, or that nothing counts anymore. Thinkers have been living, and grappling with, the idea for millenia.
In the end, to sum up, you have nothing to back up what you said about Douglas Adams. It was just empty name-calling.
Further, your reactions - incomprehension and hysterics - to two pretty well-worn and basic philosophical ideas (Plato's theory of forms and skepticism) suggest that maybe you should be looking to your own ability to face up to and wrestle with the big ideas.
Happy Christmas, everyone.
12-25-06, 12:37 PM Zik You can't blame me for giggling if you're claiming you can do things EVEN BEFORE YOU EXIST!
And what I said about your friend Adams was spot on!
12-25-06, 01:31 PM babthrower Poor Zit. Doug adams was so much smarter than he is that he has absolutely no idea what DNA was talking about. So his only recourse is to call names and whistle in the dark.
12-25-06, 01:59 PM babthrower It was too late to edit my last post so I must post again. I realized it sounds as if I'm calling Zik stupid, but I'm not. DNA is also much smarter than I am, and I don't think I'm stupid.
So no insult intended. Just an observation prompted by Zik's inability to respond to questions.
12-25-06, 02:07 PM ZIK Yes, he was so "smart" that he proclaimed firm belief in the non-existence of something he couldn't even define. Just as some people, believe they can think without existing first. Give me a break!
12-25-06, 02:08 PM ZIK What was your question - specifically?
12-25-06, 04:12 PM newnickname
quote: Yes, he was so "smart" that he proclaimed firm belief in the non-existence of something he couldn't even define.
What on earth makes you think that Douglas Adams couldn't define 'God'? What a strange assumption.
Here's a specific question you haven't responded to:
'As to the cowardice of atheism - why would it be cowardly to accept that there is no Father Figure who will see that everything turns out alright; that we're on our own here, and that death means oblivion? It gives me the willies every time I think about it.
The alternative, of faith in a divinity that will somehow make sense of it all for us, and make sure that we don't really 'die', is surely the softer option.'
12-25-06, 04:16 PM ZIK The cowardice lies in insisting there is no God WITHOUT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to back that up. Brave people seek out the truth, and accept it when they find it - however unpalatable it might be to them. They don't cling to ideas they find pleasing in preference to the truth.
12-25-06, 04:21 PM newnickname "I am convinced that there is no god. ... I see not a shred of evidence that there is one.
... I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view....
There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon*, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of exxplaining." Douglas Adams
* (Referring to the challenge often handed to atheists, "Isn't belief that there is no god just as irrational, arrogant, etc, as belief that there is a god?"
12-25-06, 04:23 PM ZIK No evidence found yet by him is not lack of evidence - and no logical grounds for conviction that no evidence can ever be found. He just copped out - in a cowardly way!
12-25-06, 04:56 PM newnickname Of course there are no logical grounds for conviction that no evidence can ever be found for the existence of God. We haven't been around for ever yet. We can't be sure there will never be evidence found for the existence of Santa, the Tooth Fairy and whole pagan pantheons, either. (Now don't go getting all excited about this being some kind of ground-breaking concession to theism. It's another well-worn philosophical idea that it's impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of nebulous supernatural beings.)
If you read it carefully, you'd see that the Adams quote addresses the issue of evidence and the burden of proof. That's kind of what this thread was about.
How do you define 'cowardice', by the way? I don't see how it could be 'cowardly' to insist on something without adequate evidence. It'd be more foolhardy than cowardly, wouldn't it? And how do you define 'cop out'? Adams makes a reasonable proposition, it seems to me, which you can challenge or discuss. A cop out would be an avoidance of argument, a retreat to some rhetorical position which couldn't be challenged, or an abandonment of an argument.
12-25-06, 05:10 PM ZIK Pah! The fellow was a cowardly, malingering, mental, lazybones for the reasons I gave earlier.
12-25-06, 11:13 PM babthrower Zik says: "...he was so "smart" that he proclaimed firm belief in the non-existence of something he couldn't even define."
Do you believe in the tooth fairy, Zik?
Be very careful how you answer. This is a trick question.
12-26-06, 03:07 AM ZIK First of all, how do you define "fairy"?
12-27-06, 10:15 AM newnickname "Malingering" - there's another word I bet you can't justify the choice of. Your selection of insults seems arbitrary. Why 'lazy' and 'malingering' over, say, 'ugly' and 'treacherous', for example?
12-27-06, 10:19 AM ZIK The meaning of "malingering" is very clear - at least in a good dictionary. And it is most appropriate for your friend at whom I directed it. You don't need me to explain "lazy", do you?
12-27-06, 10:25 AM newnickname I said "justify the choice of" (which you haven't), not "explain the meaning of".
12-27-06, 10:32 AM ZIK He's a lazy thinker for taking a firm position before he's obtained conclusive evidence to support it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
As we've already discussed, there can't be conclusive evidence to prove the non-existence of something as nebulous as God. (In fact, we can't be sure of anything, remember?) Adams set out a reasonable and well thought-out argument. You can try to refute it, if you like. Dismissing it as lazy thinking because it doesn't attempt the impossible is just a cop out.
You haven't justified your choice of the word 'malingering', the word I mentioned at the start of this latest tedious bout of sniping festival of ideas. +++++++++++++++ 12-27-06, 11:08 AM ZIK We have discussed NO SUCH THING! I merely forced you to admit you could not preclude the existence of God - especially as you had no definition for the word "God".
12-27-06, 11:13 AM babthrower I asked Zik if he believed in the tooth fairy and he ducked it by asking for a definition of 'fairy'. Standard definition, look it up.
Unlike DNA, I do believe in gods - thousands of them. Gods are imaginary beings that some people think represent powerful unseen forces. When people make an image of their god(s), the image they make tells us what kind of people they are.
I'm an atheist not because I don't believe in gods, but because I don't worship any of them, since I don't see any reason to think there is reality to any of them - nothing behind the image, which is made by men, and the words attributed to them, which are written and spoken by men.
The gods are just hollow idols, like in The Wizard of Oz. I'd feel damn silly trying to talk to one of them.
12-27-06, 11:30 AM ZIK NONE of this is based on adhering strictly to facts and logic though, is it? It's just your arbitrary opinion, is it not? Any reason why one shouldn't ignore it?
12-27-06, 11:36 AM MrsS I usually stay out of these forums but I cannot let stand slurs against Douglas Adams! Douglas Noel Adams was far, far from being a "lazy" thinker, and was an extremely busy fellow in his too short lifetime. Anyone who cares to actually read his work will find a wealth of serious study underlying the satirical humour of his novels. He had a remarkable education and wasted none of it. And actually, the impossibility of proving a negative HAS been discussed, you, Zik, have simply chosen not to participate in those exchanges, presumably to avoid considering concepts that unsettle your prejudices.
12-27-06, 11:44 AM ZIK Taking a firm view on something without having conclusive evidence that one's position is correct is mental laziness, is it not?
12-27-06, 11:49 AM babthrower Zik sez: Any reason why one shouldn't ignore it?
Well, the obvious reason would be that you can't respond to it. So you just waffle instead.
Yet you fear to make a statement one way or the other about something as innocent and harmless as -- a tooth fairy!
No courage at all? Just duck and weave?
More from Zik: NONE of this is based on adhering strictly to facts and logic though, is it?
You babble on about facts and logic as if you're trying to convince us that you know something about either.
It is a fact that I do believe that thousands of gods exist.
It is a fact that I believe that some people believe that these gods have occult powers.
It is a fact that I do believe that these are just empty idols.
It is logical that one who holds these beliefs would style him/herself an atheist.
12-27-06, 11:56 AM ZIK I'm not in the habit of indulging in loose talk. If YOU can't say what you mean by the word "fairy", then I don't know how you can expect me, or ANYONE ELSE, to know.
12-27-06, 11:59 AM babthrower Zik whines "If YOU can't say what you mean by the word "fairy", then I don't know how you can expect me, or ANYONE ELSE, to know."
There are dictionaries. I have said I use the word in its dictionary sense. Look it up. That's what most sensible people do. Unless they're scared that then they might have no excuse not to answer the question.
12-27-06, 12:14 PM ZIK Which meaning of fairy are you referring to:
fairy 8 entries found for fairy. To select an entry, click on it. fairyairy-fairyfairy godmotherfairy ringfairy shrimpfairy-talefairy taletooth fairy
Main Entry: fairy Pronunciation: 'fer-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural fair·ies Etymology: Middle English fairie fairyland, enchantment, from Anglo-French faerie, from fee fairy, from Latin Fata, goddess of fate, from fatum fate 1 : a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers 2 usually disparaging : a male homosexual - fairy adjective - fairy·like /-"lIk/ adjective
12-27-06, 12:27 PM babthrower Hmmm. Let's go with #1.
12-27-06, 12:28 PM ZIK Well they certainly do exist - if only in the imagination. And perhaps more profoundly than that.
12-27-06, 12:29 PM MrsS You have conclusive proof that ANY god exists? Conclusive proof would eliminate faith and therefore disprove the existance of "God" and so, such proof cannot exist. Either you believe without proof or you don't, but there can be no definitive "proof" either way. A little gift for the Adams fans in the crowd: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "
12-27-06, 12:34 PM ZIK Pardon me, but you're slightly mixed up. First of all, what is YOUR definition of the word "God"?
And whether I have conclusive proof or not is beside the point. Your hero took a firm view without conclusive proof. That's lazy thinking, isn't it?
12-27-06, 12:42 PM babthrower Not so fast, Zikkie. Please point out the errors in logic which you claim DNA makes. In the example which Mrs Susag was kind enough to present to you.
See, we're not all lazy dogs that need to be prodded into looking into sources. Wink
12-27-06, 12:55 PM ZIK There is no logic at all therein. Just cheap mockery. Lazy thinking!
12-27-06, 01:05 PM babthrower You mean you are ignorant of the fact that some theologians claim that if we could prove that god exists there would be no redeeming merit in faith, because everyone would believe in him/her/it?
Seems that DNA knows more about theology than you do.
12-27-06, 01:13 PM ZIK I don't really care what theologians are thinking. I just ONLY care about the truth. You should too. Little point in knowing what everyone else is thinking and have no thought of your own, is there?
12-27-06, 01:29 PM newnickname I did care about the thinking behind the choice of the word 'malingering'. Zik seems to have successfully copped out of explaining it.
12-27-06, 01:33 PM ZIK No such thing. Your hero invented every imaginable excuse for not thinking hard enough until he got proper answers. That's malingering.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Zik pouts, "I don't really care what theologians are thinking"
Well, if you don't care what theologians are thinking, yet you presume to preach 'truth', you are like a guy who hangs out a doctor's shingle without checking any data tht other doctors who have gone before have learned.
If you're ignorant, that's one thing that can be remedied.
But if you're ignorant and don't care, then you suffer from a disease for which there is no cure.
Posts: 6961 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Originally posted by babthrower: Zik pouts, "I don't really care what theologians are thinking
Well, if you don't care what theologians are thinking, yet you presume to preach 'truth', you are like a guy who hangs out a doctor's shingle without checking any data tht other doctors who have gone before have learned.
If you're ignorant, that's one thing that can be remedied.
But if you're ignorant and don't care, then you suffer from a disease for which there is no cure.
I'm sorry but going with the mental herd is not the way to increase one's fund of knowledge. You're on the wrong path.
Your hero invented every imaginable excuse for not thinking hard enough until he got proper answers. That's malingering.
Er, no he didn't, and no it isn't. Malingering is 'pretending or exaggerating incapacity or illness' (m-w.com). You haven't actually come up with any meaningful criticism of what Adams said, yet. Just (random) name calling
'Proper answers', though . That's funny. I guess you have to imagine some old-school teacher saying it, pontificating with an expression on his face as if had a knitting needle stuck up each nostril.
Your hero invented every imaginable excuse for not thinking hard enough until he got proper answers. That's malingering.
Er, no he didn't, and no it isn't. Malingering is 'pretending or exaggerating incapacity or illness' (m-w.com). You haven't actually come up with any meaningful criticism of what Adams said, yet. Just (random) name calling
'Proper answers', though . That's funny. I guess you have to imagine some old-school teacher saying it, pontificating with an expression on his face as if had a knitting needle stuck up each nostril.
He was pretending that the human mind was incapable of answering the fundamental questions of life. Surely, you have sufficient imagination to grasp how that is malingering?
. That's funny. I guess you have to imagine some old-school teacher saying it, pontificating with an expression on his face as if had a knitting needle stuck up each nostril.
. 