Al Gore and Atheists

So I do not believe in something that cannot be proven, but according to most in this country I am wrong because they do believe in something that cannot be proven. Logically illogical ?
Deriding and teaching fear of those who do not believe as they do is a fundamental basic operating concept of most all churches.

It all depends on your point of view.
 
uscitizen said:
So I do not believe in something that cannot be proven, but according to most in this country I am wrong because they do believe in something that cannot be proven. Logically illogical ?
Deriding and teaching fear of those who do not believe as they do is a fundamental basic operating concept of most all churches.

It all depends on your point of view.
Click to expand...


I didnt say you are wrong for your non-belief ... and personally I wont ridicule it either ... and I dont think I have ever ridiculed anyone in this forum for beng an atheist. I have argued against those who ridicule or bring up outragous news articles designed to paint a picture with a broad sweeping brush .... but I have never attacked their atheism.

I will stand by your right to not believe as much as I will stand up for the right to worship. But unfortunately I dont beleive this is a two way street ...

Now... if I start a thread about Scripture, God or anything in terms of faith.. and you, robdawg or whomever pop in and start with the fairy tales, spaghetti monster crap ... thats called ridicule. Thats the difference...
 
So a pastor preaching against the souless lost sinners being the cause of all the worlds problems is not ridicule ? Yes I guess you are right it is not ridicule, it is slander, which is worse ?
 
uscitizen said:
So a pastor preaching against the souless lost sinners being the cause of all the worlds problems is not ridicule ? Yes I guess you are right it is not ridicule, it is slander, which is worse ?
Click to expand...


Why didnt you bring up Islam teaching Imam/Jihad? Why is it always the Pastor(Christian)..wouldnt have anything to do with politics would it? just a point of reference ...

As far as a pastor teaching his congregation about sin ... thats called Religious Instruction... teaching a doctrine ... I will agree ...some take it too far ..i.e. televangelism..... but Sin is a part of most religous doctrines .. and people in this Country are free to choose whether or not they want to take part in it..... and they should be free to do that without the ridicule of those who worship King Kong ... (how does it feel?)
 
Agreed Klaatu, And those who wish to not believe should be able to do that without being hammered by the church as well.
They hammer me I hammer back.
 
I tend to find that with the religious, when you attempt to dig a little deeper into the nature of their beliefs their arguments slip further into the obscurius per obscurum, circular, pathos-laden notions.

None can provide an explanation beyond that they 'feel' it is correct, yet all tend to argue that their faith has substance....

From bishops to the laity this occurs, the only difference being the articulation of their arguments....

Does this make me arrogant?
 
Last edited:
AnyOldIron said:
I tend to find that with the religious, when you attempt to dig a little deeper into the nature of their beliefs their arguments slip further into the obscurius per obscurum, circular, pathos-laden notions.

None can provide an explanation beyond that they 'feel' it is correct, yet all tend to argue that their faith has substance....

From bishops to the laity this occurs, the only difference being the articulation of their arguments....

Does this make me arrogant?
Click to expand...


never really thought you were arrogant anyold .. you just like to discuss the nature of religion from a sociological point of view and I can respect that ... until of course you start using the speghetti monster/elf analogies ... thats when arrogance..if ever so slightly... creeps in ... :cool:
 
AnyOldIron said:
I tend to find that with the religious, when you attempt to dig a little deeper into the nature of their beliefs their arguments slip further into the obscurius per obscurum, circular, pathos-laden notions.

None can provide an explanation beyond that they 'feel' it is correct, yet all tend to argue that their faith has substance....
Click to expand...

You can say the same for people who subscribe to the ever changing big bang theory ... that out of nothing came something ...

We are only taught what people teach us ... it all boils down to who's agenda do you want to side with ...

Im of the ilk that there is something bigger going on than we can ever imagine ... I think people like Jesus, Buddha and the like had a special insight to that knowledge .... forgive me for being naive ....

My problem with you and your ilk ... you underestimate the reason for being.
 
never really thought you were arrogant anyold .. you just like to discuss the nature of religion from a sociological point of view and I can respect that ... until of course you start using the speghetti monster/elf analogies ... thats when arrogance..if ever so slightly... creeps in ...

LOL! All part of mythology....

I've moved away from my sociological side, am currently studying for another degree, this time on the OU (correspondence university) in philosophy and it is philosophy that is the prism through which I see things...

Sociology/anthropology/mythology is more of a side-hobby now, although of course they all intertwine....

I think the arrogance thing comes when religious arguments are simply dismissed. That isn't something I would do simply because it is poor philosophy. If a religious argument is poor, I will attempt to explain why....
 
You can say the same for people who subscribe to the ever changing big bang theory ... that out of nothing came something ...

But the arguments used for big bang and origins are based on logos, logic deduction.

Talk to people like Brent and Dixie about their religious notions and it usually resolves down to what they describe as 'faith', ie that they feel it is right.

We are only taught what people teach us ... it all boils down to who's agenda do you want to side with ...

Only if you accept on face value what you are told.

The strength of science and humanity's Apollonian side are that, if you don't trust the teacher, you can verify yourself.

With the Dionysian side, the appeal of the transcendental, there is no method for verification and you must accept the teacher's word on face value.

Im of the ilk that there is something bigger going on than we can ever imagine ...

And it is why you believe this that needs discussion. What makes you believe this? (this is epistemology - the study of how we know)

I think people like Jesus, Buddha and the like had a special insight to that knowledge .... forgive me for being naive ....

Jesus et al were IMO great philosophers whose teachings have been 'corrupted' by their deification.

Does the belief in a transcendental great entity make you niaive? Depends on why you believe that...

My problem with you and your ilk ... you underestimate the reason for being.

Or challenge the assumption that there is a reason?

When people hear that I am studying philosophy, the first question most ask is 'so, what is the meaning of life then'.

My answer is that the question itself is wrong. Meaning is a human concept and only found in human interaction. The universe, life etc have no innate meaning.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
So a pastor preaching against the souless lost sinners being the cause of all the worlds problems is not ridicule ? Yes I guess you are right it is not ridicule, it is slander, which is worse ?
Click to expand...

now granted, I have not gone to church regularly in 10 years, BUT never in all the years I did regularly go to church, did a Priest or Pastor say that nonbelievers or sinners are going to hell and that they are the cause of all the evil in the world! NEVER!!!!

What kind of Church did you go to? And remind me not to ever go there! ;)lol

good morning uscit!
 
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Because people believe in something they "feel" rather than have strong outside evidence of also does not prove them wrong. You may disbelieve and be cynical even satirical and sardonic... it still doesn't prove them wrong. Science was never designed to prove/disprove the existence of God, it can't. The tool you attempt to wield is entirely ill equipped for the job at hand.

You attempt to seal a crack with just a shovel... It ain't going to work AOI.
 
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Because people believe in something they "feel" rather than have strong outside evidence of also does not prove them wrong.

Of course not. It is an impossibility to disprove the transcendental. That is because those that support the notion of the transcendental can produce neither a definition nor description. Ambigiuity is vital to the transcendental.

So we must adjudicate the veracity of the arguments used. (Epistemology)

An argument that is based on deduction deriving from empirical evidence is by far the more solid when compared to arguments based on pathos-led feelings.

You may disbelieve and be cynical even satirical and sardonic... it still doesn't prove them wrong.

Never claimed it did. Me, sardonic? lol

Science was never designed to prove/disprove the existence of God, it can't.

Science was never designed. It is an evolution of sound epistemological methods that have demonstrated themselves highly effective in our understanding of the world.

Science cannot demonstrate the non-existence of god, simply because 'god' is an ambigious concept rather than an entity. See my above ref the transcendental.

You attempt to seal a crack with just a shovel... It ain't going to work AOI.

Ooooh Damo. 'Strawman alert'!
 
AnyOldIron said:
Ooooh Damo. 'Strawman alert'!
Click to expand...


Rubbish, you state above how "wrong" they are and use absense of epistemological evidence as your "proof". I present the case that such an absense and their belief in "pathos" over "logos" doesn't prove them wrong or you right. Your answer is, "OF course not." and "I never did that." even though you are contradicted by your previous posts in this thread.
 
Rubbish, you state above how "wrong" they are and use absense of epistemological evidence as your "proof". I present the case that such an absense and their belief in "pathos" over "logos" doesn't prove them wrong or you right. Your answer is, "OF course not." and "I never did that." even though you are contradicted by your previous posts in this thread.

Still strawman, Damo.

I've stated that the arguments that those who endorse the notion of the transcendental use are inordinately weak.

I haven't said epistemologically sound knowledge demonstrates 'proof', I don't use the term.

I bang on more than most about the impossibility of absolute knowledge...
 
You argue that their argument based on Pathos is weaker than one on the same subject based in Logos. That argument is rubbish Logos cannot prove/disprove is not equipped to even begin to study the question. It is pathos where the question lies. That you think it is "weak" because it is based in the side you dismiss as relative to the world doesn't make it any weaker or stronger than an argument using a tool that is not equipped to deal with the question.
 
Care4all said:
now granted, I have not gone to church regularly in 10 years, BUT never in all the years I did regularly go to church, did a Priest or Pastor say that nonbelievers or sinners are going to hell and that they are the cause of all the evil in the world! NEVER!!!!

What kind of Church did you go to? And remind me not to ever go there! ;)lol

good morning uscit!
Click to expand...
Care I was raised in Pentescostal type of church. Methodist has been what the wife has been dragging me into for the past 6 yrs. However I have also noticed that it is not necessarially the denomination but the makeup of the individual church. Some people quit the local methodist church when they had a female guest preacher :o
As someone on here wisely stated a church is the sum of it's members.
Watch a bit of the preachers on CBN or whatever they call it now.
Preaching salvation thru fear and intimidation is still alive and well in churches.
 
You argue that their argumet based on Pathos is weaker than one on the same subject based in Logos. That argument is rubbish Logos cannot prove/disprove is not equipped to even begin to study the question.

Nothing can prove anything. Proof is absolute knowledge, which is a fantasy.

Logos is equipped to deal with any question, it is the method by which we evaluate the quality of an argument.

Relying on pathos is weak because it is ambigious. It creates obscurum per obscurius arguments only, explaining the obscure by the even more obscure.

Emotional argument doesn't provide us with an insight into the world but an insight into the person making the argument.

An argument that is supported by logic and empiricism is far strong than one based on ambigious feelings, merely saying 'I feel this is so'.

The history of man demonstrates this. Mankind once attributed phenomenon according to how they felt. They saw the complexity of the seas and anthropomorphically attributed it to the action of Posieden. Something as complex as that must be under the control of something.

Logos rolled this back, by presenting a structure by which we can evaluate the claims, and it is in this point that the strength of logos and weakness of pathos-based arguments lies.

Logos based claims can be verified. Pathos cannot. We must merely accept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top