So that's it for the election.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He obviously got better, went to school, got a degree in Psychology, and started making perfect sense. Amazing how education destroys religiousity.

No, he didn't get better, and education doesn't "destroy" religiosity. Plenty of people as educated or more educated than Shermer are still religious.

He was an unbearable zealot that tried to force his religion down other peoples' throats, then he grew disillusioned and became an unbearable zealot that tried to force his anti-religion down other peoples' throats. The common theme is that he's an unbearable zealot. He's not some enlightened genius leading the unwashed masses to rationality. He was once just as fervent for religion as he is now fervent against religion.

Also, lulz at a degree in Psychology. A master's degree in experimental psych takes one year to complete. He completed a shitty master's program at a shitty state school.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, he didn't get better, and education doesn't "destroy" religiosity. Plenty of people as educated or more educated than Shermer are still religious.

He was an unbearable zealot that tried to force his religion down other peoples' throats, then he grew disillusioned and became an unbearable zealot that tried to force his anti-religion down other peoples' throats. The common theme is that he's an unbearable zealot. He's not some enlightened genius leading the unwashed masses to rationality. He was once just as fervent for religion as he is now fervent against religion.

Also, lulz at a degree in Psychology. A master's degree in experimental psych takes one year to complete. He completed a shitty master's program at a shitty state school.

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.

Agnosticism is the belief that man can not distinguish whether or not there is a god and which one is real. Atheism is the scientific stance.

Also you are getting the term confused we are using reason now not rationality.

[Reiker000]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheism is the scientific stance

wtf is scientific about atheism?

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agnosticism is the belief that man can not distinguish whether or not there is a god and which one is real. Atheism is the scientific stance.

Also you are getting the term confused we are using reason now not rationality.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable.

Atheism is a term that has come to mean a lot of different things. Negative atheists are simply non-theist agnostics -- there is no tangible difference. Positive atheists are dogmatic and irrational, and they are not agnostic. For the purposes of discussion, most people -- Carl Sagan, for example -- are referring to positive atheists when they refer to atheists. Denying the rationality of any belief in god is an example of positive atheism.

And no, I'm not getting anything confused. Rationality and reasonableness are interchangable. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationality

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable.

Atheism is a term that has come to mean a lot of different things. Negative atheists are simply non-theist agnostics -- there is no tangible difference. Positive atheists are dogmatic and irrational, and they are not agnostic. For the purposes of discussion, most people -- Carl Sagan, for example -- are referring to positive atheists when they refer to atheists. Denying the rationality of any belief in god is an example of positive atheism.

And no, I'm not getting anything confused. Rationality and reasonableness are interchangable. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationality

No your modifiers are describing your word. Atheism is without modifier of course Positive and Negative make the word change.

Denying the belief of god as rational is not positive atheism, saying that god absolutely does exist without evidence would be positive atheism.



Atheism is scientific because to be an atheist you gather information and make a decision based on that information or lack thereof. This information can be tested and evaluated by your peers, and you draw a conclusion. Atheism is simply saying there is no logical reason to belief in a god or creator with the information available. Science has not been able to 100% disprove god yet so until then it is not logical to say i am positive there is no god.

The above method is an example of the scientific method in use. Which is why atheism is scientific. Anyone who says they are atheist without going through this method isn't a real atheist. They fit into one of those modified categories.




Try Logic instead of reason then.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No your modifiers are describing your word. Atheism is without modifier of course Positive and Negative make the word change.

Denying the belief of god as rational is not positive atheism, saying that god absolutely does exist without evidence would be positive atheism.

Atheism is scientific because to be an atheist you gather information and make a decision based on that information or lack thereof. This information can be tested and evaluated by your peers, and you draw a conclusion. Atheism is simply saying there is no logical reason to belief in a god or creator with the information available. Science has not been able to 100% disprove god yet so until then it is not logical to say i am positive there is no god.

The above method is an example of the scientific method in use. Which is why atheism is scientific. Anyone who says they are atheist without going through this method isn't a real atheist. They fit into one of those modified categories.

Try Logic instead of reason then.

No application of the scientific method would produce reasoning such as: "If there is no proof that A exists, then A does not exist"

Science simply isn't interested in things for which there is no evidence, since it is impossible to perform any kind of experiments to validate any hypotheses.

And agnostics don't believe that man is somehow incapable of ever proving or disproving the extensive of God. Simply that in our current state of knowledge and understanding about the universe, that we have insufficient evidence to make that kind of determination. Sounds a lot more like science than atheism.

Atheists have far more in common with other people of faith than they'd like to admit.