This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Biology Proffesor Ken Miller: "The categorical mistake of the atheist is to .."

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Biology Proffesor Ken Miller: "The categorical mistake of the atheist is to .."

User Info: xXxCroNoxXx

xXxCroNoxXx
7 years ago#41
If God is not part of existence itself, then how can anything about God be said? God could be real and simultaneously not real, he would not be bound be any kind of logic, even his own. I'm surprised that Miller, a Catholic is saying this, at it sounds far more like an Islamic or Hindu idea of God.

User Info: Retrotastic

Retrotastic
7 years ago#42
There is a bit more of a correspondence between Christian and Eastern religions these days they're not as insular as they used to be.

User Info: black spider

black spider
7 years ago#43
Saying all atheists are strong atheists is like saying all Christians are WBC members.
Way to go, posting a comment that is as hilariously wrong as the first post. I suppose posting crap like this makes you feel smart, doesn't it LesserFaith?

Oh wait, I forgot. You put me on ignore out of frustration that you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag or even begin to explain why I was actually wrong.

Well, to everybody else who aren't as amusingly timid: Comparing hard atheists, a hugely diverse group, with WBC members, a very homogeneous group, belief-wise, is quite simply dumb. There's no better word to describe it.

User Info: xXxCroNoxXx

xXxCroNoxXx
7 years ago#44
There is a bit more of a correspondence between Christian and Eastern religions these days they're not as insular as they used to be.

Source?

User Info: Hustle Kong

Hustle Kong
7 years ago#45
Pollux, what are you doing? Didn't you learn your lesson last time?
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.

User Info: Faust_8

Faust_8
7 years ago#46
black spider: It is true though that you shouldn't lump all atheists into strong atheism...especially when I have yet to really meet anyone who's actually a strong atheist. I've only met people who SEEM to be strong atheists just by what they may say (sometimes while frustrated) but when it gets right down to it, they're weak atheists.

Strong atheists seem to be about as rare as WBC supporters.
"We think the future that we will find together is greater than the assumptions of our past."

User Info: Julian_Caesar

Julian_Caesar
7 years ago#47
...So, where's this immaterial world then?

You do realize that asking for material evidence of an immaterial world is a silly thing to ask, right? That material evidence can never sufficiently prove OR disprove the existence of such a world? And therefore, the categorical assumption by materialists that such a world does not exist, must ABSOLUTELY be considered a faith-based belief? Because it is believed in the absence of any supporting material evidence?

Please point me towards these worlds that supposedly exist. Do you have any evidence of them at all? Any reason I should take any stock in claims of their existence?

You're doing that thing that materialists like to do in the material/immaterial world debate...where you think that appealing to "burden of proof" solves all your problems. Apparently, when an opposing argument points out that one of the base assumptions of your worldview (namely, that nothing exists outside the material world) does not actually have any supporting evidence, it's acceptable for the materialist to retort that there is no supporting evidence for the base assumption that something could possibly exist outside the material world.

This would be fine, if the materialists understood that this is intellectual stalemate. But most of them actually think that this response is a superior argument. In reality, they've simply stated their opponent's argument back to them. And rightly so; it's true that there is no evidence to support the existence of non-material worlds. Still, that doesn't make the materialist's worldview logically superior. It makes it logically equal to that of the theist, or pantheist, or polytheist, or whatever.

So my response is that no, I can't point you to any of those worlds. But neither can you point to any actual objective proof that the material world is all that exists. And so we are literally saying the exact same thing to each other.
"I don't think you can run a double-blind experiment with an omniscient being as the subject." -- kozlo100

User Info: Faust_8

Faust_8
7 years ago#48
You do realize that asking for material evidence of an immaterial world is a silly thing to ask, right?

Oh yes. But I'm trying to get you to realize that you seem to be so sure that it exists while also knowing that even if it does, it's is 100% undetectable, and thus we have absolutely zero ground to stand on if we say that it does exist.

"It doesn't exist" and "it does exist" literally have the same weight in a discussion, because both have the same evidence to work with.

I'll stop assuming it's not there when I have a reason to, just like I assume there's not a clown in my front yard until I have reason to. And neither of these require faith to say. It doesn't take faith to assume the sun will rise, or that my car will start either. I'm not making any real claim.

Another thing: say I have a box. The box is invisible, and immaterial--objects go through it as if it's not there. It has no smell, no weight, no nothing, and can't be detected. So...even if we agree that it still does exist...does it matter?
"We think the future that we will find together is greater than the assumptions of our past."

User Info: Julian_Caesar

Julian_Caesar
7 years ago#49
Oh yes. But I'm trying to get you to realize that you seem to be so sure that it exists while also knowing that even if it does, it's is 100% undetectable, and thus we have absolutely zero ground to stand on if we say that it does exist.

I think you must have typed this before reading the rest of my post.

"It doesn't exist" and "it does exist" literally have the same weight in a discussion, because both have the same evidence to work with.

Yeah, definitely.

I'll stop assuming it's not there when I have a reason to, just like I assume there's not a clown in my front yard until I have reason to.

Bad example. A clown's existence is verifiable by reason. The existence of the supernatural realm is not. Hence the inadequacy of your answer...your position only works when addressing assumptions dealing with things actually PROVABLE by scientific methods. When the very nature of the assumption precludes its examination by scientific means, your position becomes untenable (because it requires the application of scientific laws to something which is inherently incapable of such an application).

And neither of these require faith to say. It doesn't take faith to assume the sun will rise, or that my car will start either. I'm not making any real claim.

You are absolutely making a real claim. You are claiming that things will continue to be a certain way, on the grounds that they have always been that way. While that is a perfectly acceptable scientific judgment, a little thinking uncovers a more troublesome question: why does the state of "having always been that way" necessarily lead to the state of "will continue to be that way"? And no, it's not acceptable answer to say "because that's what we observe." That is a restatement of the principle as an "explanation" for why that principle exists. You'd be saying "science works that way because we have observed science working that way."

So that is where faith comes in, because science is incapable of answering "why" "always been" leads to "will continue."

Another thing: say I have a box. The box is invisible, and immaterial--objects go through it as if it's not there. It has no smell, no weight, no nothing, and can't be detected. So...even if we agree that it still does exist...does it matter?

Depends on what you believe about the box. And seeing as how the box is beyond the scope of scientific investigation, the importance of the box becomes a question of philosophy and theology (which is really just the philosophy of religion).
"I don't think you can run a double-blind experiment with an omniscient being as the subject." -- kozlo100

User Info: Faust_8

Faust_8
7 years ago#50
But I'm not actually making a claim--I'm just ASSUMING something. I'm not saying the sun will rise because it always has, I'm just operating under the assumption that it will so that I can focus on other things. I simply have no reason to think it won't.

Basically, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, without actually making a claim or shifting the burden of proof. We just simply have no reason to accept what you say. Even if I throw out science and just use my senses, there's nothing I've experienced that hints at some "unseen world."

But you're basically saying its all pointless since it's unverifiable by science, so I don't know why you get all bothered when we atheists...simply don't bother with it then. How ELSE do you investigate such things? Science is literally how we acquire real knowledge.
"We think the future that we will find together is greater than the assumptions of our past."
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Biology Proffesor Ken Miller: "The categorical mistake of the atheist is to .."

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived