Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Reason/s & Belief
Rss Feed
Sort By: Most Recent | Popular Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Sunny Jackson

Is There a Godless Church of Liberalism or Atheism? Responding to Ann Coulter & Christi... - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...GodlessChurch.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Liberalism is a political philosophy, no different from conservatism
  • Liberalism is a political philosophy, no different from conservatism
  • a person can oppose abortion in principle but be unwilling to criminalize it
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • children of all religions and no religions are equally free
  • Many who accept evolution do not believe that humanity was an acciden
  • It’s not enough to simply criticize liberal policies on the basis of real or even perceived flaws; instead, conservatives must claim that the real and fundamental problem with liberalism is that it is godless and then proceed to describe every real or perceived flaw as stemming from that godlessness.
  • Addressing the actual issues which liberals or atheists advocate would mean treating both the ideas and the people with some measure of respect.
Sunny Jackson

Quotes on Religion - Carl Sagan - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...bl_q_CSagan.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - Cached
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  • In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
  • You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they're called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation.
  • God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it.
  • The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions.
  • I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
  • Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods.
  • We should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit.
  • religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.
  • There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.
  • If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
  • Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our own ignorance about ourselves.
Sunny Jackson

Do Atheists Choose Atheism? Evangelists are Wrong to Ascribe Choice and Free Will to At... - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...BeliefChoice_4.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • beliefs and the absence thereof are not acts of will which I had to consciously take — they are, rather, conclusions which were necessary based upon the evidence at hand.
  • Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs
  • it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • it is more important to try and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in people rather than to try and simply "convert" them
  • not by choice but instead simply because belief is no longer possible
Sunny Jackson

Desire and Belief vs. Rational Belief: Why Beliefs are Not Based on Desire & How to For... - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...BeliefChoice_3.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • there are social influences to the beliefs we have.
  • if we say that someone believes in a god because they want to, that isn't true. Instead, it may be that they want it to be true that a god exists and this desire influences how they approach the evidence for or against the existence of a god.
  • A rational person is one who accepts a belief because it is supported, who rejects a belief when it is not supported, who only believes to the extent that evidence and support allows, and who has doubts about a belief when the support turns out to be less reliable than previously thought.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • A rational person does not "choose" to believe something simply because evidence points that way. Once a person realizes that a belief is clearly supported by the facts, there is no further step which we could call "choice" that is needed for a person to have the belief.
  • be willing to accept a belief as a rational and logical conclusion from the available information.
Sunny Jackson

Why Should Theists Prove that God Exists? Why Do Atheists Ask for Proof of God? The Bur... - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...TheistsProveGod.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • If a theist claims that a god exists, an atheist is justified in asking for that claim to be supported
  • Claims need to be supported if they are to be taken seriously.
  • Anyone can claim anything
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • the better the support, the more justified the claim is
  • you are being asked to show good reasons why your claim should be taken seriously
  • by making a claim, you have essentially taken on an intellectual and a moral obligation to offer some support for it
  • you must already have reasons for belief that you consider good; they, then, should be the first ideas you offer as support
  • good support for belief
  • "proof" is treated as being a very high standard to meet
  • No one, however, can reasonably object to being asked to support their claims. If they think their claim is rational, reasonable, or justified, then they must think they have rational or reasonable support for their claim which justifies believing it.
  • Being expected to support one's claim is a standard which applies to everyone who makes an empirical claim.
  • good grounds for belief
  • to say that a claim has been "proven" implies that it has been demonstrated as true to such a degree that dissent and disagreement are no longer reasonable
  • asking for proof of a god is reasonable and justified if and when a theist suggests or even states outright that they have such proof
  • words that merely imply that they have proof — words like "definite" or "undeniable."
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Ambiguity: Equivocation - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • a single term is used with two or more meanings in the same argument
  • it is important to ask people to define their terms clearly
  • a conflict between common usages of terms (law, theory) and technical or scientific uses of those same terms. This conflict is a common source of equivocation and should be watched for.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • it starts out sounding reasonable and gets you to agree to certain ideas. But after that, the meanings of key terms are changed
  • always make an effort to define, or ask for definitions of, the most important terms - especially when you know that they can be used in multiple ways
  • When clear definitions are provided, it is harder to subtly or accidentally alter them later on.
Sunny Jackson

How to Talk to, Debate Atheists: Ways Religious Theists can Avoid Common Errors - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...HowDebate.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Many churches and apologetics books have misinformed people about how dictionaries and atheists themselves define atheism: it's just the absence of belief in gods, not the positive denial of your god's existence.
  • Some atheists go on to deny some or all gods; others don't.
  • A significant problem which atheists have with theists is how so many make all sorts of assumptions about atheism, atheists, and anyone who isn't religious.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • What is your real goal and what do you expect to get out of this?
  • A discussion is a two-way street where both contribute and what each person says actually reflects something they have taken from what the other says. In a discussion, you have to listen to what the other is saying and respond directly to it.
  • Is it Possible That You Could Be Wrong? If Not, What Are You Doing?
  • Please take stock of your motives and goals before proceeding
  • Familiarize Yourself with Common Arguments & Common Refutations
  • Atheists often hear the exact same arguments over and over from one theist after another
  • Providing the same, obvious rebuttals to the same, superficial arguments gets annoying, especially when more interesting options exist
Sunny Jackson

Top Conversation Killers for Atheists: How Religious Theists Can Hurt Their Cause - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...DebateKillers.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - Cached
  • take some time to learn how atheists and dictionaries define atheism and agnosticism
  • learn something
  • a real conversation is a two-way street where both contribute and both are interested in taking something away
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • identify and eliminate basic errors
  • For atheists, quoting passages from the Bible proves nothing about any gods whatsoever. At most, it may prove that the person doing the quoting doesn't have anything better to offer.
  • you can't prove anything to atheists by simply quoting the Bible
  • People making a positive claim have a burden of proof; this means that they voluntarily assume an obligation to support their claim
  • make your own arguments
  • many theists do something in particular: they offer arguments for the existence of their god and then ignore the various objections and rebuttals offered by atheists.
  • It's one thing not to agree with those rebuttals, but quite another to go on repeating the argument as if no objections had been raised at all.
  • do some research to learn what the most common objections and rebuttals are
  • atheists will challenge a theist to provide evidence to support their claims. The proper response is to actually provide evidence.
  • It's up to the claimant to show that their position has enough merit to be taken seriously and be looked at more closely.
  • One way or another, the theist appears to be expressing superiority over atheists in a passive-aggressive manner. That suggests they weren't interested in serious conversation to begin with.
Sunny Jackson

Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference Between Atheism and Agnosticism? - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...atheism.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - Cached
  • A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism
  • a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism
  • An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist
Sunny Jackson

Begging the Question Fallacy: Religious Arguments - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...beggingquestion_2.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • person's commitment to the truth of their religious doctrines may prevent them from seeing that they are assuming the truth of what they are attempting to prove
  • a person's commitment to the truth of their religious doctrines may prevent them from seeing that they are assuming the truth of what they are attempting to prove
  • circular reasoning
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • assuming the conclusion
  • assuming a related but equally controversial premise to prove what is at question
  • these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand
  • A person making such an argument must defend this premise before the argument can have any force
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Presumption: Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...beggingquestion.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - Cached
  • it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place
  • Circular Argument
  • A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested
  • A is true because A is true
  • assuming the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place
  • A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true
  • A is true because B is true, and B is true because C is true, and C is true because A is true
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Ambiguity: The No True Scotsman Fallacy - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...notruescotsman.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - Cached
  • the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original
  • an ad hoc redefinition of the term
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Ambiguity: Amphiboly - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...blfaq_fall_amphiboly.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • the Fallacy of Amphiboly involves the use of sentences which can be interpreted in multiple ways with equal justification
  • The problem with such an error is made clear when absurd conclusions are derived from the misunderstanding
  • ambiguous predictions which are interpreted after events
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The more vague and ambiguous a prediction is, the more likely it will be to come true
  • when given an ambiguous prediction, people tend to believe whatever interpretation is most favorable to what they want
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Ambiguity: Accent - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...blfaq_fall_accent.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • when spoken, the location of stress in the sentence is what indicates the proper interpretation
  • this fallacy is more often committed not by an original speaker or writer, but instead by someone quoting or reporting the words of others
  • give it a meaning other than the original stresses had intended
Sunny Jackson

Begging the Question Fallacy: Political Arguments - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...beggingquestion_3.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • a person's commitment to the truth of their political ideology may prevent them from seeing that they are assuming the truth of what they are attempting to prove
  • presumes the truth of a premise that isn't stated
  • closely related to the point in question
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • this premise is far from obvious
  • support it
  • that is exactly the point being disputed
  • assuming
  • the arguer is assuming
  • questionable
  • the assumption is unstated and debatable
  • Genetic Fallacy - an ad hominem fallacy which involves the rejection of an idea or argument because of the nature of the person presenting it
  • what is being offered here is not an independent reason
  • most people are smart enough to avoid stating their premises and conclusions in exactly the same manner
  • it is important to know how to take apart an argument and examine its constituent parts
  • look at each piece individually
Sunny Jackson

Quoting out of Context Fallacy - Changing Meaning with Selective Quotes - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...ing-Out-Of-Context-Fallacy.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • every quotation necessarily excludes large sections of the original material
  • to take a selective quotation which distorts, alters, or even reverses the originally intended meaning. This can be done accidentally or deliberately.
  • A statement meant ironically can be taken wrong when in written form because much irony is communicated through the emphasis
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • you start out with an ironic observation which is followed by an explanation which communicates that the foregoing was meant to be taken ironically rather than literally
  • a passage of the original material has been taken out of context and thereby given a meaning that is exactly the opposite of what was intended
  • these passages are being used in the implicit argument
  • unethical
  • implication
  • someone is quoted out of context so that their position appears weaker or more extreme than it actually is
  • When this false position is refuted, the author pretends that they have actually refuted the real position of the original person
  • it would not be unusual to see them as premises in arguments, either explicit or implicit
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...authority_2.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration
  • The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery
  • There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • there has to be some general agreement among other experts in this field
  • keep in mind that even if these conditions are fully met, that does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion
  • inductive arguments do not have guaranteed true conclusions, even when the premises are true. Instead, we have conclusions which are probably true.
  • the topic that he is an expert on involves empirical phenomena
  • more importantly, it is possible for us to check on what he has claimed and verify it for ourselves
Sunny Jackson

Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...authority_3.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • people are browbeaten by such arguments into accepting a proposition by the testimony of an authority because they are too modest to base a challenge on their own knowledge
  • Authorities can be challenged
  • you can question whether or not the alleged authority really is an authority in this area of knowledge
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • A second basis for challenge is whether or not the authority in question is making statements in his or her area of expertise
  • we can challenge an appeal to authority based on whether or not the testimony being offered is something which would find widespread agreement among other experts in that field
  • if this is the only person in the entire field making such claims, the mere fact that they have expertise doesn’t warrant belief in it, especially considering the weight of contrary testimony
  • look directly at the evidence they are offering
  • we cannot rely upon them
Sunny Jackson

Appeals to Authority: Appeal To Anonymous Authority - 0 views

atheism.about.com/...authority_4.htm

shared by Sunny Jackson on 26 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • a person claims we should believe a proposition because it is also believed or claimed by some authority figure or figures — but in this case the authority is not named
  • who reject the above are automatically excluded from consideration
  • a valid authority is one who can be checked and whose statements can be verified
  • ...15 more annotations...
  • the support offered is completely inadequate to the task of supporting them
  • independently evaluate the data which they have used
  • Here we don’t even know if the so-called “experts” are qualified authorities in the fields in question — and that is in addition to not knowing who they are so we can check the data and conclusions.
  • check for ourselves
  • a good basis for their position
  • The insult comes in via the implication
  • Instead of identifying who this authority is, we get vague statements about “experts” or “scientists” who have “proven” something to be “true.”
  • who is this “they” who says so?
  • evaluate the claim
  • vacuous
  • vague
  • When “they” say things, that is just a rumor — it might be true, or it might not be. We cannot accept it as true, however, without evidence
  • find that evidence when asked
  • an anonymous authority isn’t sufficient to get us to believe the claims in question
  • provide more substantive support
« First ‹ Previous 81 - 100 of 712 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page