Tony Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Really? Do people like me and roots booster arguing on the internet concern you just as much as people like Bin Laden blowing up innocent people? Or as much as those who would try and stifle free speech in the name of their religion? Clearly not, which is why I said religiosity. This is the bit that amuses me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It’s the “to be convinced of anything” at the end, an open minded person can't be convinced of anything, only that which is possible. That was a quarter of the way through the sentence, not even half way. Definitely not at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It’s the “to be convinced of anything” at the end, an open minded person can't be convinced of anything, only that which is possible.In my view that's a rather petty distinction to make. Besides, if your standard of proof is good enough, then it would be impossible to convince you that something impossible can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It's not as dangerous as only reading the first half of a sentence. Like I said it not a good attribute to have if you are also easily lead and don’t require much proof, there must be limits to what you are prepared to be convinced of and wouldn’t even open your mind up to the possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Clearly not, which is why I said religiosity. And what exactly do you mean by that? Because I don't really see how that gets you off the hook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Like I said it not a good attribute to have if you are also easily lead and don’t require much proof, there must be limits to what you are prepared to be convinced of and wouldn’t even open your mind up to the possibility. Why should there be limits? The only limit is my own knowledge and I'm always happy to learn. The world (well, anyone that's interested) is currently sitting thinking "did the Italians screw up or do we start again? Please God let them have screwed up". What setting would you suggest I adjust my proof parameter to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In my view that's a rather petty distinction to make. Besides, if your standard of proof is good enough, then it would be impossible to convince you that something impossible can happen. But if someone’s standard of proof isn't very high then it isn't a good attribute. So people should be open minded but not to the possibility of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 But if someone’s standard of proof isn't very high then it isn't a good attribute. So people should be open minded but not to the possibility of anything. Again, I disagree. It's fine to be open to the possibility of everything, as long as you aren't also gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Why should there be limits? The only limit is my own knowledge and I'm always happy to learn. The world (well, anyone that's interested) is currently sitting thinking "did the Italians screw up or do we start again? Please God let them have screwed up". What setting would you suggest I adjust my proof parameter to? Because it would be pointless being open minded enough to consider the possibility of that which isn’t possible, why would you open your mind to the possibility that something exists that is all powerful and can do anything but which as limits, and is all knowing but doesn’t know everything. Something that can do anything can’t have limits and there can be nothing that wouldn’t be known by something that knows everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 Of course they can, they can believe in the tooth fairy, witchcraft, alien abductions, teenage mutant ninja turtles... so long as you don't believe in any deities you can believe in it and by definition be an atheist. Now of course in our society at least there's something of a correlation between not believing in gods and not believing in other forms of nonsense be they supernatural or pseudo-scientific, basically in being a skeptic, but the term 'atheist' refers only to a lack of belief in god/s. Alright I'd have to agree with you there. But with regard to all of this nonsense that's believed, do you consider the notion that the universe may have always existed without cause 'nonsense'? Posted by Plekhanov Please do explain to us all exactly what you imagine these similarities to be. I don't imagine them, they're apparent. 1.) Neither of you take well to criticism. 2.) Both of you tweak your beliefs (or lack of) to what ever suits. i.e, Theist position- 'If the big bang occurred it's because God created it'. The doubtful atheist's position- 'I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't know for sure whether god doesn't exist'. The adamant atheist's position- 'I'm atheist because I've never considered whether God exist on any conscious level'.. yeah right. 3.) The logical and scientifically minded agnostic atheists position- 'There cannot be a God/creator because the rules of elementary logic which I am applying finds a contradiction within the creationism argument which makes the creationism argument a negative argument, therefore I must concur that the universe can exist without cause.. even though I don't know why or how, even though the unknown phenomena that theists refer to as God isn't governed by the universal laws of physics and contemporary science, even though I have no way of knowing whether the rules of my logic apply to the unknown phenomena.. I still concur that God/s do not exist and that the universe can exist without cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.