Atheism's Offer

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have covered this ground before, do you really want to do it again?
Yes. Why not? You are still quite mistaken about some of my beliefs, so I wouldn't mind clarifying them.

You assume a lot, you assume because you see some process going on now, that
automatically means it has always behaved that way,
I don't assume, I presume. I merely say that that is most likely to be the case based on the evidence. We all do that. That is the basis of science, and whether you realize it or not, you accept the basic principle yourself when it comes to anything other than religion.

you assume time, you assume the odds of something occuring without a plan and purpose just happened,
I do not assume odds, I calculate them.

All of those are reasons for your beliefs, and reasons I believe you are not standing on very solid ground with your beliefs.
I would be interested to know if you have a more solid method for grounding beliefs.

You also insult me by saying if I understood your claims I'd accept them, while I maintain understanding your claims does not automatically mean anyone has to accept them, that is also a tad bit arrogant as well if you think about it.
I don't think I have said that you will automatically agree with me if you understood me. I admit that I could be wrong. But it is not an insult to you for me to believe I am right and you are wrong, after all you believe the same about me surely?
Surely if I knew what you did and fully understood the reasons for your beliefs, I too would believe as you do? Or is there an element of chance or choice in your beliefs?

Truth does not rely on opinion, it does not rely on assumptions, it doesn't rely
on beliefs, it is what it is. Our understanding, our beliefs, our acceptance or
our rejections does not change what is true. If there a judgment coming your
rejection of it will not change it is coming, and if there isn't one, my believing in
it will not make one occur. Truth is reality, our opinion of it can be spot on or not.
I am in agreement on that.

My point in this debate is that Atheism has nothing to offer, it defines itself as
a rejection of something.
Again, I am in agreement. I think the error of the thread is to think that atheism is a religion and therefore should have something to offer. Does your lack of belief in the spaghetti monster have something to offer? Does your belief that aliens on the moon do not exist have something to offer?

Common sense points to nothing as a cause and end? Really, in this life can you
point to anything you know for a fact had nothing as a cause or an end for that
matter?
I cannot claim to know for a fact that anything has no cause. But I do know for a fact that there is no cause currently known to science for the vast majority of events in the universe. More importantly, if there is a cause, it is indistinguishable statistically from having no cause. We do not live in a perfectly deterministic universe. It is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]You assume a lot, you assume because you see some process going on now, that
automatically means it has always behaved that way,
I don't assume, I presume. I merely say that that is most likely to be the case based on the evidence. We all do that. That is the basis of science, and whether you realize it or not, you accept the basic principle your ...[text shortened]... is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one.[/b]

You assume odds! It is no different than the example about DNA in I believe it was
one of Dawkin's books, he was saying that getting the combination for life from
non-life was like turning a combination lock given enough time the lock would
open. That assumes that there is a key combo for how he was attempting to open
the lock, which is one of my issues with people claiming given enough time
evolution could produce the life we see now from non-living material. Suggesting it
must be true because we see life now is "assuming" odds that it could have
happen they are suggesting, they don't know, they assume.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]You assume a lot, you assume because you see some process going on now, that
automatically means it has always behaved that way,
I don't assume, I presume. I merely say that that is most likely to be the case based on the evidence. We all do that. That is the basis of science, and whether you realize it or not, you accept the basic principle your ...[text shortened]... is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one.[/b]

You want to bicker over the words "presume" and "assume"?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]You assume a lot, you assume because you see some process going on now, that
automatically means it has always behaved that way,
I don't assume, I presume. I merely say that that is most likely to be the case based on the evidence. We all do that. That is the basis of science, and whether you realize it or not, you accept the basic principle your ...[text shortened]... is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one.[/b]

"It is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one."

Why, because it fits your belief structure?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]You assume a lot, you assume because you see some process going on now, that
automatically means it has always behaved that way,
I don't assume, I presume. I merely say that that is most likely to be the case based on the evidence. We all do that. That is the basis of science, and whether you realize it or not, you accept the basic principle your ...[text shortened]... is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one.[/b]

"I do not assume odds, I calculate them."

Really, you know all the variables that you need to take into account? I imagine
you may "BELIEVE" you do, but if you over look something no matter how good
your math is, reality and your assumptions you used to calculate will not line up.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume odds! I

I don't fully follow your post, but no, I do not assume odds.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want to bicker over the words "presume" and "assume"?
Kelly

Yes.
I was going for this one:
Presume:
1. Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.

If probability says it is the most likely then I presume it to be the case. I do not:
Assume:
1. Suppose to be the case, without proof.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"It is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one."

Why, because it fits your belief structure?
Kelly

No, because its common sense.

You do exactly the same - except where it conflicts with your beliefs. You so not assume there are aliens hiding behind the moon, you do not assume the spaghetti monster lives in the sun, you do not assume there are flying toasters around Jupiter: in each and every case you assume that something is not the case until there is reason to believe that it is the case. It is common sense.

The reason you do not see it in this particular case is that you think there is reason to believe everything has a cause. Maybe you would care to explain what your reasons are.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you know all the variables that you need to take into account?

No, I do not, and have never claimed to have done so.

.... but if you over look something no matter how good your math is, reality and your assumptions you used to calculate will not line up.
Quite true. And yet one of the key issues you are disputing is a case of us using reality to suggest that the resulting odds must be correct. ie if the answer and reality line up then the answer is correct regardless of what math was used to arrive there.

If something occurs regularly (such as many of the classes of events in evolution) then the odds of it happening is quite high. For example we once discussed the odds of the malaria parasite gaining resistance to a drug. You claimed that the odds were against it - despite having no knowledge of the variables - whereas I claimed know knowledge of the variables but claimed that the fact that it has happened multiple times proves the odds are high.
So it seems you are arguing against yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't fully follow your post, but no, I do not assume odds.

I beg to differ, since you told me you calculate them! The only way you will ever
do any calculation is if you have all the variables and unless you are taking into
account all of them properly you are assuming quite a bit. I am quite sure that
you are correct in your calculations; however, what good is getting the math right
if you are not taking into account all the variables?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes.
I was going for this one:
Presume:
1. Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.

If probability says it is the most likely then I presume it to be the case. I do not:
Assume:
1. Suppose to be the case, without proof.

I again tell you that this is no different than the last post, YOU ASSUME that you
have all the data points required and they are what you think they are, nothing
that could alter you views was left out, nothing that could alter your veiws is being
looked at the wrong way, you assume.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, because its common sense.

You do exactly the same - except where it conflicts with your beliefs. You so not assume there are aliens hiding behind the moon, you do not assume the spaghetti monster lives in the sun, you do not assume there are flying toasters around Jupiter: in each and every case you assume that something is not the case until there ...[text shortened]... reason to believe everything has a cause. Maybe you would care to explain what your reasons are.

I'm prefectly content saying that I do not believe in the sqaphetti monster, I do not
even bring it up in any conversation due to that lack of belief, I don't feel the need
to talk about its followers belief system or worry about it in any way shape or form.

None of that has anything to do with saying everything has a cause, you don't have
to bring God into it this universe and see that everything has a cause here, nothing
is as it is without a reason! Now simply because you don't want to go down the
path of acknowledging that and where it could lead is still not a reason to reject
the notion that is the case. From there you have give me a reason for why you
don't think the universe had a cause or reason to be, not just tell me you want to
avoid the topic because it is common sense to you!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I beg to differ, since you told me you calculate them!

Correct, and calculated odd cannot be assumed odds by definition.

The only way you will ever do any calculation is if you have all the variables and unless you are taking into account all of them properly you are assuming quite a bit.
But the 'odds' are not being assumed. Some things may be assumed as part of the calculation of the odds, and the odds may therefore rely on certain assumptions - but the odds are not assumed.

For example: the odds of throwing a die and it landing with a 'six' uppermost are 1/6. For this calculation I must assume that the die throw results in a random number. But my odds are not assumed, they are calculated. And the assumption is reasonable!

I am quite sure that you are correct in your calculations; however, what good is getting the math right
if you are not taking into account all the variables?
Very few of my beliefs depends on odds. I have very rarely talked about odds to support my beliefs. More often than not it is you claiming to know the odds and claiming that they somehow disprove my beliefs. It seems once again you are arguing against your own position.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm prefectly content saying that I do not believe in the sqaphetti monster, I do not
even bring it up in any conversation due to that lack of belief, I don't feel the need
to talk about its followers belief system or worry about it in any way shape or form.

None of that has anything to do with saying everything has a cause, you don't have
to bring Go ...[text shortened]... be, not just tell me you want to
avoid the topic because it is common sense to you!
Kelly

Spaghetti monster advocates aren't influencing our politics to such a tremendous extent, not like in Somalia with all the pirates over there.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Spaghetti monster advocates aren't influencing our politics to such a tremendous extent, not like in Somalia with all the pirates over there.

I'm supposed to care about that why? No matter what my beliefs about God are
as soon as I propose anything with respect to laws are concern, the merits of
whatever it is I propose has to be agreed to on its merits alone.
Kelly