South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 13, 2019, 01:49:18 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Atheist Kids (split)

 (Read 8151 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« on: March 11, 2010, 09:13:01 AM »

Why let him grow up in such ignorance? Why don't you teach him the concept of God (classical theism) without referring to religion. I am sure he will still be an evolutionist, just a little more enlightened. Is that perhaps you don't know enough about the concept of God to teach or inform him about it?

Don't you think kids in our schools get bombarded with enough of that god-mumbo-jumbo? Clearly the kid has made up his own mind as to what he considers the truth. And frankly, the concept you suggest of an 'enlightened evolutionist' being somehow superior to someone with purely evolutionist views (without the god-reference) is rather offensive and in my opinion bs.

^^^Exactly. Ignorance in this context mean that he doesnt know the bible back to front as I do, he has never been forced to attend sunday school (although he did go when he was little - because he asked to go - he stopped going when he lost interest) or to listen to a preacher going on about the god perception for hours and hours. He has attended Mass with his (now ex) buddy earlier this year, so I would certainly not label him as "unenlightened". The concept of BELIEF in a deity is foreign to him though, he's not been bought up to believe in anything except himself and his abilities to see him through the hard patches.
Actually no, all you need to teach him is what classical theism is without any reference to any relgion... (weird, I did say that then you bring in the Bible, do you teach your kid to read with comprehension?). Do you know what classical theism is and how to get to it via logic and reason? Or are you fundamentally opposed to enlightening your kid about any philosophical and metaphysical enquiries about reality?
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2010, 09:44:32 AM »

Actually no, all you need to teach him is what classical theism is without any reference to any relgion... (weird, I did say that then you bring in the Bible, do you teach your kid to read with comprehension?). Do you know what classical theism is and how to get to it via logic and reason? Or are you fundamentally opposed to enlightening your kid about any philosophical and metaphysical enquiries about reality?

Why? To what purpose? It sounds to me like the kid has a solid grasp on the concept of "God" and why people believe in these fairy tales. It also sounds to me like Faerie has done a good job in teaching him about fundamental truths and how to arrive at solid conclusions, while sticking to them even in the face of rejection by his friends.

How in Cthulhu's name do you arrive at any sort of episteme about "God" via "metaphysical enquiries" using "logic and reason"? You are spouting contradictory nonsense.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2010, 12:36:25 PM »

Errr, I don't think the kid even knows what atheism is, nevermind classical theism.

And you autodidacted this? Here, have a cookie.
Thanks, here is one for you too:

I doubt he knows the word atheist, but thats what he's been bought up as. He has no god to refer to, but he knows and understands the concept of evolution, so in that context he labeled himself as such.

Fundamental truths? Interesting, care to elaborate what they are?

Evolution being a demonstrable fact, for one (seeing as this is core to the discussion). Is answering questions with questions indicative of your style? If so, we're going to have a whale of time, bud.
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism? More importantly, what does truth have to do with atheism?

So... because of your ignorance I am spouting nonsense? Arguments from ignorance do not impress a lot of people, me included.

Ignorance? Bwhehehe. Dude, I know exactly what you're on about and why it's a pile of shit. We can take it to a different thread, if you like. Shall I point out to you that you sidestepped the point with an ad hominem, or is that too uncomfortable to you?
I don't think you should worry too much about ad hominems, sidestepping questions etc. You will learn that it is a trait of posters here on skeptic.za.org. Don't worry, you will do the same so no need to act all high and mighty and be judgemental.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2010, 12:40:40 PM »

Do you guys think this is an informed opinion lol?
Obviously considerably better-informed than yours.  You haven’t, as is your almost invariable habit, addressed the central question Dawkins has raised about theology.



I mean, you would not listen to a mechanic if there was something wrong with your geyser would you?
Some mechanics are also plumbers and vice versa.



How did you come to this conclusion?
Your posting history here and elsewhere.  Objective self-assessment isn’t your forte either, itself a product of mistaking idle armchair musings for Truth™ about the world.



Mmmm, advances in epistemology seem to point to the direction that philosophical naturalism and materialism are epistemically sterile and a bit useless, incoherent and by gosh self-refuting (not that the self-refuting nature of a proposition is going to stop any of you guys).
That would explain their persistence and prevalence. Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2010, 12:45:16 PM »

Quote mining for the win!  Roll Eyes

Quote
Ignorance in this context mean that he doesnt know the bible back to front as I do, he has never been forced to attend sunday school (although he did go when he was little - because he asked to go - he stopped going when he lost interest) or to listen to a preacher going on about the god perception for hours and hours. He has attended Mass with his (now ex) buddy earlier this year, so I would certainly not label him as "unenlightened". The concept of BELIEF in a deity is foreign to him though, he's not been bought up to believe in anything except himself and his abilities to see him through the hard patches.

You're assuming stuff about what the kid knows and doesn't know.

Quote
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism?

Plenty, unless you're hell-bent on being an accomodationist. Topic for another thread, once again. Care to play?

Quote
don't think you should worry too much about ad hominems, sidestepping questions etc. You will learn that it is a trait of posters here on skeptic.za.org. Don't worry, you will do the same so no need to act all high and mighty and be judgemental.

Lulz, I point out your hypocrisy and you respond with some more hypocrisy. From what I see, self-analysis doesn't seem to be your strong point. Oh, but that would mean pandering to a subjective framework of truth, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:



Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2010, 12:48:52 PM »

Do you guys think this is an informed opinion lol?
Obviously considerably better-informed than yours.  You haven’t, as is your almost invariable habit, addressed the central question Dawkins has raised about theology.
Forgive me for not answering a question from a philosophically and theologicaly ignorant person.

I mean, you would not listen to a mechanic if there was something wrong with your geyser would you?
Some mechanics are also plumbers and vice versa.
No evidence that Dawkins is a philosopher and a scientist. Gosh, all evidence indicates the man has a PhD in zoology IIRC.

How did you come to this conclusion?
Your posting history here and elsewhere.  Objective self-assessment isn’t your forte either, itself a product of mistaking idle armchair musings for Truth™ about the world.
Yeah well, the same can be said of you.


Mmmm, advances in epistemology seem to point to the direction that philosophical naturalism and materialism are epistemically sterile and a bit useless, incoherent and by gosh self-refuting (not that the self-refuting nature of a proposition is going to stop any of you guys).
That would explain their persistence and prevalence. Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
I guess you need a lot of heads to make nonsense sound sensical even though it is epistemically sterile and worthless.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2010, 12:52:18 PM »

Quote
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism?

Plenty, unless you're hell-bent on being an accomodationist. Topic for another thread, once again. Care to play?

If evolution had anything to do with atheism or theism it will be taught in religious and philosophy classes. Fortunately here we are in the 21st century and it is taught in science classes.

But yeah play all you want.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2010, 13:10:37 PM »

Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in <insert the other> classes, wouldn't it?

Didn't think so.

You see, you can't so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can't pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.

Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he's "qualified" to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.

Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you're talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?

Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn't have "formal" education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can't deal with Dawkins' reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man "ain't trained".

Nice try, but nobody's fooled.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2010, 13:12:20 PM »

Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in <insert the other> classes, wouldn't it?
Theism actually has a lot to do with philosophy. Read up. So does materialism, naturalism, realism, nominalism, rationalism, empiricism, dualism etc.

You see, you can't so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can't pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.
Evolutionism and its philosophical implications? Surprise, what do you believe those are?

Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he's "qualified" to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.

Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you're talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?

Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn't have "formal" education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can't deal with Dawkins' reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man "ain't trained".

Nice try, but nobody's fooled.
Oh well, Dawkins is not fooling anybody with his philosophical ignorance either. A waste of time imo. His knowledge about evolution is good though, although I have seen better. He does not like to go much into molecular detail, which is a great shame. His next book should focus more on those aspects in a little more detail.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2010, 13:19:53 PM »

Heh, *sproing* goes the trap. Evolutionary biology (and the deterministic chemistry that drives its current research effort) has major implications for notions of dualism, for one. Can you see or can't you? Must I explain further? Oh, but wait, you don't have a biology degree, do you?

Oh well, I guess it's pointless then, seeing as none of it would be of any use to you, amirite?  Cheesy

And I agree, Dawkins isn't fooling anybody!
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2010, 13:26:29 PM »

Heh, *sproing* goes the trap. Evolutionary biology (and the deterministic chemistry that drives its current research effort) has major implications for notions of dualism, for one.
1) What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry? Do you know what supervenience means?
2) What does evolutionary biology have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?
3) Let's talk evolution, molecular and cellular biology, preadaptations, convergence, molecular machines, abiogenesis, bioinformatics etc. all day long. I don't mind, do you?
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2010, 13:36:05 PM »

1) Quantum indeterminism isn't a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
2) Dude, it doesn't take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
3) Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?

Let's get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you're going to try and take the I'm-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you're going to see your arse.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2010, 13:39:47 PM »

4) I felt this list needed my own useless adendum.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2010, 13:53:17 PM »

1) Quantum indeterminism isn't a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
Really? Where is Mefi and "sh|t happens" rwenzori? Care to support Gog's tjops? BTW, what does determinism and indeterminism have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?

2) Dude, it doesn't take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

3) Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?
Oh, I just thought you might like to.

Let's get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you're going to try and take the I'm-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you're going to see your arse.
Oh ok smarty pants.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2010, 13:54:44 PM »

1) Quantum indeterminism isn't a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
Really? Where is Mefi and "sh|t happens" rwenzori? Care to support Gog's tjops? BTW, what does determinism and indeterminism have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?

2) Dude, it doesn't take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

3) Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?
Oh, I just thought you might like to.

Let's get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you're going to try and take the I'm-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you're going to see your arse.
Oh ok smarty pants.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.11 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:44:41 AM
Privacy Policy