rules of atheism forum
-
the aim of the forum is to spread atheism and educate people and convince them through reasoning that there is no god, so that they will spend more time doing meaningful things.
Vulgarities, harsh criticism, sacrasm, inflamatory remarks are not allowed. People are allowed to express their believe and point out why the other side is wrong but the argument must be done in a civilised way.
it may be debatable sometimes whether where is the line that we cannot cross but we see about it. i will close threads if they are lost in sea of senseless scoldings.
-
Just remember to quote and present evidence as per court of law as ISD may be persent.
-
The objective should be to spread reason and critical thinking. Atheism will follow.
In any case, I think we all agree that should there one day be evidence for the supernatural/god/whatever, we will believe it.
Personally, I would be very excited if there were the case. Think of all the areas of study that would open up. Our understanding of the universe would be radically different. A new world would be revealed to us. -
January, you don't have the right to tell people what to do. What you can do is to show them your side of the argument on this whole sticky "religion" affair. I am of the opinion that religious extremists who want to convert everyone to their "superior" religion are complete, utter fools who have not an ounce of sense in their tiny, bigoted minds. I also hold the same opinion of atheists who believe themselves superior to religious people.
Oh, and please improve your [bleep]ing English, will you? No one is going to take you seriously if you speak like that. The only thing worse than a religious fanatic or a conceited atheist in my book is a moderator on an English forum who can't type proper English. -
We should judge arguments based on their merits.
Just because someone may not be able to express their ideas well in english does not mean that their arguments are without merit.
It's obvious that for many people here, english is not their first language. However, this is not a language forum.
I would not be able to conduct any kind of discussion at all in chinese and I thank those who attempt to share their views despite the language barrier. -
Dont know about atheism, but my personal view is its hard to see the merits if they cannot express themselves wellOriginally posted by Phaze:We should judge arguments based on their merits.
Just because someone may not be able to express their ideas well in english does not mean that their arguments are without merit.
It's obvious that for many people here, english is not their first language. However, this is not a language forum.
I would not be able to conduct any kind of discussion at all in chinese and I thank those who attempt to share their views despite the language barrier.
From experience, it leads to a lot of unneccessary guesswork and possibly flaming -
Good lord! You have close to 68,000 posts! I realise that it's over 4 years but still...Originally posted by laurence82:Dont know about atheism, but my personal view is its hard to see the merits if they cannot express themselves well
From experience, it leads to a lot of unneccessary guesswork and possibly flaming
Scary...
I do agree with you that there may be misunderstandings if someone is not able to express himself well. That is why each party should give the other the benefit of the doubt.
Obviously, you don't want to win an argument because the person was not able to express himself well. You want to win an argument on it's merits. Also, if you critically examine the strongest arguments a person has, it helps you refine your own arguments and make them better.
And of course, if the person's arguments and evidence are overwhelming, you should have an open mind and at least accept it is a good argument, even if you are not convinced right away.
The only caveat I would say is that one should have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. You should still examine every argument critically.
If an argument is unclear to you, you should put yourself in your opponents shoes and think of how you would argue his or her point. You should then seek clarification if that is what the person meant.
All this should be done with respect. Everyone has a reason for their beliefs. Where we differ is usually in our basic assumptions.
My basic assumption is that scientific method is the only way where we can gain knowledge. Other people believe there are supernatural paths to knowledge. I disagree with that view. I feel it's a slippery slope. If you believe one thing without evidence, you can believe anything without evidence.
The other fundamental difference is the standard of evidence. Some may argue that my worldview precludes any knowledge. They argue that if one is skeptical about everything, it leads to analysis paralysis where it's not possible to know anything at all.
My view is basically a pragmatic one. I don't care about any theory if it cannot make predictions and it's not testable. I don't care if the universe was created in a spontaneous big bang, or if the universe is eternal. I don't care if a deistic god created it if it tells us nothing. So even if someone comes up to me and says "there's a supernatural world that is beyond our understanding and evidence", it's largely irrelevant to me if there is no effect on the natural world. -
spread atheism ....like a religion?Originally posted by january:the aim of the forum is to spread atheism and educate people and convince them through reasoning that there is no god, so that they will spend more time doing meaningful things.
Vulgarities, harsh criticism, sacrasm, inflamatory remarks are not allowed. People are allowed to express their believe and point out why the other side is wrong but the argument must be done in a civilised way.
it may be debatable sometimes whether where is the line that we cannot cross but we see about it. i will close threads if they are lost in sea of senseless scoldings. 
-
we must have FAITH in atheismOriginally posted by LinYu:spread atheism ....like a religion? -
Atheism doesn't involve faith. (Unless you argue that all knowledge depends on faith which is a different argument and not very useful for the purpose of this discussion.)
This view was popularized in the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It's a Christian book that argues that the existence of God is the most obvious conclusion.
The following is a blurb from the product description:
All worldviews---including atheism---require faith. But some belief systems are more reasonable than others! Geisler and Turek make the case that Christianity requires the least faith of all because so much evidence points toward the existence of God and the reliability of Scripture. An engaging, easy-to-follow defense for Christians and skeptics.
It's another kindergarten defense that goes "you say my belief is based on faith. Yours is too. Nyah nyah!"
I really dislike arguments that break down to definitions but this really boils down to standards of evidence.
Atheism is not the lack of belief without evidence, but is the natural result. I've covered what the standard of evidence is in other posts and I won't repeat it here. I accept that other people may not have the same standards of evidence. I believe that my personal standard of evidence is the best method for me to understand the world around me.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or the supernatural. Saying atheism requires faith is like saying 'not posting on forums' is a hobby.
If your standard of evidence is too low, you fall prey to pseudo-religions like Scientology that teaches about 'thetans' and the 'reactive mind'. They have all kinds of 'evidence' that 'proves' their so-called religion is real.
Every religion, every pseudoscience, every faith healer has their own 'evidence' of why their belief is true and why it works. The scientific method is how you address those claims critically.
A further exposition on atheism can be found at http://www.thenewhumanist.com/George%20Felis2.htm -
That's what you get for having bananas who can post in sgforums.Originally posted by Phaze:Good lord! You have close to 68,000 posts! I realise that it's over 4 years but still...
Scary...
I do agree with you that there may be misunderstandings if someone is not able to express himself well. That is why each party should give the other the benefit of the doubt.
Obviously, you don't want to win an argument because the person was not able to express himself well. You want to win an argument on it's merits. Also, if you critically examine the strongest arguments a person has, it helps you refine your own arguments and make them better.
And of course, if the person's arguments and evidence are overwhelming, you should have an open mind and at least accept it is a good argument, even if you are not convinced right away.
The only caveat I would say is that one should have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. You should still examine every argument critically.
If an argument is unclear to you, you should put yourself in your opponents shoes and think of how you would argue his or her point. You should then seek clarification if that is what the person meant.
All this should be done with respect. Everyone has a reason for their beliefs. Where we differ is usually in our basic assumptions.
My basic assumption is that scientific method is the only way where we can gain knowledge. Other people believe there are supernatural paths to knowledge. I disagree with that view. I feel it's a slippery slope. If you believe one thing without evidence, you can believe anything without evidence.
The other fundamental difference is the standard of evidence. Some may argue that my worldview precludes any knowledge. They argue that if one is skeptical about everything, it leads to analysis paralysis where it's not possible to know anything at all.
My view is basically a pragmatic one. I don't care about any theory if it cannot make predictions and it's not testable. I don't care if the universe was created in a spontaneous big bang, or if the universe is eternal. I don't care if a deistic god created it if it tells us nothing. So even if someone comes up to me and says "there's a supernatural world that is beyond our understanding and evidence", it's largely irrelevant to me if there is no effect on the natural world. -
Irrelevant statement.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:That's what you get for having bananas who can post in sgforums. 
-
Finally! Some intelligent discussion!
It's good to see that S'poreans aren't all retards...
-
So you took the pragmatic view of things.Originally posted by Phaze:Irrelevant statement.