|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
so an untested hypothesis has more validity than a common concept even though both can be wrong and both can be correct?
either you are consistent in application of skepticism, or you use a {world view} filter that is based on the sum of your beliefs to choose which you believe are valid and which are not. Because I acknowledge that belief is involved I can go down the list of {A} items and recognize that we can't really know which do and don't exist, but that I can also say which ones I believe to exist and which not, because I choose to so believe. acknowledging that belief is involved, and then {making\holding} distinctions between knowledge and belief, actually leaves me freer to pursue understanding. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
contracycle writes: RAZD quote:
LOL. Your challenge is accepted, becuase I already succesfully posted them once. But it will have to wait for another post.your penchant for blatantly misrepresenting the facts is, again, hereby noted. these are both falsehoods. I challenge you to show a post where I said either. this is just one more example of your complete inabilty to deal with the subject honestly. I want to see an exact quote of what you claimed, and not your usual misrepresentation.
contracycle, msg 82 writes: You claimed there was no evidential support for the running ape model, and that sexual selection was therefore chosen by default. No, you were hurling the insults, accusing me rather fatuously of not being an expert in the field. Your argument was destroyed. Deal with it. specifically (1) where I said sexual selection "was therefore chosen by default" -- this has been one of your bigger and most consistent misrepresentations of my position. you know, the position you could not define? and (2) that I accused you "fatuously of not being an expert in the field" -- these are your words, and not mine, and attributing them to me is misrepresentation. you were the one hurling insult after insult after insult, even after I made an attempt to reach a compromise position with you. Do you know why I like this quote of you:
contracycle, msg 70 writes: It is undoubtedly the case that fundamentalists consider their position as right and true and just, and that they are superior ro non-fundamentalists in their commitment and zeal. Because it describes you exactly.
I note you have failed to answer with any indication of where these tenets exist, or where your mythical organisation of dogmatic atheists is to ,located. again you misrepresent. as pointed out several times so far, your main tenant is the belief that there is no god. another tenant is that this belief is based on fact and is not a belief. I also note that you do not need to be a member of a "mystical" organisation to be a member of a group with tenets - this is another mistrepresentation of the argument, a strawman. and you do claim to be a member of a group (or is this off again now?) Did you not say:
contracycle, msg 82 writes: You have to deal with atheists as we are, not how we are in your imaginings or is there a word there that I am missing your definition of to make sense of this. That is your group and those are your tenents.
And in regards deism, they do have tenets - having been in Friends House, a deist facility, I have seen them on the walls. Duh. Of course deists have tenets, it is, after all, another belief, eh? but that was not my question, oh master of misrepresentation. my statement was: "of course, that the same questions can be posed for deism is probably beyond you. or do you contend that deism is not a belief" and it was in response to:
contracycle, msg 88 writes: of which movement, faction, fraction, sect or tradition? Please be specific. those questions you have not answered. Note too that it is easy to compile a list of organizations for any form of belief from the web - here is a sample of atheist organizations from google:
Positive Atheism Atheists United Atheist Alliance International American Atheists but also see Atheists United (links to other organizations) and Yahoo listing of Atheist Organisations (alphabetical) if that isn't enough of a list for you. Of course the existence of the organizations per se is not really the issue ... the issue is "the belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence" that characterizes the fundamental atheist as opposed to the atheist that just believes there is no god.
ahahaha... having appealed to dictionary authority, RAZD now appeals to the vulgar argot. Hypocritical much? No matter how much you dance and protest on this issue, the point still comes down to communication. Either the words mean the same to both parties or there is no communication.
If I bought a publishing company, and we printed a dictionary containing the definition "RAZD: noun, a fool" would that then become True? another strawman argument. of course you could publish any fool thing you want to foolishly part with money to publish. the difference is whether you want to be taken seriously or are doing it for foolish reasons. and whether you want to appear any more foolish on this issue. I have maintained all along that the reasons for common definitions are to promote communication of ideas. Your approach does not do that, you want to use a uncommon, unlisted, unsupported definition to justify your ideology. fundies do this.
Yes, that exactly what you have done - remember, you prposed that keys I saw 10 minutes ago are equivalent in their mystery to a god who has never been observed ever in human history. sigh ... don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting what people say? this is another example of gratuitous misrepresentation to make a strawman argument. my argument with the keys was to specifically show that the argument that {an absence of evidence} is {evidence of absence} is false, because it is a logical fallacy. or perhaps you could (seeing as you are so familiar with my posts) post that exact quote for me eh? that "keys I saw 10 minutes ago are equivalent in their mystery to a god who has never been observed" again, I want a post of mine cited with those exact words. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
if it's mystical it must be eastern eh? The west has a long mystical tradition. The Imitation of Christ comes to mind, I used to have a copy and i would read a verse every day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
I also note that you do not need to be a member of a "mystical" organisation to be a member of a group with tenets - this is another mistrepresentation of the argument, a strawman. If there's no organization how are the dogmas agreed on? The term "god" is a word without meaning because as you have pointed out so often we cannot determine {A}.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
in fact mysticism is common around the world and in every single culture
mysticism n. 1.a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. . b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics. 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. 3. Vague, groundless speculation. It is this common mystical experience regardless of culture and faith and knowledge, that leads me to believe. The fact that each such experience, to be communicated, is trapped by the {limited expression} of the person explaining it through his {world view} and by the {limited understanding} of the people trying to understand it with their {world view}s. It is no surprise to me that such communicated images are inadequate to the task, one need only look at the jumble of "eye witness" reports on crimes to know that {events} are generally not {experienced\communicated} the same way by different people with similar {situations}. I also choose to believe that {not quite nihilism\buddhism} is closer to {that general\my own} experience, because it fits better with my {world view}. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If there's no organization how are the dogmas agreed on? the way they are by any person. the dogmas and creeds of religions do not exist without the people that choose to agree to them. you read a book or an article and something {clicks} with your {world view} so you pursue the concept and develope it with further study. do you disagree that the belief {there is no god} is a common belief among atheists? would you not say that it is the defining tenent of being an atheist? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
I also choose to believe that {not quite nihilism\buddhism} is closer to {that general\my own} experience, because it fits better with my {world view} How do you choose to believe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the same way you choose ethics and moral values, the way you choose friends, the way you build your {world view} from your experiences and choose the way they are related.
some choose a {path\goal and then pick steps, others choose many steps to find that they have chosen a path. a bold path straight up the mountain may succeed or fail in reaching a {peak experience}, but it also does not guarantee understanding of the mountain. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
the same way you choose ethics and moral values, the way you choose friends, the way you build your {world view} from your experiences and choose the way they are related. some choose a {path\goal and then pick steps, others choose many steps to find that they have chosen a path. a bold path straight up the mountain may succeed or fail in reaching a {peak experience}, but it also does not guarantee understanding of the mountain. You lost me when you made friends and morals equal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
why? good friends respect your beliefs but also don't let you get away with mistakes. they will challenge you and comfort you and stretch you.
ethics and morals that are not challenged and stretched will not become more evolved and better understood. you friends are your testing grounds and proving grounds for your beliefs we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD, msg 81:
Seems you are stuck with absolutely believing in dark matter (so that you can believe that all known phenomenon are suitably accounted for), when there is as much evidence for dark matter as there is for a god making the universe spin. It seems your {world view} is forcing you to commit to this concept, regardless of how little evidence is there, just so all the universal ducks are in a row. Contracycle:
Nonsense. It is because all the ducks ARE in a row that I adopt the concept. Notice that this is asserting precisely what I said contracycle is forced to assert because of his position. And yet this is just after he says:
msg 71 writes: you are dishonestly failing to discuss the TENTATIVITY of these arguments. You can't have it both ways. Either we understand the system or we don't. If we do understand the system then we understand dark matter and energy, what it is, where it comes from, and how it affects things. If we do not understand dark matter and energy then we do not understand something that accounts for 96% of the {observable\inferable} universe according to the amounts required to make the observations match the theoretical behavior. Someone else said they needed a 95% level of confidence to believe something was true, and this is 96% dissonance, and yet contracycle asserts "all the ducks ARE in a row" ... The other option is that we don't (fully) understand how gravity works, but this means that we do not understand something that is fundamental to the way the {observable\inferable} universe works (a position that also includes the absent observations of "gravitons" and "gravity waves" that the standard theory predicts). But someone who firmly believes that "all the ducks ARE in a row" cannot accept this kind of concept, this is after all, someone who believes they have eliminated all possibilities of a god existing:
All existance evidence for god has been dealt with and suitably accounted for. There is no need to deal with the question of god any further - a model that explains all god-related phenomenon has been devoloped. but who also says:
Don't ask me, as a theoretical physicist. I am happy with best guesses based on the available evidence. and
msg 71 writes: Further, these conclusions are tentative, not claims to absolute fact. Sure, you may find people who are very confident of the existance of dark matter, but this only means that they are confident there is "something out there". And the very vagueness of the term also indicates how poor the relevant science is; how tentative the argument is, and how likely it is to be supplanted by further research, or at least clarified. he also writes that someone who says "I don't know" (agnostic) is
msg 10 writes: the least rational position of all and
msg 23 writes: The agnostic considers both the real and the unreal as of equal status; and this absurd starting position leads them necessarily to illogical positions, such as accepting some things not in evidence and rejecting others, despite acknoiwledging that there is no reason to do so. Regardless whether the universe was created to behave by {created 'natural' laws} or just came into being {by unverifyable in other universes natural laws}, gravity is what holds the universe together. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Regardless whether the universe was created to behave by {created 'natural' laws} or just came into being {by unverifyable in other universes natural laws}, gravity is what holds the universe together. Gravity will get us all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
um, the amount of evidence that shows that the dark stuff really exists rather than it being just one hypothesis of how to make observation match theory. the hypothesis that god makes the galaxies spin just so is as valid as the dark stuffs hypothesis due to the total lack of evidence one way or the other. another hypothesis is that the theory is wrong. this is what I happen to believe: that there will be physical evidence that validates some other theory of gravity ability to predict the observed behavior without needing dark stuffs. You didn't answer my question. What does dark matter or whatever have to do with what I wrote? Are you posting to me but actually responding to someone else? Very confusing. Ya know RAZD, much as I enjoy reading your posts in most cases, you occasionally seem to develop a selective "blind spot" to what people are actually saying to you if it conflicts with what you're saying. The key element in the post to which you responded, and which you completely skipped over to reiterate your confusing - and as far as I can see irrelevent - "dark matter" thingy, was the following:
Quetzal in post 80 writes: Sure. "I don't know" is a reasonable answer when there is doubt. My discussion with Oook appears to be based on at what level "doubt" becomes meaningless mental masturbation. IOW, at what point it becomes reasonable to state, "it ain't so". For me, the last 40,000 years or so provide a pretty fair baseline - to the point that continuing to admit "doubt" becomes futile exercise equivalent to a metaphysical argument over "the square root of a duck", as a friend once put it. Do you continue to espouse "doubt" for every single theory or idea ever produced by man on this planet, simply because it can't be 100% disproved? If no one has produced evidence for a theory for over three times the written history of humankind, it seems strange to me to continue to inisist on the potential. You, obviously, see things differently. Your opinion, however, doesn't necessarily make my position illogical or untenable. In fact, if anything, I would say it was incumbent upon YOU to make the case that a) there is some reason for doubt, and b) the level of said doubt is sufficient to leave the question open.
LOL. Not metaphysics so much as arguing for the same approach to be used for things with similar levels of evidence. You have not established that I DON'T use exactly the same methodology - and level of skepticism - for all claims, regardless of nature. What gives you the impression that I don't? Because I disagree with your pet hypothesis (that all atheists are blind believers who adhere to some "atheist tenet" equivalent to the worst creationist)? Sorry to burst your bubble here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: you are clearly no longer conversing rationally. Yes, the ducks are in a row, BECAUSE the tentativity with which we hold Dark Matter does not invalidate the theory as the best we have. Thus, my stated principle of going with the best available theory is in good order. And similarly, in the case of god, all alleged encounters with god can be satisfactorily explained with non-theological explanations; thus it remains the case that I have no unexplained experimental data that requires explanation, and I can go with the best prevailing theory. Your position remains wholly irrational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
A prayer for the unflinching agnostic:
Dear unknown universal force who may or may not exist, We hope that in your potentially existent total/partial wisdom you will hear our prayers on this Thursday afternoon. We picked a Thursday afternoon, because we figured that if there is a God of some sort, his/her weekends are already pretty full and Thursday afternoons are probably kind of dead. First, we ask that, if in fact there is a God (and there could be, although the jury is still out as far as we're concerned), that you hear our prayers through the hearing mechanism of your choice. We will be brief, as, if you exist, you must be pretty busy, and if you don't, we will look funny if we talk to ourselves for too long. Thus, we will skip the bullshit. (Congregation turns to very end of prayer book) 1. Dear powerful force (Buddha, aliens, whatever) please give us some nice stuff. Maybe a sports car, or, if you have the power, a really good condo near a lake or ski resort or something. 2. If indeed there is a complicated theological structure to the universe, and if that structure contains some kind of hell/fire-area/penalty box, please make sure that we don't go there. Since we admit that there is a probability that demons exist, we really would like to avoid being put in a position where they get to eat our lungs. So, please give us a hand in that department, if in fact you can. 3. Please heal our sick friend (insert name of sick friend, i.e. 'Jim') Jim. If you exist and have some kind of divine plan that calls for Jim's death, well that's kind of a bummer but we'll understand. However, if Jim is going to die and make this congregation take care of his illegitimate children as a result of some random molecular interaction, it would be nice if you could use any divine power which you might well possess to intervene. Thank you for potentially directing some divine interest in our direction. (optional "Amen" or "God is Grrrrrreat!", if you feel like it) http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/agnostic_prayer.html
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024