Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 375 (499436)
02-18-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by RDK
02-18-2009 3:02 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Silly or not, my jellyfish example still applies. Do I or do I not have just as much sufficient reasoning to believe in such a deity as I do to believe in any other given deity?
You do not. A random made-up entity doesn't have the same weight behind it as the idea of a god put forth by deists.
That so many people have similiar experiences in regards to some kind of god is more reason to believe in a god than the complete lack of reason to believe in your silly jellyfish. For individuals, their own subjective experiences can be reasons to believe in god that they don't have for your jellyfish.
If you employ the logic used in your reasoning for believing in a deity that one has no reason to believe in, then said reasoning can readily stretch to any other deity imaginable.
But its not true that there are no reasons to believe in god.
I can't speak for everyone here, but the correct assumption would be that since my world view rests on logic, it would be safe to assume that everything else that follows is indeed logical.
Don't you know that logic cannot determine veracity? If the premises of your worldview are false, then your worldview, itself, would be false all the while being very logical.
I have no reason to believe in such a deity. Do you?
Of course. I don't think anyone believes in god with no reason to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RDK, posted 02-18-2009 3:02 PM RDK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2009 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 138 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 02-18-2009 6:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 375 (499617)
02-19-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
02-18-2009 5:09 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
What god specifically is being put forward by deists such that we can determine whether this is indeed true?
I thought the Deists' god was fairly unspecific.....
Its not that they are putting forth some specific god, its that so many different peoples have similiar spiritual experiences that adds weight to the idea of some kind of spiritual realm or source to the point that we can reasonbly say that the idea of some generic unspecific god-like thingy is more rational than some specific random obviously made-up god-like thingy.
Also, other than popular belief which is more about marketing than truth, how can we possibly know which gods are "random" and "made-up" and which are not?
Well, an idea of god that has evolved through various stages of development wouldn't be random or made-up. Although 'made-up' was bad word choice because every idea has to be made-up at some point, its just that if you hear about someone else's idea of god, then you didn't make it up, whereas if someone brings forth an idea of god that has never been seen before, then they obviously just made that one up recently.
If enough people claim subjective experience of the face sucking jellyfish will you change youir stance and consider this to be a viable entity?
Yes.
Are there any objective reasons to believe in God?
No.
If the only reasons to believe in God are subjective then all other subjectively derived claims are worthy of equal "airtime".
That's what I'm disagreeing with.
That so many different peope have had similiar spiritual experience thoughout history makes the claim of some type of spiritual realm or source worthy of more "airtime" than if someone introduces a whole new subjective concept that nobody else has any experience with.
But are they reliable or objective reasons?
If not then in what way are the reasons you claim worthy of any consideration?
Is reliable and objective really a pass/fail test or can there be some gradient of reliability and objectivity?
I would say that they are not reliable and objective in the sense that I suppose you mean by those words (in the sense that the reasons have been empirically verified), but I think there is some reliability and some objectivity to the reasons, just that they fail to be empirifcally verifiable. I don't think that makes them unworthy of consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2009 5:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 375 (499618)
02-19-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by bluegenes
02-18-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
The deists' god is not the same as the Christian god, so either one of them or both must be "random made up entities".
Nope. They're only mutally exclusive in their enitrety. Both positions could be partially correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 5:42 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by bluegenes, posted 02-20-2009 7:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 375 (499620)
02-19-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by onifre
02-18-2009 6:32 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
"random made-up entity" = idea put forth by a diest.
"idea put forth by a diest" = random made-up entity.
That's not true. From wiki on Deism:
quote:
Deism is a theological position (though encompassing a wide variety of view-points) concerning God's relationship with the natural world which emerged during the scientific revolution of seventeenth century Europe and came to exert a powerful influence during the eighteenth century enlightenment.
An idea that evolves over centuries is neither random, nor made-up. "Made-up" is not in the sense that every idea has to be made at some point, but that the idea was recently created by one person.
Sanity in masses? Not fair, human history has proven this to be a logical fallacy.
Its not that the popularity proves the position, its that the popularity adds weight to the position and makes it worthy of consideration and more rational than some random made-up idea.
You say "silly jellyfish", I say "silly guy who was born of a virgin", both equally silly, si?
Not in my opinion, but I don't really know how to measure sillyness.
When two different primitive cultures over many generations came up with similiar independent ideas on the existence of some kind of spiritual realm or source (something like animism), I say that those ideas are less silly than one man pulling some random idea out of a hat.
You in fact say "some kind of god", so, unless you can produce an image of said god, the jellyfish is no more silly than the guy who was born of a virgin, the one who rode on a flying horse, or the one who has eight arms. If we denounce the idea of the god called a jellyfish as a "random made-up entity" then they are all to be considered "randomly made-up".
That there is a god, in my opinion, is not randomly made-up. That there is a known image of this god IS made-up, no matter what the desciption.
But were talking about the idea of god as put forth by deists so there is no known image of this god. "That there is a god", which you agree is not randomly made-up, is what we are talking about and what I am contrasting against the randomly made-up jellyfish god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 02-18-2009 6:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 375 (499643)
02-19-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by onifre
02-19-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
The origin of any concept in which there is no objective evidence is a "made-up" concept.
On the face of it, that statement seems accurate by definition. But I'm not so sure that it is founded as it pertains to this discussion. I don't think we can say that there really is absolutely no objective evidence (which depends on how you define "objective"). Also, its possible that the subjective evidence has an outside source.
All ideas to which no objective evidence exists, at some point in it's history, was created by one person.
I definatlely don't agree with this one. Groups can come up with ideas as a whole as the individuals work together to come up with the idea.
Not in my opinion, but I don't really know how to measure sillyness.
Neither do I so I would either hold to the position that both are silly concepts, or that both are equally valid concepts.
I wouldn't push it into all or none categories. Although, I would be comfortable just judging it with my gut
Yes but primitive cultures did have a point of origin for their ideas, be it independent or not. So it could have been claimed then that those ideas were the result of someone pulling it out of a hat. One day there was no idea of god, then the next day there was,
I don't agree with this one either. A group's ideas could gradually emerge.
I understand what you're getting at, I just don't agree with it because I think your premises are false.
My only point is that if deists claim no known knowledge of the image of god due to their own personal subjective experiences, they do not have the authority to reject any concept of god that is claimed to be known by people who claim they have had a subjective experience in which the image of god was revealed.
I agree to an extent, which is that the concept of the jellyfish god is not something that people have had a subjective experience of.
Also, one man's subjective experience can be more easily rejected than a million's.
And, What if they thought the person was lying? Couldn't they use that as a basis for their "authority"?
And just because the cultures are geographically independent of each other does not mean that we know for sure that no outside influences were introduced to expound on their claimed subjective experiences.
By outside influence, you meant a god, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by onifre, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 375 (499652)
02-19-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
02-19-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Well if the Deists God is so non-specific as to be essentially undefined how can we determine how much weight there is behind it?
It, specifically, we cannot. But the idea of god/s existing, in general, we can see has more weight than the face sucking jellyfish because of all the different cultures that have independly come up with the idea of god/s existing, in general.
OK. But if A) These various spiritual experiences are in many cases mutually exclusive and B) Many such spiritual beliefs have in fact turned out to be demonstrably wrong through evidence based investigation (fertility gods, Sun gods etc. etc. etc.) then where does that leave your argument?
A) They're mutually exclusive in their entirety and could, together, both be partially correct.
B) They're demonstrably wrong in the specificity and could, generally, be partially correct.
Assuming a god exists, if we had one culture that says that god is red and one that says that god is blue, they would be mutally exclusive but they would both be correct that the god existed. That their colors are different doesn't mean that we can be sure that there's no god there in the first place.
But what I want to know is exactly what it is about these entities that makes them obviously made-up and silly as opposed to just unevidenced and worthy of our agnosticism.
Well, it is hard to put your finger on it. I think it has something to do with its popularity and how long it has standed the test of time.
*Actually, I've come back up to this point now that I've typed about primitive religions below. These entities are not ones that have gradually emerged and evolved within a culture so that might be why its so obvious that they don't have any weight behind them.
Well, an idea of god that has evolved through various stages of development wouldn't be random or made-up. Although 'made-up' was bad word choice because every idea has to be made-up at some point, its just that if you hear about someone else's idea of god, then you didn't make it up, whereas if someone brings forth an idea of god that has never been seen before, then they obviously just made that one up recently.
Marketing and flexibility seem a better explanation here. If a specific belief is willing to energetically and consciously set about recruiting new believers (e.g. missionaries) and is able to be flexible enough to adopt aspects of the cultures it seeks to convert (e.g. adopting Pagan holidays as it's own) then it is hardly surprising that it prevails above those beliefs that do not take such measures.
I was thinking along the lines of early primitive religions, like animism, that gradually emerged and evolved within the cultures. I don't think anybody set them up to do that, nor that the ideas were really marketed that much. But I'm starting to speculate now....
I take it you will be advocating that scientology receives the recognition it so obviously deserves...................?
Honestly, I put Scientology in the group with the face sucking jellyfish as ideas that one man made-up recently as opposed to religious ideas that gradually emerged and evolved within a culture.
Please remember that the vast majority of the beliefs that these experiences have resulted in have been mutually exclusive.
Please also remember that most of the spiritual claims made throughout history have now been pretty comprehensively debunked.
On this basis it seems that the remaining widely held spiritual beliefs are simply those that are inherently the least falsifiable due to their comparitive vagueness and lack of specifity (e.g. the deistic type gods we started with)
Given the history of elimination this is not a cause to assume that the remaining spiritual beliefs are any indication of veracity.
and too, I don't think its cause to reject them.
In the case of gods I think that the "evidence" is wholly subjective. I also think that the indisputable historical elimination of all but the least physically definable gods is a clear indication that gods in general are a human construct as opposed to an entity that can be said to exist in any objective sense at all.
I don't think that everyone getting all the details wrong suggests that they weren't even talking about something in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 2:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 375 (499773)
02-20-2009 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Straggler
02-19-2009 4:30 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Why do the face sucking jellyfish and Wagwah not equally benefit from being "gods in general"?
Because of their specificities.
Why does your generalised argument not apply to these entities?
Because when we start getting into specific gods, people's spiritual experiences start to loose their similarities. Its that all those people are all on to something, in general, that suggests that there is something there but when we start to get into the specifics, we see that there is a lot of discrepancy, suggesting that a lot of people are getting a lot wrong.
OK. But once again we are left with such a vague and unspecific definition of god(s) that the only thing that can really be claimed in their favour in terms of objective evidence is the inability to be falsified as a result of sheer "woolliness".
Sure, but we're not claiming things in terms of objective evidence.
Is history and prevalence really all there is to perceived veracity?
No, there's my and other people's subjective experiences too and that we are all on to 'something'.
That independent cultures come up with own independent ideas on spirituality suggests that there just might be something there.
Honestly, I put Scientology in the group with the face sucking jellyfish as ideas that one man made-up recently as opposed to religious ideas that gradually emerged and evolved within a culture.
Why?
It meets the criteria of being relatively widely believed and has stood the test of time to some extent at least.
Because it looks like Hubbard just made it all up on its own, not that it gradually emerged within a culture.
As I have been failing to explain to RAZD
IF either A or B where A is unevidenced.
THEN where B is evidenced the likelihood of A is diminished.
Only when A and B are mutually exclusive. The lack of specifics in A reduces its exclusivity.
But that is the problem. It is not a question of just getting the details wrong. It is the fact that after this elimination process we are only left with the spiritual concepts that are so un-detailed, so un-specific and so unfalsifiable that they cannot be "wrong".
That's do to the lack of evidence. We can't really tell what this 'something' is in detail but it does seem that this 'something' is there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 02-19-2009 4:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2009 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 178 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 7:49 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 375 (499802)
02-20-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by onifre
02-20-2009 10:59 AM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
Thats impossible to do if the idea was derived from subjective experiences. One person may introduce an idea based off of his experience to a group, which then begin talks about it and build on their collective experiences, but they didn't all shout out at once "there is a god".
That's not how I'm imagining it at all.
Also, even thought they live continents apart it doesn't matter. They didn't sprout there, humans migrated. The Inkas and the Egyptians both believed in gods yet were seperated by thousands of miles. So, what does that prove? Noting other than the Inkas migrated there long before they were called "Inkas" and all of those spiritual stories came with them. And, we can agree that humans originated in one general area, so, they spread out having already created the concepts of gods.
Again, not really what I'm getting at.
But now, in discussing the emergence of religious beliefs, we're getting off-topic and entering the realm of speculation. I'm not trying to cop-out, but the bases(basises) for our arguments are wholly different and I don't think we're gonna get anywhere without going outside the scope of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 02-20-2009 10:59 AM onifre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 375 (499805)
02-20-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rahvin
02-20-2009 1:04 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
If you don't know what "something" is, how can it "seem to be there?"
When you have enough info to determine it has a source but not enough info to define the source. If you blindly stuck your hand into a bag and felt something furry, then you'd could easily tell that there was something in the bag without knowing what it was.
RAZD brought up the example of three blind men each examining different parts of the same elephant. They wouldn't know what the something is but they could tell that something is there.
What "is there," CS?
We're talking about god/s.
What defines it? Surely "it" has some defining properties? If not, then I agree: "something" is basically everywhere. Whether space, energy, or matter, the Universe has "something" all over the place. There are multiple "somethings" on my desk; the desk itself is also a "something" by your broad usage.
Or are you actually claiming the existence of something more specific? If so, please give those defining qualities. How would I be able to differentiate your "something" from anything else? For all I know, my computer is your "something."
Are you referring to some "creative force" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe? There's no reason to think that the Universe was "created," and plenty of reason to think of the Universe as simply existing with a given set of properties. What would make you think that the Universe was "created?" What would differentiate between a "Created Universe" and an "Uncreated Universe?" How would you detect the presence of your "creative force? If you cannot detect "it," or describe "it," what makes you think "it" is there?
Are you referring to some objective "purpose" to the Universe, or life? What would that "purpose" be? If you cannot define the "purpose," how can it "seem to be there?" How would you know? Can you tell the difference between a Universe with a "purpose" and one without? What makes you think there is a "purpose" at all?
Are you even able to describe your "something" in terms as general as those?
We're not trying to establish that god/s do/es exist/s.
We're providing a rational reason to believing that god/s exist/s.
The topic is the differences between atheists and desits. The atheists seem to think that the deists' beliefs in god are irrational while the deists don't. I'm providing that rational explanation (or at least trying to).
Do you have anything objective? That is, a fact that we can all see?
No.
It's a fact that many people believe in the sorts of supernatural, nebulous "things" we're discussing, but that doesn't have anything to do with thier actual existence - widespread faith and belief are not themselves evidence, unless you consider Appeals to Popularity logically valid.
Its not that widespread faith and belief are evidence, themselves, of each belief. Its that widespread faith and belief, and the similarities between them, is enough to rationally suggest that everyone is talking about something that actually does exist. Again, this does not establish that something does, in fact, exist but it is a rational explanation for why people believe that it does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2009 1:04 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2009 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 375 (503372)
03-18-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Straggler
03-18-2009 2:40 AM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
And therin lies the problem.
Subjective methods that we all deem to be utterly useless and wholly unreliable when it comes to establishing objectively verifiable scientific truths are suddenly deemed to be excellent indicators of truth when it comes to establishing the actual existence or otherwise of undetectable entities.
Why?
Because it's convincing (or at least has convinced the person having the experience).
Why does subjective evidence have no validity in one situation and complete validity in another?
Because the one situation can have objective evidence and the other cannot.
And the situation that's its valid in isn't expected to be believed by other people based on the available evidence.
People don't expect others to accept that god exists based on their own subjective evidence like they do when objective evidence is involved. Its just that their subjective evidence was evident enough to convince them.
Why this inconsistent approach to evidence? How is this justified?
Maybe its because of the inconsistent way in which (subjective) evidence is dealt.
It is this inconsistency that lies at the heart of the atheist-deist faultline.
I just figured that the atheists are positivists and the deists aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 2:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 375 (503383)
03-18-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Straggler
03-18-2009 12:13 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
I have another question.
If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?
A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero
I don't know. What do you mean by "verified as true"? It also depends on the credibility of the person.
If my mom told me she saw a flying saucer, then I would believe her. That would be enough to convince me that a flying saucer was indeed up there. But I wouldn't say that it was "verified as true" in the scientific sense.
Why is it convincing?
Because it seems real.
Why does the absence of objective evidence suddenly make subjective "evidence" even potentially valid or reliable?
Because that is all that's left.
Can subjective evidence ever be reliable?
Not reliable enough for something to be "verified as true" but reliable enough to convince a person to believe something is true.
Can we ever actually use it to distinguish truth from falsehood and if not why do you deem it to have any worth at all?
I think we can use it to distiguish truth from falsehood to certain degrees. I'm not the only one who believes they have subjectively experienced god. When many people share experiences and corroborate, we can rule out some things from the experience. I think the IPU can be ruled out because nobody has actually experienced it and it is obviously made-up. I don't think our corroboration can be used to say that the subjective experiece is from Jesus, himself. But I do think we can say that we are on to something. A very general god-like thingy seems to fit in a loose sense with the experiences that people are having so I don't think it has been ruled out like the IPU.
Calling it "evidence" seems like nothing more than an unnecessary justification of belief.
Other than it was something that did happen that I did not make up that I'm using as grounds for a belief, i.e.... evidence.
If I subjectively prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry ice cream nobody would even dream of considering this as evidence that chocolate ice cream is in any way objectively superior to strawberry.
What if it was chocolate ice cream vs. manure ice cream and everybody agreed with you?
Why is subjective experience of god considered to be "evidence" of the objective existence of god but subjective experience of ice cream preference not considered to tell us anything objective about the relative merits of different flavour ice cream?
I guess because the superiority of ice cream is an opinion and god's existence is an objective claim.
Seriously what exactly and specifically is the difference in the two subjective conclusions that means one is deemed to have objective relevance and the other not?
Because a god existing has objective relavance and someone's opinion on ice cream does not.
And the situation that's its valid in isn't expected to be believed by other people based on the available evidence.
In which case non-belief rather than belief would be the natural default logical position.
Yes, in the absense of any subjective evidence. But if your subjective experience convinces you that god does exist, then you will believe it. You can believe that chocolate ice cream is better too. But neither porition is being claimed to be objectively verified as true. Its just that the person is convinced that its true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 12:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 375 (503407)
03-18-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Straggler
03-18-2009 3:54 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
What are the chances of the particle or comet or whetever other physical detectable entity has been predicted on the basis of subjective evidence alone actually being discovered?
Its a case by case basis.
We discovered the Giant Squid long after it was predicted on the basis of subjective evidence. Had you heard of it before it was discovered, how would you have assessed the chances of it actually being discovered based on the subjective evidence alone?
Would you have put up as big of a fight against those that believed it existed based soley on the subjective evidence? Or is there something about this god-thing that you particularly oppose?
Is subjective evidence only evidence if it is sourced from someone that you subjectively trust?
For myself, yes.
Are we not just piling subjective folly upon subjective folly to form an evidential stairway of sponge?
Pretty much, but the stairway isn't being used to hold much of anything up so it doesn't really matter.
Well given your answers in this thread and the IPU thread I am still bemused as to how you can have such absolute conviction in conclusions drawn from evidence which you deem to be utterly and totally unreliable 99% of the time, including every single instance where conclusions from such evidence can actually be tested.
That's just how convincing it was. If you were convinced, then you'd believe it too (sorry for the tautology).
I would further add that even when there is no other evidence available the objective evidence to suggest that deities and gods are human inventions far outweighs the reliability of any subjective "evidence" in favour of the concept in question.
What if Neandertals were shown to have religion too?
I disagree with your conclusion and find the reliance you place on subjective "evidence" in certain situations but not others inconsistent but that is not really the point.
Where was I inconsistant?
Unlike RAZD you seem to think that the conclusion of disbelief and atheism is the rational and evidentially consistent conclusion if based solely on the objective evidence available.
Would you agree?
No. The default would be agnosticism. You don't know.
You're siding with atheism because you think that people have made god up. I don't think that's available objective evidence.
I don't believe in the IPU because, well, I think that someone made it up. Without that though, and left with the subjective claim of the IPU all on its own and just the available objective evidence, I would say that I don't know if the IPU is real or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 3:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 375 (503420)
03-18-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Straggler
03-18-2009 4:53 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
It seesm that you find a form of evidence that you consider to be wholly unreliable to also be wholly convincing.
I think that this demonstrates an inconsistent aproach to evidence.
That kinda assumes that I actually approached the evidence, made a judgement, and then decided if it was convincing enough or not. That's not how it happened. That is how I approach objective evidence but this subjective experience convinced me on its own.
I do not believe in the actuality of those things for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even possible.
Nor do you for 99.99% of the unevidenced conceptual possibilities.
Should we be agnostic about all unevidenced claims? Or just the ones that you have convincing yet unreliable evidence of?
If you are relying on purely verified objective evidence, the yes you should be agnostic about all unevidenced claims. If you are going to deny an unevidenced claim then its based on something other than evidence.
Do you deny that people have invented demonstrably false concepts including gods?
Or do you deny that there is objective evidence in favour of this fact?
I'm denying that we have verified objective evidence that god is/was made up.
Really? What about the undetectable face sucking jellyfish? Thor? Odin? Apollo? Allah? Vishnu? Shango? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
The list is literally endless. Are you really agnostic? I mean really? Or do you actually not believe in this entities? C'mon be honest. You can tell me.
No, I'm not agnostic towards those but I am not relying solely on verified objective evidence. If I was, then I would be agnostic towards them.
There is objective evidence to suggest that the IPU and gods are human inventions.
How so? Because people are capable of making stuff up then they must be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 4:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 6:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 375 (503460)
03-19-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Straggler
03-18-2009 6:06 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
Then not only is your assessment of the reliability of subjective "evidence" inconsistent from situation to situation.
Isn't yours? Or is the only way to be consistent to reject it all?
Your whole method of evaluating what is evidentially convincing and what is not evidentially convincing is also completely inconsistent from situation to situation.
Well, there's not really a "method". Either it convinces me or it doesn't.
This unequivocably demonstrates an inconsistent approach to evidence on your part.
I see. I can live with that. I don't care to argue about this here.
If you are relying on purely verified objective evidence, the yes you should be agnostic about all unevidenced claims. If you are going to deny an unevidenced claim then its based on something other than evidence.
Why? If there is nothing to even suggest that a particular concept is even a possibility why is the question of it's actual objective existence even a valid question?
Because people do have something to suggest that a particular concept is a possibility.
I deny the validity of the question and deem the concept unworthy of consideration. Never mind actual belief.
Well La-ti-frickin-da
Like you said, you are free to believe what you want. In the meantime, us guys will be over there trying to figure this whole god thing out.
Otherwise I must logically open the door to the infinite array of wholly unevidenced crackpot concepts imaginable.
Not if you have something to suggest a particular concept.
Straggler writes:
Really? What about the undetectable face sucking jellyfish? Thor? Odin? Apollo? Allah? Vishnu? Shango? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
The list is literally endless. Are you really agnostic? I mean really? Or do you actually not believe in this entities? C'mon be honest. You can tell me.
No, I'm not agnostic towards those but I am not relying solely on verified objective evidence. If I was, then I would be agnostic towards them.
If not objective evidence then what are you relying on to make your atheistic conclusions?
My subjective experiences and my world view, I guess.
(I don't think that the people that believe in Odin were totally wrong. They could have been on to the same god I am, but their cultural influence led them to a different description.)
Is it that sponge stairway notion of wholly unreliable but wholly convincing subjective "evidence" rearing it's ugly head again?
I like that: "wholly unreliable but wholly convincing" That's a good way to describe it.
But yeah, there it is.
So it would seem that you agree that the possibility of deities being false concepts that are the product of human invention is indeed objectively evidenced and indeed verified fact.
Wait. How are you going to show that a deity is a false concept with objective evidence?
Is the possibility of deities actually existing objectively evidenced? Is the possibility of deities actually existing a verified fact?
If we solely follow the objectively verified evidence what conclusion must we draw?
Agnosticism.
You have to use something other than objectively verified evidence to conclude otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 6:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 375 (503474)
03-19-2009 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Straggler
03-19-2009 12:06 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
I don't grant wholly subjective experiences with any more reliability in the absence of objective evidence than I do in the presence of objective evidence.
So none at all then.
Because people do have something to suggest that a particular concept is a possibility.
Or do they just have utterly unreliable yet aparently very convincing subjective experiences?
...that suggest a particular concept, yes.
Not if you have something to suggest a particular concept.
I don't.
Right, so in the absence of any suggestion of a concept, there is no consideration.
Once a concept that cannot be objective evidenced is suggested, the default position, in the complete absence of any evidence, is agnoticism. Nothing suggests yes or no, so you remain at I don't know. To move to atheism (or to the 'no' side), you have to have something there to make that consideration. So if there's no objective evidence, what do you use?
In the meantime, us guys will be over there trying to figure this whole god thing out.
From the point of view of any reliable or objectively meaningful evidence you might as well spend your time trying to figure out that whole Immaterial Pink Unicorn thing.
There really is no difference.
I suppose, but we have subjective experiences to consider that suggest a particular concept.
Wait. How are you going to show that a deity is a false concept with objective evidence?
You have agreed that there is objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans create false god concepts.
For specific falsifiable dieties, yes. But not for general unfalsifiable ones.
You have repeatedly stated that subjective evidence is valid in the case where there is an absence of objective evidence in favour of any of these god concepts actually being true.
Thus, given that I have no subjective experience of the sort that you apparently find convincing, what conclusion am I to draw on the basis of the objective evidence alone?
Agnosticism.
You have to use something other than objectively verified evidence to conclude otherwise.
Please explain.
Its because of the basis of objective evidence alone. On the basis of objective evidence alone, a subjective unfalsifiable conclusion must remain in the realm of unknowing because we don't have any objective evidence to suggest one way or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 12:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024