Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 164 of 562 (526125)
09-25-2009 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Straggler
09-25-2009 5:41 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Until RAZD defines what he means by "god(s)" nobody will ever know.
Agreed.
Nor do I as long as there is some mechanism that allows said "force" to be potentially objectively knowable in principle.
Good point. It must also lie within the realm of reality; "knowable in principle" seems like a very basic thing to require.
If said "force" is some aspect of nature as yet unknown then (rationally or otherwise) I might even go so far as to say I think it more probable than not!!
Fair enough. It seems like it's almost certain that some aspect of nature is yet unknowable.

England are in the World Cup. I was at Wembley itself for the Croatia game. I am not only still hungover from that night, nearly two weeks ago, I fear I am still inebriated from that game.
When I do head that way (your side of the pond) I/we must hit up a football game.
Uraguay. Hah! We won but nobody cares anyway! INGGEERRRRLAND INGEEEERRRLLLAAND!
Congrats to you! But my boys from Spain, wow! 8-0!!!
So when are you coming across the pond?
Next year for sure (business or pleasure, either way).
I am meeting Mod this weekend which is very exciting. My first ever EvC (indeed my first ever internet) meetup.
Be careful, Chris Hanson from Datelines: To catch a predator might show-up. Check his age. LOL
That's really cool though, hopefully I can meet a few of the folks here too. Let us know how that went.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2009 5:41 PM Straggler has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 171 of 562 (526321)
09-26-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Kitsune
09-26-2009 9:29 AM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
While I don't think this is necessary in order for a discussion of the OP to happen, I agree that it helps if everyone in a discussion like this can clarify their position.
Perhaps RAZD will find that no one holds any negative position at all in regards to his version of god.
So what makes you open to this, while you are more doubtful of a god?
I'm not doubtful of a god, I'm doubtful of every single description of god that I've heard explained.
Is there a god? Well, what do you mean by god?
You are presumably aware that others here would also say that there is no evidence that such a force exists either and so they'd conclude it probably doesn't?
Fine. But would you call them "atheist" toward some indescribable force?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2009 9:29 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 7:40 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 182 of 562 (526378)
09-27-2009 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
09-26-2009 7:40 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi RAZD,
Which is not a get-out-of-burden-free card.
The need to support a negative hypothesis is independent of any positive hypothesis.
"Get out of burden free card," that's funny since I feel the vague description of god is trying to do just that; getting out of estalishing a definitive description, which we could then progress forward and find out if one actually holds a negative position or not.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 7:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 183 of 562 (526380)
09-27-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Bailey
09-26-2009 9:59 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Bailey, hope things are well too.
It seems that oni is suggesting that, without the basic premise as to what defines an individual's perception of a god, the logical conclusion is unknowable whether theistic, agnostic or atheistic, etc.. For instance, perhaps - may one claim their car is red, without first laying out the premise of what color defines?
Well said, a lot better than my mess - lol.
You've understood my point perfectly. Lets take your color analogy as an example: If you claim red, yet can't define what red is, how do I even know that you're actually talking about a color? Maybe you're defining something completely different, and I would be falsely, and unnecessarily, holding to a position that's not even relevant to your definition of color - or, in the case of this thread, god.
In this light, there is the sense that - without at least a general concept of what a particular god may be, a god maybe nothing, everything and anything.
With this definition - god is nothing, everything and anything, can one find a logical conclusion in agnosticism?
Exactly. Whats the point of being a theist, agnostic, or atheist, to something that has yet been defined.
RAZD told Linda lou that he's satisfied with the common definition of a diety. Has anyone looked that up? I did, here's what I found.
source:
quote:
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.
IOW, a thing that exists.
Here's the link for Deism; look through it and see if any description of god is given...?
None. Still vague and indescribable.
They claim (deist) to believe in the Supreme being, here's the link for Supreme being... no description of said Supreme being is given. Still vague and indescribable.
As you asked so eloquently: "With this definition - god is nothing, everything and anything, can one find a logical conclusion in agnosticism?"
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 9:59 PM Bailey has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 184 of 562 (526382)
09-27-2009 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
09-26-2009 8:57 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Razd,
I won't make it long.
What is needed for the hypothesis that all human concepts of god are made up is evidence that indeed all the concepts are made up.
No. All I need to show is that the word "god" is a meaningless word (especially when used by a deist) that lacks any description or characteristic.
The word "god" has no value until it's used in context, with supporting evidence (outside of the human mind).
If I can prove that the word god is a meaningless word that describes absolutely nothing, then I show that no position (negative or otherwise) actually exists for this vague description.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 8:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 9:43 PM onifre has replied
 Message 198 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2009 10:05 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 201 of 562 (526470)
09-27-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
09-27-2009 9:43 PM


finally, a description
Hi RAZD,
Deist: god in unknowable, being outside our universe of perception/s or having gone off to do other things.
This is all I was asking for, a description (no matter how vague).
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
First, you are concluding the premise (god) is true only because it hasn't been proven wrong, then, you attach the (possible) characteristics to it; isn't that a logical fallacy?
But anyway...
Now I can say with confidence that I am a #7. For the same reason that everyone has been saying: you are making that concept of god up.
Can you demonstate how this concept is not made up? Can you show how you came to this conclusion observing the natural world?
According to the definition of Deism:
quote:
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.
From everything we know about the natural world, nothing points to a supreme being; let alone one that is outside our universe, our perception, or off doing other things. And unless you can provide evidence for those claims, it stands that you are making all that up with no evidence to support it. The same that has been done throughout history for all other concepts of god, yours is no different.
Yours is definitely much more of an ambiguous description, but clearly all in your head. You have no evidence to support it (I mean really, off doing other things?) so how can anyone take you serious?
You might as well say he's the god of thunder too because they all have the same supporting evidence... none.
If you don't have evidence, you are making it up. It's that simple. And that's what I use as evidence to support my position.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 7:21 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 220 of 562 (526614)
09-28-2009 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Kitsune
09-28-2009 9:43 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
Hi Linda,
They are also capable of accurately assessing the truth, otherwise there would be no such thing as science.
A good point, and one I brought up originally. What would be a good method (like that of science) for investigating said god/s?
Would you agree, that if no method exists, then we should not consider the claim to be capable of being evidenced in reality?
As I've said several times in this ongoing debate, the evidence would seem to suggest that humans have a propensity for developing spiritual beliefs.
Yes, but can you point to any evidence for the development of these spiritual beliefs that is outside of the human mind?
Firstly, the topic of this thread is pseudoskepticism; that is, assuming that the negative (or null) hypothesis is correct without recognising an obligation to provide evidence for this assumption.
The same is true for assuming that god is real, but that the only thing that varies, or may be wrong, is the different concepts of god. That is a logical fallacy that takes place before the atheistic position.
You guys are concluding that the premise (god) is true before having evidence for it. Then, in an almost arrogant way, you're claiming atheists have a negative position, or are commiting a logical fallacy, when nothing has been evidenced about your original premise.
How does that make any sense?
But this isn't how the scientific methods works, is it? You don't design an experiment thinking, "I don't think this thing I'm (or you're) looking for actually exists." The only way to avoid confirmation bias is to keep an open mind -- that is, to be as agnostic as possible.
But again - what experiment or method do you suggest for investigated concepts about god/s? If you can't provide one, as science has been able to, then maybe you should consider the claim made up until such time as a proper method of investigation can be given?
It's very convinent to say that you believe in something that is unknowable, but I would be forced to ask you, then how do you know about it?
There are serious, well-qualified scientists out there doing research into the paranormal, and others who will admit to being interested in such subjects off the record but who fear damage to their reputations if they admit it publicly, and what they're up against is a cadre of vocal pseudoskeptics (many of whom are not even scientists) who continually insist that the reality of such phenomena is patently absurd.
Can you reference ONE paranormal event that has ever been concluded to be the work of magic, ghosts, spirits, immaterial entities, god/s, etc.?
Paranormal is just another word for "shit we haven't figured out to work naturally yet."
It's actually pathetic to see shows on TV like "Ghost Hunters" or the like. People really have lost their minds these days. Hey, you know what was a great paranormal investigative show? Scooby Doo, remember? Even they knew ghosts didn't exist.
And to them it sounds like the most absurd notion; their educated doctors would laugh at you. But the kicker here is . . . you are right.
Yes, but you could leave them tools and a method to investigate it on their own. I mean, how do you think we figured it out in the first place? - There was an actual working method to investigate it.
What method do you suggest we use to investigate concepts of god/s? If you can, provide one please, I'm eager to get to work.
How are we to avoid situations like this ourselves, if we declare that the appropriate stance to take is "I won't believe it until you prove it to me?" Surely the truly skeptical position, the one more open to new facts, would be, "I can't be sure about that until you prove it to me"?
You make a logical fallacy when you conclude the premise (god) is true without any evidence for it. The onus is on you to provide that evidence. That comes before my atheistic stance on your evidence-less premise.
Your premise fails to be evidence, thus yours/RAZD's/any concept of god/s is irrelevant until you can show how the premise (god) is true.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2009 9:43 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 5:21 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 227 of 562 (526626)
09-28-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
09-28-2009 7:21 PM


Re: finally, a description
Hi RAZD,
That is one definition, however deism is not a defined sect.
Thanks for that link. It explained it well.
From what I gathered, and I hope I'm not giving a generalized definition, deism seems to be a completely subjective belief. Based on personal experiences, faith in ones ability to apply logic to nature, and speculation. What changes seems to be the description of god. And according to you, there is no single concept of said deity, so there is no agreed upon description.
To me, this seems so vague and nondescript, that atheism, or even agnosticism, doesn't seem relevant. My opinion I guess, but you really aren't describing anything more than personal awe for things grander than you. You seem to want to label that god, don't know why, but I can say for sure that I'm not an atheist toward that concept. I hold no position at all.
Excellent. Where's your evidence?
You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.
Perhaps at a later time, if the source above does not satisfy you, but it is off topic on this thread.
Fair enough. But as you can see by my reply to the source above, I'm not an atheist to your personal, experienced, speculated "god."
The purpose of this thread is to focus on the negative hypothesis, and the need to provide evidence to supbstantiate a negative hypothesis.
But how can anyone have a negative hypothesis toward an unevidenced assertion, RAZD?
You are making a logical fallacy here, RAZD, in assuming that the premise is true without evidence to support it. And that we have a negative hypothesis toward this premise.
This doesn't follow. First, you need evidence to establish your premise. The idea for god came before the atheist, right? The premise came first. However, without evidence to support that premise, you don't actually have a true premise, and it can logically be dismissed until you do.
The way I see it, I'm not saying there is no god (which would make no sense if you think about it), I'm saying you had no reason to ever conclude there was when you have no evidence for it. Yet you introduced this premise (that god exists in the universe) and now I'm forced to hold to a negative hypothesis. Why?
Athesim is not a negative hypothesis, it's just the place where one stand until there is evidence to make you consider moving from there. Deist have no evidence to move from that place either, but they do so subjetively.
You have just claimed 100% sure-no-doubt-left that the concept of a "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" god is false.
No, you must have misread. I said you made it up. Whether you happen to have nailed it - (with all the possibilities there are for how this god may look, or not look) - or not, is of no concern to me. I know, based on the fact that you are using no objective evidence, that you made up that concept subjectively, from personal experiences and speculation.
I don't know how you can't see that there is no other option but to conclude you made the concept up, when there is no other evidence but your subjective conclusion? It's guess work at best, RAZD. If it wasn't in your mind (made up by you because as it says in your deism link, it's personally experienced), then where did you get the evidence for it?
Evidence is needed when you make a claim.
Then please show me the evidence to support your premise.
Have fun with that.
Eh...it was a lot funner watching England lose to Uruguay in the FIFA U-20 World Cup, on Saturday.
But I "enjoyed" it nonetheless.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 4:15 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:16 AM onifre has replied
 Message 338 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2009 12:56 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 256 of 562 (526749)
09-29-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 5:21 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
Hi Linda,
The closest that science seems to come at the moment is quantum physics. The more we learn about the fabric of reality itself, the more we may be able to reconcile it with spirituality.
Not that I'm an expert, but nothing I've ever read in QM seems to be investigating god.
What I'm asking for is the method.
In Message 42, RAZD and I had this exchange:
RAZD writes:
There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry.
Oni writes:
While I agree that it's not honest to hold to a position not having done the leg work of investigating, it also seems dishonest to claim someone hasn't done the research when no viable method of research is available.
Furthermore...
RAZD writes:
if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.
Oni writes:
Fair enough, but what method exists to investigate the claim that would help provide proof against the claim?
And you posit:
Linda Lou writes:
No, because there may be ways of investigating that we have not yet discovered. I think the skeptical position would be that it could be possible to find evidence.
So lets see if I can follow the logic here.
(1) There is no method (currently) to directly investigate god.
(2) I am asked to provide evidence against god.
(3) I ask for the method to investigate it so that I may give evidence against it.
(4) I am told no method exists (currently).
Then how can I provide evidence against god if no method to investigate god exists?
How can atheism be a negative hypothesis under these scenarios?
God is not only an unevidenced assertion, it is also an assertion that can't be proven wrong because no method of investigating it exist. There is only one other area of human discourse that carries with it such conditions, and that is stuff people make up.
No other area of human discourse is like that. There is always a method to investigate, there is always a means to get evidence.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, exist as objective evidence for your premise - No method (currently) exists to get objective evidence. No avenue to investigate god exists. You said, maybe in the future we'll have a method, and maybe we'll find something. Yea, maybe. And if you do begin to provide evidence, and I still hold to my atheistic position, then and only then can you claim that I'm holding to a negative position.
But (currently) I am not holding to a negative position, because there is nothing to hold a negative position towards.
You can't hold a negative position to an unevidenced assertion.
Whether I personally can or not is beside the point. In this thread we're talking about assuming a negative hypothesis to be true when there is a lack of empirical evidence
It seems that here is where you and RAZD are failing to see our logic.
It's not that we're assuming a negative hypothesis to be true, what we are saying is that there is no negative hypothesis, because your premise has no supporting evidence.
Until it does, we have nothing to hold a negative hypothesis towards.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 5:21 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 9:34 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 306 of 562 (526882)
09-29-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Kitsune
09-29-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
Bingo.
Check your card again; you're missing B65 for Bingo.
I don't think you meant it like that Onfire; I think you're trying to make a case for atheism as "the negative hypothesis" being nonsensical.
Boy that On(fire) follows me everywhere.
An "unevidenced assertion" is just that, so anyone who feels certain about it either negatively or positively, without any evidence on which to base their beliefs, is being irrational . . . or pseudoskeptical.
So am I supposed to give validity to your premise (taking a negative or positive position on it), even before you establish the evidence for your premise?
How can anyone be an atheist to nothing?
You are only asked to provide evidence against god if you hold a firm belief that god does not exist.
Again - please give me the method for investigating such a claim, the same method that I presume YOU used to establish it - or, did you just make up the premise without any evidence?
Am I supposed to take your subjective experience as evidence? Is that what you're saying?
Can a brotha get a clear answer, please?
Placing oneself at 1 or 2, or 6 or 7, is therefore a peudoskeptical position, given the lack of evidence.
You keep saying this, but I don't see how anyone can be a pseudoskeptic when nothing has been established to the contrary, other than personal feelings, speculation, and baseless assertions.
I am not skeptical of the existance of god, because I don't yet know what god means. The onus falls on those who introduced the premise, to establish what defines god. Unknowable, nondescript, ambiguous forces, that may be off doing other things, doesn't help me one bit in knowing what on earth it is anyone means by god.
Perhaps this is considered by RAZD Off-Topic. Fine. I'll take my ball and go home. But I submit that it's still a red-herring in this thread, and as long as no one can describe/define/explain what they mean by "god," then neither pseudoskepticism, or atheism, or agnosticism are relevant positions to require anyone to hold.
Since the negative position is atheism, that presumably means you are an agnostic.
I am neither; no one has any clue what they mean by god, so no position is required. It's all irrelevant until some describes what they mean by god.
RAZD said, unknowable, undetectable, perhaps off doing other things; if this satisfies you, then cool. To me, it is nothing more than a collection of words that describes nothing.
I think you, like several others here, seem to be making the mistake that I am a theist; correct me if I've misunderstood you.
I thought deist.
My position in this thread is that anyone who holds some certainty about god existing or not existing should, in order to be truly skeptical and rational, be able to provide some evidence for the positive or the negative claim.
What do you mean by "god"...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Kitsune, posted 09-29-2009 9:34 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 2:01 PM onifre has replied
 Message 385 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 4:30 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 307 of 562 (526887)
09-29-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 10:16 AM


Re: finally, a description
Then you're not a psuedoskeptic...
and that sure sounds like agnosticism to me (at least in the way I use the word).
That's what I've been say'n.
If that sounds like agnosticism then whatever. To me, it sounds like nothing at all.
I heard a strange noise in the back yard last night. I was gonna go look to see what it was but because I didn't have any objective evidence I concluded that I made it up
But you had a method for investigating it had you wanted to. Go see what it is; listen for the noise again; walk out into your backyard and observe - these are all great methods to investigate strange noises; what similar method do you have or can suggest to investigate subjective experiences of god?
Do you suggest, like Linda does, that I should meditate? Or perhaps wish upon a star and hope it comes to me? Should I go see a guru? I'm hurt'n bro, just let me in on the secret, please.
The whole point is that there isn't an assumption either way... that agnosticism is the default.
Wait, if there is no assumption either way, then why am I being asked the question?
I don't think you're really arguing against the position in the OP, nor do you qualify as the psuedoskeptic that its against. I think you're using the terminology differently enough to think that you are when you aren't.
Dude, I don't know what the fuck I'm arguing at this point.
All I'm saying, if I can make a single point on the issue, is that no one has defined what "god" is, therefore no one has a negaitve position toward the existance of god. Perhaps I'm skeptical of someones claim, that goes without question since people bullshit a lot, but certainly not skeptical toward a nondescript entity that can't be defined even by those claiming to believe; it seems pointless to be skeptical, the best thing to do is ignore such claims.
I'll repeat the matra of those arguing against RAZD, how can one hold a negative position towards nothing?
PS: Sweet Boba Fett hat!
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 308 of 562 (526889)
09-29-2009 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 12:41 PM


Re: finally, a description
Phage writes:
Don't have to provide evidence, the default is that it didn't happen. Perhaps you would be better off debating the justification for that being the default.
CS writes:
The OP sets up the discussion and we go from there.
So then it follows that the OP assumes the premise is true before establishing evidence in support of it.
You can't have a negative hypothesis towards nothing. If the word "god" means something (other than a subjective, personal, speculation of the existance of some unknown force) then perhaps a clear definition can be given?
Till then, I'll just assume it's made up by the person claiming it.
This doesn't mean "god" doesn't exist. It just means that I can't deal with the validity of the claim until I know what the hell it is people are talking about.
If I'm told that the OP establishes god to be whatever you want it to be, then this discussion is bogus.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 3:44 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 310 of 562 (526891)
09-29-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Straggler
09-29-2009 2:01 PM


Re: What Do You Mean BY God?
I, and I think most others (except Oni) on the atheist side of the debate here, are assuming at least some vague concept of god as implicit.
I simply stop right before the word "god."
I am assuming a vague concept is implicit. Why give anyone a pass on such a meaningless word as "god"...? Define it, or forever hold your peace.
However if we are simply being asked "Do you believe in X?" where X is a non-concept. A concept whose only property is a complete absence of any definition then the question doesn't even make sense. We are effectively being asked "Do you believe in ___________?".
I agree, and that's why I continue to say that a negative hypothesis doesn't exist.
I am not atheistic towards "____________" because there is nothing to be atheistic about. But equally I don't see how anyone can claim to be agnostic about "it" either.
Well said, Straggler. The whole thing seems pointless.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 2:01 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Stile, posted 09-29-2009 3:14 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 320 of 562 (526935)
09-29-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 3:44 PM


Re: finally, a description
Oh come on, you know about that woo-woo.
Believe me, I tried. Weed, DMT, LSD, shrooms, Xtacy...all with some hope that I would reach a different state of awareness. Or the Zen-like state of existance that is mentioned so much in Eastern philosophy. I meditated (both with experts and on my own in nature).
I tried, as Linda suggested, to search for different avenues to this "elightenment," and at the end...nothing. Not a thing, bro.
So it bothers me when people dismiss a position by saying "well you haven't looked hard enough."
At the end of that whole, "search for nirvana bullshit," I simply asked someone to define for me what it was exactly that I was supposed to be looking for, how will I recognize it, and what do they mean by "god."
You know what I got as an answer, (and that's when I knew it was made up and complete bullshit)?
Almost verbatum, this was the answer: "You are seeking a state of nothingness, God lies within this realm; If you search within yourself, deep enough, in the darkest corners of your mind, there you will find the force that makes up the oneness that we all feel. That is god."
All I could think about, as he was feeding me this line of complete bullshit, was "fuck, I'm out $500."
Ever since then I've been sketical when people say they believe in "god." Truth is, no one has even been able to define what they mean. It's always just a collection of words put together to sound meaningful. God, the word in and of itself, is meaningless in objective reality.
Bill Hicks writes:
Heaven is in a cow's ass.
- Now that I can understand, and fully agree with!
If people aren't taking a negetive position, then there's no issue with the OP.
Right, but the OP claims atheist take a negative position, which I don't agree with.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 3:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 323 of 562 (526942)
09-29-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Are You?
I answered the "schwag" question in this post since we got Straggler involved.
CS writes:
Does schwag exist?
What have I assumed there?
Straggler writes:
It assumes that "schwag" has some meaning as a concept.
CS writes:
You don't know if schwag exists or not, do you? Why don't you want to claim that it doesn't?
And what assumption(s) have I made by asking?
The problem is that the "assumtion" is taken out of context. Your question, CS, doesn't really assume anything per se, but it does imply that you are referencing a particular "something."
The assumtion comes in when I answer you, "No I don't believe in your concept of schwag because you haven't defined it, and no one who has ever spoken of schwag before has either. Due to this ambiguity surrounding "schwag," I'm going to assume it's a made up concept. Not "schwag" itself (that could still exist) but that people know what it is."
Then, instead of defining what you mean so we can have honest dialogue, you simply say, "Ha! you are holding to a negative position on schwag."
To which I'll reply, "No, I just have no idea what you're talking about. No position, yet."
But of course it has meaning, and I think Oni knows what it is.
Err, I don't know in what context you mean. In my business "schwag" is what we call merchandise we sell after the shows (CD's, t-shirts, autographed pics... shit like that).
I hate to make a point here, lol, but what do you mean by "schwag"...?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2009 5:57 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