|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Inductive Atheism | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Can you explain what you mean by this - Xong writes:
quote: Can you explain how the "mistake" of attributing the cause of something to the supernatural falsifies the theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination?
X writes: REMEMBER: I agree basically with bluegenes. Oh please. Read your posts in this thread. It's a series of misapprehensions followed by bewilderingly misplaced 'Aha gotchas' that have done nothing but reveal the ever increasing depths of your ignorance about what is actually being said here.
X writes: REMEMBER: I think his was an imperfect presentation, subject to attack. I am trying to rally support in rephrasing it so it will stand up better than it has. Go on then. Rephrase it in what you think is a superior manner. At least this would demonstrate that you do now know what is being said.
X writes: It will be studied and the existing body of scientific thought would be extended to include these results, no? Except that those (such as your brother) who believe in these gods define them as being scientifically "unknowable". Are you saying that RAZ's god is actually just some advanced technology away from being discovered, investigated and explained in terms of mindless natural laws? Because that doesn't seem compatible with the concept of "god" any theist or deist I have ever heard advocate. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In this discussion, all I see is a lot of imagination floating around. A lot of if's. We can imagine all types of scenarios. At some point one has to look at the reality behind the concepts. And what do you believe the reality behind the concepts to be? Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That should be a clue that we don't buy it. We just accept that Christians believe in a thing called God and the thing that they call God has certain properties and if there was strong evidence of an entity that has those certain properties then there would evidence of the thing Christians (and other English speakers) call 'God'. So for you, an Atheist does not disbelieve in GOD/God/god/gods, but in the reality of anything that has been given the label 'GOD'/'God'/'god'/'gods'?
If a bunch of old men in robes described a stampede but I had never seen one and I said that stampedes were figments of the human imagination it seems reasonable to re-visit that theory if I am presented with something that has all the defining characteristics of a stampede. Of course; and if a bunch of old men in robes described the end of the world to me, but I thought no such thing to be, it would seem reasonable to re-visit that thinking if I were presented with something that had all the defining characteristics of the end of the world scenario described. On the other hand, if those same robed wranglers told us that there was an invisible cowboy driving the stampede forward, even seeing the stampede should not lead us to accept the existence of the invisible cowboy. The same applies for gods and supernatural end times. Thus, we needn't find ourselves accepting the existence of some God simply because he is claimed to be the driving force behind an Armageddon event that turned out to be real. Jon Edited by Jon, : tense... so tense Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon you now seem to be suggesting that the demonstrable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of Jesus isn't evidence in favour of the actual existence of the Christian concept of Jesus. But of course we're talking about God, not Jesus, whom we already addressed back in Message 199 & Message 200.
I will take on board any method of knowing which is demonstrably significantly superior to blind random chance in terms of yielding results. If they genuinely start describing and predicting reality with the same sort of accuracy and reliability that science currently does then I don't see how they could be ignored. This is unrelated to my reply, which was specifically about the robed-men's judgements regarding God.
Do you think that calling oneself an atheist is a declaration of certainty? How many times do you need to be corrected about this? Huh?
Do you know what the word "tentative" means? Have you actually read the OP of this thread at all? Here it is Message 1 LOL. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon do you accept that the demonstrable existence of an Armageddon, rapture inducing entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of Jesus Christ would constitute positive evidence in favour of the actual existence of the Christian concept of Jesus Christ?
Are you seriously now asking me what the Christian messianic concept of Jesus Christ (God the son) has to do with the Christian concept of God? A great deal — Is the very obvious answer. Do you disagree?
Jon writes: This is unrelated to my reply, which was specifically about the robed-men's judgements regarding God. As things stand their judgements and the basis upon which they are founded have demonstrated themselves to be wholly unreliable and essentially worthless as a method of knowing anything. If that changes I would recognise that change. That was my point. Such is the nature of evidence based inquiry and the tentative conclusions it necessarily results in.
Jon writes: LOL. The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific supernatural concept becomes known that source will turn out to be human imagination. This theory is not weakened by assertions that unevidenced sources might exist (anymore than evolutionary theory is weakened by Last Thursdayism) Which part of this do you disagree with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon do you accept that the demonstrable existence of an Armageddon, rapture inducing entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of Jesus Christ would constitute positive evidence in favour of the actual existence of the Christian concept of Jesus Christ? We already dealt with Jesus, Straggler. Go back and review the posts I linked you to; if you've still any questions about the matter, then ask them. But the questions you ask now have already been answered.
Are you seriously now asking me what the Christian messianic concept of Jesus Christ (God the son) has to do with the Christian concept of God? A great deal — Is the very obvious answer. Do you disagree? Whether it's related or not isn't even the topic, Straggy. The issue is whether sightings of the corpse-raisin' man are evidence enough that 'even the most ardent athest would eventually have to be considered somewhat churlish to sit there saying "I am sure that there is a perfectly good scientific material explanation for this"' and that after seeing this miracle-worker for themselves 'atheists should have the decency to admit they were wrong'. I can see nothing about Jesus or his dead-raising to support such drastic changes in attitude.
As things stand their judgements and the basis upon which they are founded have demonstrated themselves to be wholly unreliable and essentially worthless as a method of knowing anything. If that changes I would recognise that change. That was my point. Such is the nature of evidence based inquiry and the tentative conclusions it necessarily results in. Good; you'd do well to recognize such a change. However, the type of recognition you've so far described goes well beyond what is deserved.
The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific supernatural concept becomes known that source will turn out to be human imagination. This theory is not weakened by assertions that unevidenced sources might exist (anymore than evolutionary theory is weakened by Last Thursdayism) Which part of this do you disagree with? If you can show our discussion on Jesus and Armageddon to be related to the source of supernatural concepts, then I might consider addressing those points (again). Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Straggler writes: Can you explain what you mean by this - Xong writes:
quote: Can you explain how the "mistake" of attributing the cause of something to the supernatural falsifies the theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination? Sure. CS wrote this in Message 194:
When multiple people independently, and ignorantly, report the same thing, then they all couldn't have imagined it. So we can know that the source is not human imagination while not having enough information to scientifically know the source. See? He claims that the source is not human imagination. Did he say it was supernatural there? No, he did not. The original message from CS of the hotel story appeared here Message 174:
I haven't bothered to dig up any specifics yet, but there's an old hotel where people have ignorantly and independently witnessed a semi-transparent human male figure with old coat and civil war hat. The curator replies each time: "oh yeah, that's so-and-so. He died here when this hotel was used as a civil war hospital. He's been here ever sense. We have trouble keeping employees after they run into him." If the people aren't aware of the story beforehand, and they're reporting seeing the same thing, then it can't just be from their imagination.
If the specific god under consideration is empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind? It must have some empirical detectability in order to be witnessed. But that doesn't mean we're capable of obtaining enough information for a scientific investigation. So the source of this supernatural being isn't "known", but we know they both didn't coincidentally imagine the same thing on their own. We should have pounced all over this with gnashing teeth, but instead we let it slide. CS was saying he had an example of a supernatural concept that was not sourced from imagination, when he had no business concluding such a thing.
X writes: REMEMBER: I agree basically with bluegenes. Oh please. Read your posts in this thread. It's a series of misapprehensions followed by bewilderingly misplaced 'Aha gotchas' that have done nothing but reveal the ever increasing depths of your ignorance about what is actually being said here. I'm just trying to catch up with your own misapprehensions, premature conclusions, assumptions thereof leading to further statements about such mistaken comprehensions and the tendency thereof to use some derogatory adjectives. I have a long ways to go. I am still a young grasshopper in this sort of thing.
X writes: REMEMBER: I think his was an imperfect presentation, subject to attack. I am trying to rally support in rephrasing it so it will stand up better than it has. Go on then. Rephrase it in what you think is a superior manner. At least this would demonstrate that you do now know what is being said. Ah - the first time I did, it wasn't received very well at all. In Message 357 I said:
"The number of supernatural events that cannot be determined to be a figment of imagination is zero." I tried it again in Message 417. Later I asked if you could see the difference. You could not see it, but instead used your prejudice to characterize the 2 statements - the first in glowing terms of your hero, the second in disparaging tones of Ptolemaic Circuity, in Message 441:
X writes: Let me ask you, Straggler, do you see the difference between:.... The first is a well evidenced, high confidence yet tentative theory about human behaviour based on positive evidence in favour of the human ability and proclivity to create such concepts regardless of reality. The second is a confused sentence that conflates the idea of positive evidence regarding human behaviour with the stupid notion that this involves some form of evidential disproof regarding individual entities. You are the one who is confused with stupid notions. Please try again, if you wish. But I do not think I rephrased it properly yet. Until you also perceive the defect I will refrain from asking you - because you can rephrase things well - and I'll just wait while I go off and do other things.
X writes: It will be studied and the existing body of scientific thought would be extended to include these results, no? Except that those (such as your brother) who believe in these gods define them as being scientifically "unknowable". Are you saying that RAZ's god is actually just some advanced technology away from being discovered, investigated and explained in terms of mindless natural laws? Because that doesn't seem compatible with the concept of "god" any theist or deist I have ever heard advocate. Where in the world is RAZD's Deist God in this? I was referring to your god story about the 2nd coming of Christ! Look at you - speculating about about what I was talking about and thinking about!! Wow. Get a grip. Am I saying...??? What is the problem? "some advanced technology away" LOL. "mindless natural laws" - where are you getting this from? Straggler! Get a grip! Chase those prejudiced demons from your head! Clear you mind. Start over on this. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I explained the background to the word supernatural in my post. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
purpledawn writes: quote:I explained the background to the word supernatural in my post. Hey, can you at least give the link to this post for all of us dummies and fuckups? I mean it's one thing to disagree, but citing something you said a long time ago without pointing to it hurts your case. We all want everyone to present the best possible case they have. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: We should have pounced all over this with gnashing teeth, but instead we let it slide. Then why on Earth don’t you ‘pounce all over’ CS himself with your ‘gnashing teeth’ rather than rabidly dribble your confused thoughts regarding his flawed example all over me?
Straggler on bluegenes theory writes: Rephrase it in what you think is a superior manner. At least this would demonstrate that you do now know what is being said. X writes: Ah - the first time I did, it wasn't received very well at all. In Message 357 I said: "The number of supernatural events that cannot be determined to be a figment of imagination is zero." Thus demonstrating your complete ignorance of the inductive argument being made.
X writes: I tried it again in Message 417: "The amount of supernatural beings that can be shown NOT to be a figment of some intelligent life form's imagination is identically equal to ZERO". Later I asked if you could see the difference. Yes Xongsmith. I see the difference. But you quite clearly are still failing to see the role of INDUCTIVE reasoning in scientific theories. The tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination is based on inductive reasoning. Do you understand this?
Straggler writes: Except that those (such as your brother) who believe in these gods define them as being scientifically "unknowable". Are you saying that RAZ's god is actually just some advanced technology away from being discovered, investigated and explained in terms of mindless natural laws? Because that doesn't seem compatible with the concept of "god" any theist or deist I have ever heard advocate. X writes: Where in the world is RAZD's Deist God in this? I was referring to your god story about the 2nd coming of Christ! Whichever. If as you are suggesting these "divine" phenomenon can be incorporated into scientific understanding and be explained entirely in terms of purely (as yet undiscovered) natural laws then neither would meet the scientifically unknowable criteria that qualifies it as supernatural. A criteria which those who believe in such things generally insist the object of their beliefs possess. Or do you think those who believe in gods consider them able to be scientifically investigated and understood if we develop sufficiently advanced technology and understanding to do so? Sort of "Higgs Bosons" of the theistic/deistic world? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You don't think the Christian concept of Jesus is a supernatural concept?
The born of a virgin Christian messiah who is himself "son the God" creator of all that is seen and unseen, divine, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, raising the dead, inducing the biblically foretold end of times and raptuous ascent to heaven..........etc. etc. etc.
This isn't a supernatural concept as far as you are concerned? Dude - Which planet do you live on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Message 208
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So for you, an Atheist does not disbelieve in GOD/God/god/gods, but in the reality of anything that has been given the label 'GOD'/'God'/'god'/'gods'? No, that is not what I said and it can be easily shown so by me saying 1) I believe the highest seats in the theatre really do exist, and I believe I have even sat in them on occasion.2) I believe in the existence of certain obscure English rock bands from the 60s 3) I believe there is an Amiga based platform game from the early 90s. 4) I believe there are system administrators, chatroom moderators and IRC operators. 5) I believe there are fictional characters in books. What did I actually say? We just accept that Christians believe in a thing called God and the thing that they call God has certain properties and if there was strong evidence of an entity that has those certain properties then there would evidence of the thing Christians (and other English speakers) call 'God'. Try again.
On the other hand, if those same robed wranglers told us that there was an invisible cowboy driving the stampede forward, even seeing the stampede should not lead us to accept the existence of the invisible cowboy. The same applies for gods and supernatural end times. Thus, we needn't find ourselves accepting the existence of some God simply because he is claimed to be the driving force behind an Armageddon event that turned out to be real. That's nice, Jon, but God becomes empirically verifiable in the Christian end of the world. From Revelation 21
quote: Of course, it's also possible that all the atheists will have been defeated by the giant armour-plated scorpions and cast into the Abyss of fire before that happens...but that being the case I'd certainly accept the existence of Hell and giant armour-plated scorpions as well as Abaddon who is king or something like that. And angels too - there would be no shortage of empirically verifiable angels. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You don't think the Christian concept of Jesus is a supernatural concept? Perhaps if you could show where I said that or even implied as much... ... you still wouldn't have a case, because we're talking about Atheism; to go around pretending that Atheism is a denial of/lack of believe in the reality of any and all concepts potentially able to be labeled as 'supernatural' only shows how willing you are to twist the meaning of words to suit your purposesa characteristic of which most anyone who's debated with you is already well aware. I'm not going down that road again; it's too long and you delight too much in kicking up sand. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: You don't think the Christian concept of Jesus is a supernatural concept? Jon writes: Perhaps if you could show where I said that or even implied as much... So in terms of the OP the demonstrable existence of such a being would falsify the theory in question. That is the point here.
Jon writes: ... you still wouldn't have a case, because we're talking about Atheism Well only if you are going to somehow separate the Christian concept of Jesus Christ ('God the son')from the Christian concept of God ('God the father'). Is that what you are doing here? Because I was under the strong impression that the two are somewhat conceptually entwined
Jon writes: I'm not going down that road again; it's too long and you delight too much in kicking up sand. That's OK Jon because I know that you are just an algorithm in Percy's code designed to test may patience. That becomes clearer with every post you make. (**Straggler breathes deeply to maintain his Zen-like calm in the face of adversity**)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024