Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 316 of 479 (570128)
07-25-2010 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Phage0070
07-24-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Semantic Insanity or Dishonesty?
And still you do not understand, Phage0070,
No, your "personal cult of insanity" has prevented you from phrasing the reasonable position in a particular manner.
No, the agnostic position requires it be phrased that way. It is necessarily impartial.
I hope you understand this isn't contradictory to my statement that "you don't believe Bigfoot exists", right? It would be a shame if you still didn't understand agnosticism to the existence of something implied lack of belief in its existence.
Once again, I don't disbelieve that bigfoot exists: the agnostic position is not to take sides without evidence that substantiates it.
You cannot force agnosticism into your (atheistic) position no matter how hard you try.
Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false.
No, it means that you decided to disbelieve, that you have made a choice based on insufficient evidence, the kind of choice that you previously labeled "insane" ...
Message 224: No, the latter two are insanity if they are not accompanied by evidence.
Message 227:
RAZD writes:
Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence.
Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence.
The agnostic position does not decide to believe it is true OR false. It doesn't believe, it doesn't disbelieve, it is undecided.
Your position is not agnostic because you have chosen to disbelieve.
No, your "personal cult of insanity" ...
Curiously, using ad hominem and emotive labels like this does not advance your argument, nor does it address the issue/s.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Phage0070, posted 07-24-2010 12:20 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 7:07 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 320 by Phage0070, posted 07-25-2010 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 317 of 479 (570130)
07-25-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Straggler
07-25-2010 6:51 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
Yes. I am well aware of that. But that isn't what I asked is it? What do you consider to be the rational and logical conclusion? Everything you have said here indicates that you consider it rational and logical to believe that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable.
Is this correct? Or not?
Sheesh. Sure. I also said that I irrationally believe that GOD conclusively exists.
Straggler writes:
The endless debate with RAZD is concerned with whether or not it is rational to consider the existence of GOD/God/god as highly improbable. On this you seem to fundamentally disagree with RAZD. Despite claiming to agree with him.
Perhaps either I or you misunderstand RAZD. If he tells me I misunderstand him I'll have to re-evaluate what I believe he is saying.
I believe he is saying that it is irrational to reach a conclusion simply based on probability.
Straggler writes:
Yet again - What is the actual difference?
HUH? One is a personal preference, the other is not. Really that seems pretty clear.
Straggler writes:
Of course not. But if you cannot explain what the diefference is between unevidenced beliefs and personal preferences to anyone else on what basis do you conclude that there is a difference?
Beyond simply being unwilling to equate the two because you find that synonimity personally distasteful?
Personal belief. I honestly thought I told you that it was based on my personal belief that they are different.
I don't much care if you find them synonymous, I certainly don't find anything distasteful about the issue, it's simply a really minor point.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 6:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 7:19 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 318 of 479 (570131)
07-25-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by RAZD
07-25-2010 6:55 PM


Re: Semantic Insanity or Dishonesty?
On jar's advice I am going to ask you two direct questions:
jar writes:
Have you asked him about those specific questions? Message 259 (and see upthread from that)
1) Is your belief in your god irrational?
2) Is atheism towards your god irrational?
NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2010 6:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2010 10:54 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 319 of 479 (570132)
07-25-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by jar
07-25-2010 7:04 PM


Re: on GOD
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
What do you consider to be the rational and logical conclusion? Everything you have said here indicates that you consider it rational and logical to believe that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Is this correct? Or not?
Sheesh. Sure. I also said that I irrationally believe that GOD conclusively exists
And (just to be clear here) I am relatively uninterested in what you irrationally believe. That is your business. What I do want to know is what you consider it rational to believe. And why.
jar writes:
I believe he is saying that it is irrational to reach a conclusion simply based on probability.
Yet you agree that it is rational to conclude that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Huh?
jar writes:
One is a personal preference, the other is not. Really that seems pretty clear.
From where is it even possible to derive an unevidenced belief other than by means of personal preference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by jar, posted 07-25-2010 7:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by jar, posted 07-25-2010 7:33 PM Straggler has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 479 (570133)
07-25-2010 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by RAZD
07-25-2010 6:55 PM


Re: Semantic Insanity or Dishonesty?
RAZD writes:
No, the agnostic position requires it be phrased that way. It is necessarily impartial.
Would you agree that saying you don't believe gods exist is technically true considering your agnosticism, but that it does not fully state your position?
RAZD writes:
Once again, I don't disbelieve that bigfoot exists: the agnostic position is not to take sides without evidence that substantiates it.
Disbelief is not the same thing as lacking belief. There are in general three answers to the question of belief in Bigfoot's existence:
1) I believe Bigfoot exists.
2) I don't know/care/etc.
3) I believe Bigfoot does not exist.
Completely impartial agnosticism, your position, is number 2. Number 1 is belief in Bigfoot. "Not believing" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 1; that means 2 and 3, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.
Therefore, you don't believe Bigfoot exists. If you also take a completely impartial, agnostic view toward the existence of gods you are also not taking position number 1. Therefore, you lack belief in the existence of gods.
Your religious agnosticism is an atheistic position. Atheism is not the claim that gods don't exist, it is simply the lack of belief that gods exist. It is literally "not Theism", which understandably covers a wide range of beliefs, including completely impartial agnosticism.
RAZD writes:
Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false.
No, it means that you decided to disbelieve, that you have made a choice based on insufficient evidence, the kind of choice that you previously labeled "insane" ...
How do you know the decision is based on insufficient evidence? The lack of evidence to support the claim is, when considering the claim, sufficient evidence to dismiss the claim as unreliably representing the truth.
Disbelief of a claim that lacks evidence to back it up is not a decision made lacking evidence.
RAZD writes:
The agnostic position does not decide to believe it is true OR false. It doesn't believe, it doesn't disbelieve, it is undecided.
Exactly, it doesn't believe.
Are you a Theist RAZD? I don't see how you could be if you are completely impartial to the existence of gods.
If not, you lack theism. You are an atheist.
RAZD writes:
Your position is not agnostic because you have chosen to disbelieve.
I have chosen to disbelieve a claim, not the subject of the claim. As an atheist I am perfectly open to the possibility that gods exist, but I don't consider that the standard of evidence required to validate such a claim has been met.
Surely you are not suggesting I have absolutely no evidence regarding the claim itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2010 6:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 11:01 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 10:54 AM Phage0070 has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 321 of 479 (570134)
07-25-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Straggler
07-25-2010 7:19 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
And (just to be clear here) I am relatively uninterested in what you irrationally believe. That is your business. What I do want to know is what you consider it rational to believe. And why.
Well, beyond what I have already posted I'm not sure there is much more I can help you with. If there is some evidence then that evidence can be used to make a rational decision.
Straggler writes:
Yet you agree that it is rational to conclude that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Huh?
Yes.
Straggler writes:
From where is it even possible to derive an unevidenced belief other than by means of personal preference?
Huh?
I'm not sure I even understand the question. If one of my beliefs is not what I would prefer to believe I'm not sure how it can come from personal preference.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:08 PM jar has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 479 (570153)
07-25-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by jar
07-25-2010 5:51 PM


Re: on GOD
jar writes:
I don't see where my belief causes me any troubles,...
You don't see how holding irrational, illogical, unreasonable beliefs which affect your behavior and presumably distribution of your wealth would have a down side? ... Really?
Would you be interested in buying a bridge?
jar writes:
I do believe that I may, note only may, get a conclusive answer after I die so I don't see any reason to get rid of it.
If you think that you may get a conclusive answer after you die, why do you have a compelling reason to keep it?
For instance, lets assume you go to church for 2 hours every week for 50 years because of your belief. Thats about 217 days of your life gone; a life that only *may* continue later. If its all the same, that seems a fairly compelling reason to get rid of the belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by jar, posted 07-25-2010 5:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by jar, posted 07-26-2010 8:40 AM Phage0070 has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 323 of 479 (570203)
07-26-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Phage0070
07-25-2010 11:27 PM


Re: on GOD
Phage0070 writes:
jar writes:
I don't see where my belief causes me any troubles,...
You don't see how holding irrational, illogical, unreasonable beliefs which affect your behavior and presumably distribution of your wealth would have a down side? ... Really?
Would you be interested in buying a bridge?
You're new here aren't you.
I see no downside related to my belief in GOD or my belief in the Christian God.
Phage0070 writes:
jar writes:
I do believe that I may, note only may, get a conclusive answer after I die so I don't see any reason to get rid of it.
If you think that you may get a conclusive answer after you die, why do you have a compelling reason to keep it?
For instance, lets assume you go to church for 2 hours every week for 50 years because of your belief. Thats about 217 days of your life gone; a life that only *may* continue later. If its all the same, that seems a fairly compelling reason to get rid of the belief.
Well, your time estimates are way down. I would say a more reasonable figure might be many hours a day spent discussing, practicing and living my religion.
I get the feeling that you think I adopted or continue my religion in some hope that there is an afterlife. That's not correct. I do hope there is an afterlife but I would continue my life just as it is even if there was no such hope.
The continuation part is not even very important. As I said, I certainly can't have much of a clue about that while I'm still alive and only maybe, after I'm dead will I know if there is an afterlife.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Phage0070, posted 07-25-2010 11:27 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 324 of 479 (570446)
07-27-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by jar
07-25-2010 7:33 PM


Re: on GOD
jar on RAZD writes:
I believe he is saying that it is irrational to reach a conclusion simply based on probability.
Straggler writes:
Yet you agree that it is rational to conclude that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Huh?
jar writes:
Yes.
That the existence of god(s) should be rationally considered improbable is the conclusion of every atheist taking part in this thread. A conclusion that you seem to wholly agree with. But a conclusion that RAZD has spent many threads and a monumental amount of time and effort in vehemently disputing.
Yet you and RAZD claim to agree with each other. So something obviously doesn't add up here.
jar writes:
If one of my beliefs is not what I would prefer to believe I'm not sure how it can come from personal preference.
Someone may prefer not to find certain people sexually attractive but the fact that they do remains a personal preference does it not?
I am still struggling to find any difference between unevidenced belief and personal preference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by jar, posted 07-25-2010 7:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 1:14 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 325 of 479 (570448)
07-27-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Straggler
07-27-2010 1:08 PM


Re: on GOD
Okay. Well, it appears I am unable to help you understand. Sorry.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:36 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 326 of 479 (570452)
07-27-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by jar
07-27-2010 1:14 PM


Re: on GOD
So you continue to insist that you are in agreement with RAZD?
And that it is simply I who is incapable of seeing this agreement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 1:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 1:49 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 327 of 479 (570453)
07-27-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Straggler
07-27-2010 1:36 PM


Re: on GOD
Until RAZD can tell me I misunderstand his position, I guess the answer is "Kinda". I'm not sure you are the only one.
I understand that I have failed to explain my position to your satisfaction, but don't see much that I could add that will help.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:15 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 328 of 479 (570461)
07-27-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by jar
07-27-2010 1:49 PM


Re: on GOD
jar writes:
I understand that I have failed to explain my position to your satisfaction, but don't see much that I could add that will help.
I understand that:
You consider the rational position regarding the actual existence of any empirically un-evidenced entity to be that it is improbable.
You do not consider any GOD/God/gods to be evidenced.
Straggler writes:
But is denying the improbability of unevidenced conclusions rational or irrational?
jar writes:
Irrational.
RAZD writes:
Sorry, I just think that if you are convinced that it is "very improbable" that you would want to have something more substantial than using subjective thinking, made up probabilities, and confirmation bias to view the pros and cons, something objective and empirical.Message 157

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 1:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 2:30 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 329 of 479 (570468)
07-27-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Straggler
07-27-2010 2:15 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
You do not consider any GOD/God/gods to be evidenced.
No.
I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Based on that evidence someone can make a rational decision about whether such a critter is likely, unlikely, very likely, very unlikely. One can also make rational decisions about how they should react if it turns out such a critter did exist, no matter how improbable such existence might be.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:38 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 330 of 479 (570471)
07-27-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by jar
07-27-2010 2:30 PM


Re: on GOD
jar writes:
I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves.
How can any stories about any empirically imperceptible being(s) be anything but made-up? (Blind random chance aside.)
jar writes:
Based on that evidence someone can make a rational decision about whether such a critter is likely, unlikely, very likely, very unlikely.
Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely".
jar writes:
One can also make rational decisions about how they should react if it turns out such a critter did exist, no matter how improbable such existence might be.
We could spend an eternity working what we would do if all sorts of improbable occurrances were to take place.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 2:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 2:55 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024