Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 136 of 165 (617750)
05-31-2011 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by anglagard
05-31-2011 2:21 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
anglagard writes:
The term proof to me is either a very tight term or a very loose term depending upon which field the term is used, which is why it can become confused in the popular parlance. The term proof in legal terms is not the same as the term proof in mathematical terms. In mathematics, proofs depend upon postulates. In law, well, postulates are usually referred to as prejudicial.
But we are talking about claims of existance... not claims of guilt or math equations.
Claims of non-existance are completely pointless and I would argue that it is very dishonest to ask for "evidence" for claims of non-existance.
Claims of existance need to be substantiated with evidence. Claims of non-existance can't be substantiated with evidence.
You can't "prove" that unicorns aren't real, but you CAN prove that they are by finding one.
anglagard writes:
My argument is that there is neither a proof for or against any assumed deity in any assumed reality. Perhaps not politically correct, but honest.
Not honest at all imo, as argued above.
I would even say that there is MUCH evidence against the claim of existance of god(s), through the absolute absurdity of the mythology that comes with the claims.
In the end... remove the mythology parts which can be proven incorrect and the parts for which no evidence exists and not much of it is left...
anglagard writes:
And this little story is supposed to impress me more than any previous 'proof of God' coming from Pascal, Aquinas, Bacon, or the ancient Greeks? Have you indeed come up with a simile that 'proves' all religion wrong?
No. It demonstrates that you can intellectually ignore baseless bullshit claims of existance without evidence to back it up, Einstein.
I'll be clearer then, since your IQ of 145 seems not enough to apply the lesson to your own quote.
The deal is:
1. The rock exists
2. The rock does not exist
It's "indeterminate", but yet... you don't slam your breaks. You don't even change lanes. So for some reason, you seem to go for option 2 anyway - eventhough it's "indeterminate".
How is the god claim any different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 05-31-2011 2:21 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by anglagard, posted 06-04-2011 1:22 PM ScientificBob has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 165 (617773)
05-31-2011 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by ScientificBob
05-30-2011 9:24 AM


definition
Then you can not say that you DO believe.
And if you can not say that you DO believe... guess what... then you are an atheist.
Nah, I don't accept that definition, why should I?
The word is supposed to mean that you believe that god doesn't exist.
It seems like its being diluted to reduce irrationality and be more inclusive. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ScientificBob, posted 05-30-2011 9:24 AM ScientificBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 139 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2011 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 153 by ScientificBob, posted 06-16-2011 8:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 165 (618267)
06-02-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 9:43 AM


Bare Basics
Let's cut to the chase here:
I believe that any concept of god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced position.
Which part of this do you disagree with exactly? Which part of this do you consider "irrational"...? And on what basis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Phat, posted 06-02-2011 10:23 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 139 of 165 (618277)
06-02-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 9:43 AM


Re: definition
It seems like its being diluted to reduce irrationality and be more inclusive. Why?
Because whenever a person would say 'I don't believe that god exists' they were called 'atheist' by theists. So those people that theists called 'atheists' decided to adopt the title. Unfortunately the same people that called those that didn't believe 'atheists', also held an internal equivocation that atheists believed that god does not exist.
Take a look at Dawkins, is he an atheist? He holds that evidence is required to increase the probability of something being true, that there is no evidence of gods, and that therefore god is a likely to be true as any other unevidenced claim...which is not very.
What do you call someone that doesn't believe in god/s? If you have a better word, then you can try introducing it into usage. But in a world of people that do believe in gods are called 'theist', 'atheist' seems like a natural enough word for those that don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 140 of 165 (618369)
06-02-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
05-24-2011 7:02 PM


Re: I dare ANYONE to prove I'm Wrong
crashfrog writes:
What's so great about making it easier for people to fool you? What's so great about making it more likely that you'll make a decision based on poor evidence?
Please, I'm seriously dying to know. What are the advantages of believing things on the basis of poor evidence or no evidence at all?
Speed and possibly surprise?
You can certainly make a decision faster if you don't wait for all (or more...) evidence.
And, sometimes, it can be fun to make a decision just to see what will happen instead of for-seriousness.
Of course, for any decently important decision, I totally agree with you. And also agree with your WTF-ness on shying away from being a responsible adult.
And now, back to my cave!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2011 7:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 141 of 165 (618371)
06-02-2011 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
06-02-2011 2:29 PM


Re: Bare Basics
I for one had what I believed to be a spiritual experience. I cant prove it, thus I could as likely label it as unknown, but my trusty brain and mind, which had behaved in predictable ways for 32 years prior interpreted the experience in an entirely new and unique way. Human imagination? Maybe...but I wouldn't give it such a high probability, personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 2:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2011 8:03 AM Phat has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 142 of 165 (618395)
06-03-2011 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Phat
06-02-2011 10:23 PM


Re: Bare Basics
Phat writes:
I for one had what I believed to be a spiritual experience.
I don't dispute for a moment that you had a subjective experience. But what, other than belief, causes you to think that it was caused by anything "spiritual"....?
Phat writes:
Human imagination? Maybe...but I wouldn't give it such a high probability, personally.
But it is you who is citing a "spiritual" cause for this experience as more probable than any of the other conceivable causes. I on the other hand consider all evidentially baseless causes as improbable.
I mean - seriously - If someone had the same experience as you and they chose to attribute it to fluctuations in the matrix rather than something "spiritual" would they have any more or less cause for their belief than you do for yours?
I believe that any concept of the-matrix/god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced position.
Which part of this do you disagree with exactly? Which part of this do you consider "irrational"...? And on what basis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Phat, posted 06-02-2011 10:23 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Panda, posted 06-03-2011 8:38 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 143 of 165 (618400)
06-03-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Straggler
06-03-2011 8:03 AM


Re: Bare Basics
Straggler writes:
But it is you who is citing a "spiritual" cause for this experience as more probable than any of the other conceivable causes.
What was that bright light?!
I don't know.
Do you think it was caused by a spotlight?
No.
Do you think it was caused by an aircraft?
Definitely not.
Do you think it was caused by aliens?
Possibly...
Do you think it was caused by fluctuations in the Matrix?
Hmmm...maybe.
Do you think it was caused by a god?
Yes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2011 8:03 AM Straggler has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 144 of 165 (618638)
06-04-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ScientificBob
05-31-2011 5:37 AM


Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
No. It demonstrates that you can intellectually ignore baseless bullshit claims of existance without evidence to back it up, Einstein.
I'll be clearer then, since your IQ of 145 seems not enough to apply the lesson to your own quote.
The deal is:
1. The rock exists
2. The rock does not exist
It's "indeterminate", but yet... you don't slam your breaks. You don't even change lanes. So for some reason, you seem to go for option 2 anyway - eventhough it's "indeterminate".
I made two points:
1. The term 'agnostic' is a perfectly good English word used in order to describe the condition of not knowing enough to give a definite opinion either way in regard to the existence or non-existence of any purported deities.
2. Such purported deities existence or non-existence can not be proven.
Jon made one point:
Atheists can become irrational once they become too militant (summarized).
Which point would you or anyone else like to rationally address, that is, other than the one you have already emoted?

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ScientificBob, posted 05-31-2011 5:37 AM ScientificBob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2011 5:49 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 12:53 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 145 of 165 (618641)
06-04-2011 1:43 PM


Of Windmills and Irish Babies
The OP is like a windmill.
So what is your personality type? Don Quixote or Sancho Panza?

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 165 (618717)
06-05-2011 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by anglagard
06-04-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
anglagard writes:
1. The term 'agnostic' is a perfectly good English word used in order to describe the condition of not knowing enough to give a definite opinion either way in regard to the existence or non-existence of any purported deities.
2. Such purported deities existence or non-existence can not be proven.
If lack of proof, and thus lack of certainty, is all that is required for "agnosticism" then I am agnostic about pretty much everything. Including your existence and (depending just how philosophically pedantic one wants to get) maybe even my own existence as well. But I don't think such an all encompassing use of terminology is very helpful outside of pedantic philosophical circles.
anglagard writes:
The term 'agnostic' is a perfectly good English word used in order to describe the condition of not knowing enough to give a definite opinion either way in regard to the existence or non-existence of any purported deities.
What we can say is A) That there is absolutely no remotely reliable evidence that such things do actually exist. B) That there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that humans are intensely prone to inventing such things for reasons unrelated to their actual existence.
On this basis I believe that any concept of god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced and high confidence albeit tentative position.
anglagard writes:
Which point would you or anyone else like to rationally address, that is, other than the one you have already emoted?
If you want to pursue this it may be better placed here Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by anglagard, posted 06-04-2011 1:22 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by anglagard, posted 06-13-2011 6:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 147 of 165 (618751)
06-06-2011 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by anglagard
06-04-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
1. The term 'agnostic' is a perfectly good English word used in order to describe the condition of not knowing enough to give a definite opinion either way in regard to the existence or non-existence of any purported deities.
2. Such purported deities existence or non-existence can not be proven.
So if we hold that there is a galactic deity in the image of a jovian planet made entirely of Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese (with chives) and she made and controls all life in this galaxy while her sister Cream Cheese planets do so in other galaxies and each millennium they all get together to play croquet in the eighth dimension then you think we should be agnostic toward this deity?
When do we call totally un-evidenced speculations "bullshit"? Are we meant to give due credence to every whim that pops into every human mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by anglagard, posted 06-04-2011 1:22 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Jon, posted 06-06-2011 1:32 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 165 (618755)
06-06-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by AZPaul3
06-06-2011 12:53 AM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
So if we hold that there is a galactic deity in the image of a jovian planet made entirely of Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese (with chives) and she made and controls all life in this galaxy while her sister Cream Cheese planets do so in other galaxies and each millennium they all get together to play croquet in the eighth dimension then you think we should be agnostic toward this deity?
Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. If we have no knowledge of such a deity, then why should we not be agnostic on the matter?
Are we meant to give due credence to every whim that pops into every human mind?
Of course not, and that's not what agnosticism is about.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 12:53 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 2:00 AM Jon has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 149 of 165 (618757)
06-06-2011 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jon
06-06-2011 1:32 AM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. If we have no knowledge of such a deity, then why should we not be agnostic on the matter?
If we have no knowledge of such a thing then why entertain any notion of efficacy? There is nothing to be agnostic about if the matter has no reason to exist.
Are we meant to give due credence to every whim that pops into every human mind?
Of course not, and that's not what agnosticism is about.
I'm confused. A whim pops into my head (Cream Cheese Deity) and I relay its image to you. You have no knowledge of this thing on your own so your very question is "why should we not be agnostic on the matter?"
Is this not giving due credence to my whim and by extension then to every whim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jon, posted 06-06-2011 1:32 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jon, posted 06-13-2011 8:24 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 150 of 165 (620014)
06-13-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
06-05-2011 5:49 PM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
Straggler writes:
If lack of proof, and thus lack of certainty, is all that is required for "agnosticism" then I am agnostic about pretty much everything. Including your existence and (depending just how philosophically pedantic one wants to get) maybe even my own existence as well. But I don't think such an all encompassing use of terminology is very helpful outside of pedantic philosophical circles.
Well, you could always think therefore you are.
Actually, your comment is my point. Evidence is not proof.
That is one reason why I consider this entire line of discussion, as well as the concept of evangelical atheism, ironic to the first degree.
What we can say is A) That there is absolutely no remotely reliable evidence that such things do actually exist. B) That there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that humans are intensely prone to inventing such things for reasons unrelated to their actual existence.
On this basis I believe that any concept of god is far more likely to be a figment of human imagination than to actually exist. I consider this a positively evidenced and high confidence albeit tentative position.
Yes, according to realism and pragmatism, these are the best arguments for atheism. Are realism and pragmatism proven? Is science a subset of philosophy?
And is it not a supreme irony that Dawkins gives Pantheism, Taoism, Deism, and Unitarianism a free pass in chapter 1 of the God Delusion, yet argues against the self-definition of Agnosticism in chapter 2?
Arguing against individuals being allowed to self-describe their belief system seems a bit authoritarian to me. If using the term agnostic means atheist-lite, then just reset the Google translator in your brain, don't pretend to become the dictator of the English language. (not meant for you in particular, but rather a more universal disagreement with Dawkins and his followers, in this case).
Pardon me for not including Russell in this discussion as a forefather, but he is the dude who thought all reality could be reduced to logical constructions - that is, until Wittgenstein.
If you want to pursue this it may be better placed here Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?
Yeah, you're right (assuming the postulates of realism and pragmatism).

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2011 5:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 06-16-2011 2:33 PM anglagard 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