Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

of course it is. what hitchy said (Message 48) that enables me to reach this conclusion was: pretty straight forward, imho: applying the same principle to any {A}. notice too that I said "discounted" not discredited. it needs to be questioned, and vigorously, like any unverified scientific concept. No, we don't have evidence. We have an observation that does not match the predicted behavior of large scale astronomic systems. Based on that observation the concept of dark matter was proposed as one way for that behavior to be explained. You cannot use the observation of an anomaly as evidence for a concept that explains the observation -- you need something else, and as yet that is totally lacking. Instead of evidence for the existence of dark matter though, what has occured is that this concept is itself insufficient to explain the behavior of large astronomical systems, and so now we have dark energy. And the really amazing thing is that between these two concepts they supposedly account for some 96% of the universe, without a single piece of independant evidence to back it up.one could say that it is the hand of god making the universe behave that way and have just as much evidence for it, and just as much logic for believing it to be true.I'm guessing that you put a (1) after both dark matter and dark energy ... that would be two on the list answered. Both wrong, not a good start.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

more to the point, why does he think deception is "a more suitable altrenate (sic) origin"isn't that begging the question?

welcome to the thread ook. I was wondering if any agnostics were about ...I fear that contracylces view of agnosticism is due to his {world view} and not open to reason, based on experience. it's as if he was standing with his fingers in his ears, eyes closed while singing loudly "there is no god, there is no god" (and secretly wishing he had ruby shoes to click together)one has to wonder what is so bad with saying "I don't know" eh?(So what exactly is your position?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

lol! would that be related to item (J) on the list (Message 28)of {A} examples for contracycle?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks, mike, but (just to quibble)
you can believe you know, but you cannot know that you know, know what I mean?and one of the definitions of faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"call it faith (just a hunch on my part eh?).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Although unlike Contra I don't consider this an indefensible position, I do consider the bit I bolded above to be erroneous. Simply put - and I'm no philosopher or logician - to me it is incumbent upon those making the positive claim (i.e., there exists some entity that for lack of a better term we humans deem "god") to provide evidence for that claim. I submit that after several thousand - and possible several tens of thousands, depending on how one interprets certain enigmatic "burial" practices and various artifacts and cave drawings - years with a total absence of evidence, inspite of the quite assiduous searching of believers of various stripes over that time frame, one would be quite justified in stating that said entity did not exist. Agnosticism appears to me to be tantamount to equivocation - without a single shred of evidence presented in all that time, claiming that the possibility should be acknowledged seems to be the weakest of the three statements (it exists, it doesn't exist, we don't know either way).Just my ten kopeks.

Hi Q,Thanks for the input. True, if you are going to act according to that claim then you are going to have to back it up with positive evidence. It's what makes agnosticism (at least my particular brand of it) more or less equivalent to atheism on a practical level. I'm as critical of things done in the name of an unproven God as the next faithless man. The difference between my position and an atheist's is (I suspect) that I would like to emphasise the quality of doubt.I have been wandering around declaring myself to be an agnostic for a while now, but a couple of years ago I read the transcripts from a series of lectures by Richard Feynman on "the impact of science on man's ideas in other fields" (In a book called the meaning of it all) and it seemed to crystalise my feelings on the subject. Here's a little bit that (I hope) sums up what I'm trying to say:

quote:

---

If we were not able to or did not desire to look in any new direction, if we did not have a doubt or recognise ignorance, we would not get any new ideas. There would be nothing worth checking, because we would know what is true. So what we call scientific knowledge today is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty. Some of them are most unsure; some of them are nearly sure; but none is absolutely certain.

---

Feynman then went on to explain how he thought this kind of approach can be useful in other aspects of life. While he classified himself as an atheist, I think that the best way to describe this approach is agnosticism.How sure that there is a God interferring in the lives of men?
Pretty darn sureHow sure am I that the bible isn't true?
I will take a lot of evidence to show me otherwiseCan I write off the possibility of some kind of God?
Don't know enough to call itSo I would argue that it is not tantamount to equivocation at all, merely an acknowledgment that everything has to stand up to the same scrutiny in relation to the evidence.Hope that hasn't confused the matter even more

Hello, Ah! Sorry - should have made that more obvious. I'm not exactly the most clear and concise at the best of times and at the momemt I've got a headful of cold - so bear with me.The reason I didn't completely agree with Huxley's description was that it seemed a bit too absolute in itself, bordering on solipsism, and that didn't leave much room for further investigation and discovery.I've tried to redefine my agnosticism in my reply Q, but I fear I might have muddied the waters even more - Ho hum.

quote:

---

So don't confuse this position with a blind acceptance of any doctrine that people can throw at me, and don't think I am some kind of wishy washy fence-sitter, who will declare that we can't make a judgement on anything. I do accept that there is a possibility of some kind of God, but people better back it up with evidence. Hope that makes sense.

---

Not IMO, no. Why do you accept the possibility there is some kind of god? Only because of unproven hearsay. Why should unproven hearsay be taken seriously enough to keep open the possibility of the existance of this persitantly undemonstrable thing? And, how do you distinguish between one thing reported by hearsay, and another?The problem with keeping all options open merely on principle is that this is a principle of a higher order than the application of logic. It is an affectation, a posture, not a logical analysis.

quote:

---

.... gentlemen and ladies, the prosecution rests. contracycle is an admitted fundamentalist atheist.

---

Tirsome nonsense. I have no fundemanetal creed to adhere to - your argument is still as stupid as when ut was first proposed.

quote:

---

they are not "my definitions" but the dictionary ones, and when you go to converse with other people, you will find that if you use the same definitions for words that they do, understanding will ensue. of course you are not obliged to being understood either.

---

Ha ha ha - thats an appeal to authority, I'm afraid. Who's to say mere dictionary compilers are sufficiently equipped to make such a statement? They are obliged to record words as they are used, not their connotations in specific contexts. I am NOT obliged to use your definitions or those of any notional authority; after all, you are insisting that the word says something other than its construction actually communicates: the absence of theism.

quote:

---

the language of logic applies to you as it does to everyone regardless of faith and belief. the language of people applies to you as it does to everyone regardless of faith and belief. language is what makes conversation possible, and the persistent use of different definitions for the same words means that communication does not occur.

---

Language also necessaarily carries connotations and implications. I will not be held to a bunch of superstitious nonsense, merely becuase you find it useful.

quote:

---

"belief" is not "the language of theism" but the distinction between what is known and what is felt to be true without evidence

---

Exactly so. That is why the cautious and reasonable conclusion that there is no god is entirely reasonable as an inference, and not a belief. It is qualitatively distinct from a belief without evidence: every single claim to the existance of god has been undemonstrable. There is no need to take the CLAIM seriously, it is only a claim, by human beings. you can claim the moon is made of green cheese too, if you want.

quote:

---

likewise the basis of the term "fundamentalism" is not created by theists:

---

This is a purely opportunist and dishinest argument. Of course the word "fundamental" exists, just as the word "community" exists. However, "fundamentalist" is a specific and local construction, by theists, just as "communist" is a specific and local construction by a particular group.And what fundamentalIST conveys, entirely in accordance with the rules of construction, is a person how adheres to a basic, or original, coda or praxis. Seeing as I have no original p-raxis, have not code, I cannot be a fundamentalist. That point is done with; give it up.

quote:

---

this too, is not a term that comes from theism but from popular description of the rigid principles and the intolerance of other views -- rarely words people choose to describe themselves eh?

---

Of course. But then, this is, as you point out, a dictionary definition, and thus reflects popular usage. The fact that "fubndamentalist" has aquired a patina of intolerance and rigidity is not inherent to the term: it arises as a result of fundamentalist theistic praxis. It is undoubtedly the case that fundamentalists consider their position as right and true and just, and that they are superior ro non-fundamentalists in their commitment and zeal.This is apprent every time you see christians fight over whose bible is right, whether or not other groups are christians etc. The Fundamentalist label is an appeal to a knowledge of an essential truth which superficial organs miss.

quote:

---

the plain fact is that some (not all) atheists exhibit a rigid adherence to the tenet that there is no god and an intolerance of other views, that they in fact exhibit all the basic behavior forms usually attributed to fundamentalist theists.

---

And yet, there remains NO SUCH TENET. And there can be no such tenet, because there is no movement. And the behaviour is NOT like those of fundamentalist theists, becuaze it is NOT a belief absent of evidence: there is a great deal of evidence that all claims to the existance of god are baseless. that is sufficient for inferring the non-existance of god: all known phenomenon are suitably accounted for. There is no gap for god to fill.

quote:

---

ROFLOL! you were the one left with no position and unable to post any explanation for your position or a single refutation of the evidence for sexual selection.

---

Umm no, you were left bandying jargon about in lieu of an actual argument. And when pressed, it turned out you did not have an argument, only the reflex of believing your own assumptions.

quote:

---

your claim that it "contained no data" is just exactly the rejection of the {concept} contradicting the {world view} I was talking about, in spite of the fact that all the evidence pointed towards sexual selection and away from your running sweating model.

---

Except it did not; the actual EVIDENCE supported my model substantially. Your statement still contains no data, and is merely an appeal to alleged authority and expertise - but if you had such expertise, you could easily have supported your argument. The fact remains that you ASSUMED sexual selection out of ignorance; and that is precisely why the statement contains no data.

quote:

---

this is off topic here, and I will be happy to take it up again elsewhere: my only point in bringing it up was to show your position for what it was -- belief, unfounded on evidence ... or logic. you should be embarassed to make this claim knowing that it has no relation to the truth that anyone can see by reading the posts.

---

Except you are of course 100% wrong; I supported my argument with evidence, and you kept spinning about your BELIEF, sans evidence, that it "must" be sexual selection for no good reason you could argue.And you think you are showing ME up? I suggest you keep your mouth shut, as it present opening it only results in the changing of your feet.

quote:

---

No, we don't have evidence. We have an observation that does not match the predicted behavior of large scale astronomic systems. Based on that observation the concept of dark matter was proposed as one way for that behavior to be explained. You cannot use the observation of an anomaly as evidence for a concept that explains the observation -- you need something else, and as yet that is totally lacking. Instead of evidence for the existence of dark matter though, what has occured is that this concept is itself insufficient to explain the behavior of large astronomical systems, and so now we have dark energy. And the really amazing thing is that between these two concepts they supposedly account for some 96% of the universe, without a single piece of independant evidence to back it up.

---

All you have achieved is to explain why, after all, we do have evidence; and you are dishonestly failing to discuss the TENTATIVITY of these arguments.You are quite correct to say that dark matter is an inference based on the failure of other models. Thats quite reasonable, as is giving a proposed solution to the paradox a short-hand name. Dark matter is an entirely negative conclusion. But we DO have evidence foe SOMETHING, even if we do not kniw much about it. And the very name that it was given communicates what we do know about the limits: its matter, becuase it interacts with other matter gravitationally, and it is dark becuase it interacts ONLY gravitationally. Thus, this term conveys what we know and no more.Further, these conclusions are tentative, not claims to absolute fact. Sure, you may find people who are very confident of the existance of dark matter, but this only means that they are confident there is "something out there". And the very vagueness of the term also indicates how poor the relevant science is; how tentative the argument is, and how likely it is to be supplanted by further research, or at least clarified. The existance of dark matter is still not an article of faith.The situation with god is entirely different. There is NO evidence for the existance of god, not even the negative evidence we use to infer dark matter. In fact, adding god to a problem never makes it more sensible, while adding dark matter to certain problems does make them more sensible. These are entirely different cases; and the reaction to them is also entirely different. I've never heard a scientist make a hard statement about the nature of dark matter, but theists continually make hard - and contradictory - statements about the nature of god.Once again the thrust of my argument is plain to see: in order for the theist, or in this case the alleged "agnostic", to construct the intellectually dishonest argument that all thought is belief, all opinions are faith, all notions are dogma, they must misrepresent the methodology that science uses to gain knowledge, and impugn the intellect of those who pursue this path. All theists are trying to do is drag everyone down to their illogical level in which there is no science, only competing claims of hearsay.science rtemains the superior methodology. Theism remians a dishonest claim to things that cannot be known. Agnosticism remains the romantic or simply stupid apprehension that all claims are of equal merit merely becuase they are advanced. Agnosticism is not a logical position.

I think the way I've described my position is what might be causing the confusion here. I've justified it both as a way of describing the process of analysing the world (tentativeness) and as a conclusion I have come to via that process. Clear as mud I'm sure Let me try again.Starting with the tentativeness thing:Scientific theories are all held tenatively, yes? From evolution to the theory of relativity, they all have the invisible disclaimer "unless new evidence says otherwise". They all have to take every explanation into account in relation to the evidence.After consideration not all proposals are said to be of equal merit, and some would require ridiculous amounts of evidence to seriously think about, but no possibility should ever be totally discarded. This is not posture, or reliance on hearsay, it's a logical way of looking at things and it is an effective safegurd against dogma.The other part of my definition is based on this method of analysis, and I think is probably the clearer idea of the two (even if many people disagree with it):I don't think I know enough to declare confidently that there is no God(s). However, as there is no evidence of one I'm going act on things I can observe.Is that better?

razd, I said that his opinion is unwarranted, not refuted. It's unwarranted, unnecessary, extraneous. Same as UFOs.

Yah, okay fair enough. I concede I believe I know. But if I didn't care about my own faith then I'd be agnostic or Pantheist, as logically I feel I could not attend any other position.

Thanks Oook,Actually, it does sound that functionally at least we are on the same page. However (don't you hate it when someone says that? ) I'm sorry to quibble here, but how does this statement stand up in relation to the preceeding one you make: It may be simply a matter of what I call "confidence level". It's a question of functionality. If after 40,000 years or so no evidence for something has been produced in spite of literally billions of humans looking for it, it seems somehow perverse not to assume that another 40,000 years won't produce any either. Therefore, I feel that I can say "it doesn't exist" with a very high degree of confidence (about the same level as when I assume the sun WILL rise tomorrow - even though there's a remote possibility it won't. Or for that matter assuming my car will not have translated from the garage into the street through a quantum tunnel overnight - it's possible, but the odds are so small as to defy rational calculation.) Is it an assumption? Yes. But one I make without much fear of contradiction. IOW, I don't see that there IS any doubt - at least to the limits of anything meaningful.Quetzal, "Defender of Atheism"