Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chaoticag]

Sadly though, there have been fanatical scientists. (I'm looking at you Sigmund Freud).

I digress though.

Yes, science is self correcting. When a scientist tells another scientist "I think you're wrong, and this is why" the other scientist is more likely to say "I think you're right" versus if the same thing happened in religion or politics.

[Kebooo]

As for which ones to accept as being reasonably likely to be true or close to the truth: I say it's about playing the odds. For example, the odds of a plane crashing into my house are ridiculously low, so I don't let it trouble me. Also, the more useful information we have, the more accurately we can predict the odds.

But here's what the counter-argument could be: you can't measure the odds of a divine power.

My response would be: if nothing is absolute truth, then we can dispute the idea odds are accurate, real, or that probabilities are what we believe them to be at any given moment.  Yet we still, with good reason, generally follow and believe in them.  Can you measure the odds that I am the great evil mind?  There's no scientific literature or statistics on the probability of the great evil mind taking over the bay12games forum, but no one's going to believe it just because it's possible.  Intuition, reason, etc, will be used by both theists and atheists to discredit my great evil takeover.  We'll determine our own "odds" without any actual evidence either way.  But many of these same theists won't apply the same thinking to the idea of a divine creator.

[TheDarkJay]

Sorry, I only half-explained/answered/stated. Well you mentioned mind control at some point, so far all evidence points away from that being possible or is that just what they want you to think?....soooyeah.

The human brain does appear pre-programmed to operate on 'metaphors', relating everything to something else, which is useful (a chair is not a table is not a stool but a stool is a chair, and whilst all have four legs which aren't the legs we walk with and you get the idea). So when a similar situation to one we've encountered before appears, we pull from those metaphors to gauge how to react. It's not a good system really. Then again, what else would you expect from a world without a creator? ^.~

Logical arguments have to be used in the absence of evidence, and whilst they are inherently more flawed and open to flaws, they should at least permit themselves to be discredited by evidence. I've never heard a good logical argument for the existence of a god.
Besides, if god made humanity, why the hell do we still bite the inside of our cheeks sometimes? -,,,-

Then again I've always had trouble with certain abstract concepts so I'm probably not the best person to go for with theology.

[Kebooo]

Sorry, I only half-explained/answered/stated. Well you mentioned mind control at some point, so far all evidence points away from that being possible or is that just what they want you to think?....soooyeah.

The human brain does appear pre-programmed to operate on 'metaphors', relating everything to something else, which is useful (a chair is not a table is not a stool but a stool is a chair, and whilst all have four legs which aren't the legs we walk with and you get the idea). So when a similar situation to one we've encountered before appears, we pull from those metaphors to gauge how to react. It's not a good system really. Then again, what else would you expect from a world without a creator? ^.~

Logical arguments have to be used in the absence of evidence, and whilst they are inherently more flawed and open to flaws, they should at least permit themselves to be discredited by evidence. I've never heard a good logical argument for the existence of a god.
Besides, if god made humanity, why the hell do we still bite the inside of our cheeks sometimes? -,,,-

Then again I've always had trouble with certain abstract concepts so I'm probably not the best person to go for with theology.

I didn't mean literal mind control.  I meant that I am, through various resources of mine, responsible for every post on this forum besides yours.  Or, to the other guy reading this post, maybe I'm actually responsible for yours as well.  You saying I'm not could simply be how I wrote the script, or the other guy saying he's not.  I have had each discussion planned out well in advance and posted by programs.  All I have to really react to is your posts.  Do you have conclusive evidence, right now, to disprove it?  Or maybe not every member, just all the members that have posted in this topic but you.  Do you have concrete evidence I'm not ten people in the same room, deliberating on each post of mine?  You could say most forum users don't post as ten people.  Well, how do you know that, is there a study or data on it you've read that has proven most forum users don't post as ten people?  Have you watched the majority of forum posters you've come in contact with make their posts?  Or are you using reason and intuition, thinking "well, why should I believe that"?  My point is that most people will believe something with or without direct evidence, based on what seems reasonable to them.  No one here is going to believe I'm ten people, despite the fact they have probably never seen any scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, or any statistical probability to suggest anything else.  It simply becomes a "why?" question, it just doesn't make sense that in reality I'm ten people or posting as all these other people on the forum. 

That leads me to my main question is: why is a divine creator the default position theists find reasonable?  And why do some agnostics weigh the two sides equally, when they usually don't weigh all other possibilities equally in their everyday life?

[TheDarkJay]

Hence the logical argument: The amount of technical skill required there, the complexity of the task for no real pay-off, the lack of a clear reason for the task, and that even if it's true it doesn't affect or inconvenience me at all. After all, I'm not big on online-real-life meet-ups ^.^ Therefore I can safely act under the assumption you are all real people of some description

As for agnosticism as you describe it: I like the "fairies in the garden" argument ^.^

Besides, really everyone at least doesn't believe in the existence of one god ;P Hence I have several terms. I tend to like these ones the most:
Moron Atheist: Believes no gods exist. I say moron because actively believing in the absence, simply just not believing, strikes me as stupid.
Agnostic Atheist: Does not believe in a god. Lack of a belief can change due to evidence etc. (all that science malarkey) but until then, no belief.
Theistic Atheist (Oxymorons ftw!!): Personally believes in a god, but is willing to accept the possibility they are wrong, and if presented with evidence would change said opinion.
Theistic Fundamentalist: They *ahem* know *end ahem* are right and their god(s) is(are) the 'correct ones', and no amount of evidence, logic, or divine intervention from one of the gods they believe does not exist stands a reasonable chance of changing their mind.
Moron Atheistic Fundamentalist: Basically the opposite and equal to Theistic Fundamentalist ^,^ Moron Atheist turned up to eleven.

[Bauglir]

And why do some agnostics weigh the two sides equally, when they usually don't weigh all other possibilities equally in their everyday life?

Well, for that, I'd have to say that few do. If they did, they'd probably pay more attention to Pascal's Wager (leaving out the bit where there's umpteen million different religions it applies to). But at least for me, it comes down to a statement of "I have no statement on the matter, because I'm not qualified to." I (at least try to) argue against people trying to use evidence in an argument where evidence, by definition, has no meaning (if God exists, he planted the evidence either to show he exists or to test our faith. If God does not exist, then any evidence is a coincidence made inevitable by large numbers).

[Kebooo]

Moron Atheist: Believes no gods exist. I say moron because actively believing in the absence, simply just not believing, strikes me as stupid.

This is precisely what I am arguing is untrue.  Not believing and "actively" believing in the absence are both the same thing.  Disbelief simply entails you believe it is untrue.  It can only be true or false.  Believing means you believe it is true, disbelieving means you believe it is false.  Taking the middle ground means you believe neither.  I believe you are one person, I feel certain of it.  Is it moronic for me to believe that?  After all, it is possible that you are more than one person.  Does that mean we must take the agnostic position on all things in life, never to believe or disbelieve anything?

Do you not believe I am a billionaire?  What is your evidence that I am not one?  Perhaps this is what I do for fun.  Will you simply avoid attributing belief or disbelief to my claim?  Then what are you on such a claim, agnostic, taking neither belief or disbelief as your position? Is it safe to assume you take such a position on all things, because reality itself can be doubted?  Both sides seem to agree we cannot prove absolute truth, so how can we believe in anything?  Perhaps today you woke up, all your reality, all your memory was created, you only believe you existed before today.  What is the proof against this?  Think Blade Runner.  Yet you probably disbelieve that you were simply created today.  You probably don't believe you'll die today.  Is that any less active disbelief than the so-called moronic atheist?

I am trying to refute the notion all of our belief is based in objective odds that some scientist has come up with that is universally true.  You say it's unlikely I'm many people because of the resources involved.  It would take less resources to do this, and it would ultimately prove a useful point, than are used to build stadiums and have tens of thousands of people sit in a circle watching athletes throw a ball around in competition.  Yet look at the popularity of such a resource consuming endeavor for no other point but entertainment, the billions of dollars poured into it.  Can you claim to know the motivation of every man and what he will do with the resources?  By your own logic, it would be moronic to disbelieve it, no?

[Kebooo]

meant to edit previous post

[Bauglir]

Moron Atheist: Believes no gods exist. I say moron because actively believing in the absence, simply just not believing, strikes me as stupid.

This is precisely what I am arguing is untrue.  Not believing and "actively" believing in the absence are both the same thing.  Disbelief simply entails you believe it is untrue.  It can only be true or false.  Believing means you believe it is true, disbelieving means you believe it is false.  Taking the middle ground means you believe neither.  I believe you are one person, I feel certain of it.  Is it moronic for me to believe that?  After all, it is possible that you are more than one person.  Does that mean we must take the agnostic position on all things in life, never to believe or disbelieve anything?

Do you not believe I am a billionaire?  What is your evidence that I am not one?  Perhaps this is what I do for fun.  Will you simply avoid attributing belief or disbelief to my claim?  Then what are you on such a claim, agnostic, taking neither belief or disbelief as your position? Is it safe to assume you take such a position on all things, because reality itself can be doubted?  Both sides seem to agree we cannot prove absolute truth, so how can we believe in anything?  Perhaps today you woke up, all your reality, all your memory was created, you only believe you existed before today.  What is the proof against this?  Think Blade Runner.  Yet you probably disbelieve that you were simply created today.  You probably don't believe you'll die today.  Is that any less active disbelief than the so-called moronic atheist?

I am trying to refute the notion all of our belief is based in objective odds that some scientist has come up with that is universally true.  You say it's unlikely I'm many people because of the resources involved.  It would take less resources to do this, and it would ultimately prove a useful point, than are used to build stadiums and have tens of thousands of people sit in a circle watching athletes throw a ball around in competition.  Yet look at the popularity of such a resource consuming endeavor for no other point but entertainment, the billions of dollars poured into it.  Can you claim to know the motivation of every man and what he will do with the resources?  By your own logic, it would be moronic to disbelieve it, no?

I'm not really sure how much more basic it can be made than the difference between "I do not believe there is a God" and "I do believe there is not a God". There's a fundamental difference between asserting something and failing to assert something else. It's not actually binary.

Now, it is my opinion that you are almost certainly not a billionaire, etc. However, I won't assert as fact that you are not, because I don't know that.

[Kebooo]

I'm not really sure how much more basic it can be made than the difference between "I do not believe there is a God" and "I do believe there is not a God". There's a fundamental difference between asserting something and failing to assert something else. It's not actually binary.

I fully grasp the difference.

"I do not believe there is a god", can mean one of two things.  It does not imply the agnostic position, because the "moron" atheist can say this line and it would be true as well.

There is no reason to say "I do not believe there is a god" without giving it the context of "I do not believe or disbelieve in a god", that would be the more proper way to express the opinion and make a person's position far clearer with just a couple more words, saving pages of debate.  This is hardly relevant to my point, though.

I would say the position that should be argued against is "I believe god has been proven false", not "I disbelieve in god".  Why?  Well, the average person proves my point for me, all but the complete deniers of reality itself.

Now, it is my opinion that you are almost certainly not a billionaire, etc. However, I won't assert as fact that you are not, because I don't know that.

I am either a billionaire or not.  There are only three beliefs to take - that I am one, that I am not one, or that you can't know, so you take neither stance.  You are mixing up the belief in the probability and the belief in the actuality.  But the belief in the probability is asserting a belief that the probability is true and accurate, that you disbelieve the idea it is false.  This will apply to every assumption and belief you have.  If someone disbelieves I am a billionaire, then they have asserted they believe the fact that I am not, not that the fact is proven, by the very nature of disbelief.  Your position should exclude you from ever disbelieving anything, unless you believe absolute truths can be proven.

[Ampersand]

I don't know why we're rehashing this argument all over again when we probably sorted it out 100 pages ago.

The Gnostic-Agnostic spectrum lies completely outside the Theist-Atheist spectrum. They deal with two completely different matters; the first with what one has specific knowledge of (hence the root, gnos-, knowledge), and the second with what one believes to be true. We've gone over that about a thousand times in this thread.

Perhaps the words in themselves carry too much weight over the years. In that case, maybe a better term for what I consider myself is Infidel. But all of this misses the point entirely. These words are all just arbitrary labels that people are using so that, once someone calls themselves an Atheist or Agnostic, or Theist, or whatever have you, people can then take the word, build a straw-man around the word, and attack the straw-man without ever addressing what ought to be addressed.

What do you believe, and why?

This needs to be answered, without using any of the aforementioned labels, because they have no real solid, specific meaning to them.

[Kebooo]

What do you believe, and why?

That's precisely what I'm trying to get at, but I needed to make a few observations about theists, agnostics and atheists in their every day lives before I got to it.  Why do many agnostics refuse to disbelieve in god if they find him very improbable, when there are things in their life they disbelieve based on probability?  Unless they are deniers of reality and simply don't believe anything either way, which of course is fine with me.  I just find most agnostics don't actually abide by that belief.  I am trying to make a distinction between disbelief, as in, I believe something is false, despite no 100%, ultimate evidence, and between claiming something has been proven to be false.  I believe god is not real, I believe, in the universal order of things, he does not exist.  Just like I believe that the fact is you are one person.  Do I believe either has been proven?  No.  I am curious why some people will apply disbelief to immediate reality, which we can doubt, but not disbelief to divine powers, as if the disbelief in itself somehow changes its semantic meaning depending on the realm of existence you look at. 

[Ampersand]

Straw-man attack at Agnostics

I don't think you understood my post at all.

[Kebooo]

Straw-man attack at Agnostics

I don't think you understood my post at all.

Of course I did.  Let me say it then, without using any classification (which clearly have their uses, just like most any other language).  Why are there people that will disbelieve something such as the fact of me being a billionaire, yet refuse to apply this type of disbelief to divine powers, even if they feel said divine power is absurdly unlikely?  There are huge swathes of people that say "because it is possible, I can not take a belief either way", you realize this, correct?  That is the particular audience I am discussing here.  Call them what you will, it has no bearing on the merit of my argument.  They are clearly there, whatever you want to call them, the people that do not believe either way.  Yet it appears to me that these people will take some beliefs to be true - such as probability or odds or intuition or memory and so on, without denying the possibility all of that is incorrect.  I feel the two stances are contradictory and I'm fleshing out why I believe that.

I was merely using agnostic to represent the people that do not believe or disbelieve in god, since I felt from the context of my posts, the meaning was implied and clear.

[Ampersand]

The point is that you aren't addressing the essential question, and instead making assumptions about what other people believe, and speculating as to why.