God
Dr Sinister
<37C20DC4...@usa.net>:
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> Supreme Patriarch <supremep...@usa.net> wrote in
>> <37C205BA...@usa.net>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >No question in my mind that non-existence is almost impossible to
>> >prove,
>>
>> If you say this, then, to you, 'existence' is a supernatural thing.
>
>Not at all. There are no supernatural things.
If that is so, then it is possible to demonstrate the non-existence of
postulated entities.
[snip]
>OK - I'll rephrase it pedantically - lack of non-existence is provable
>with one example. All I need is one unicorn to prove that the unicorn
>does not lack existence.
Which completely contradicts your initial assumption that there is no
supernatural existence. If IPU does not exist, then I should be able to
find a reason why.
--
If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Dr Sinister
<7pp1kg$2g7$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>:
>Dr Sinister wrote in message
><8E2A1716...@news.globalserve.net>
>[snip]
>>I'm afraid you don't get it, Terry. By telling me that you are
>not a
>>strong atheist, you already made the claim 'I lack belief in the
>>non-existence of god(s).'
>
>
>Its unfortunate that you seem to need to insult me rather than to
>try and argue your point. In any case, I have already made an
>end-run around this particular conclusion in my previous post.
>Apparently you have seen fit to snip it and then reiterate your
>conclusion. This is intellectually dishonest -- you forefit the
>game.
The first thing I will demonstrate is that you are claiming something
contradictory about yourself. The second thing I will show is that you
do not understand the implications of your claims.
You said this:
Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<7po1kj$69d$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
>1) Assume that <item under discussion> does not exist [...]
>I picked 1 because this appears to be the most useful way of
>looking at the world.
Then you said this:
Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<7po05i$auh$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
> I don't claim to
>*know* conclusively that god does not exist (strong atheism.)
>For that, I would indeed be required to provide evidence.
According to the FAQ[and numerous other sources, including the consensus
of alt.atheism], strong atheism is the belief that god(s) are
nonexistent. In the first quote above, you claim that the nonexistence
of god(s) is the appropriate default assumption. Since this is
something you cannot prove nor argue to me, it is a belief. In the
subsequent quote, you say that this is not an appropriate position.
Even if this is not a belief to you, please examine your quotes
carefully. 1] assumption of god's nonexistence is the "most useful
way". 2] Assumption of god(s)'s existence is something you do not
claim. [1] and [2] are contradictory.
Conclusion: you are contradicting yourself.
Next, I will show that you do not understand the implications of what
you claim about yourself. I will rely only on the FAQ logic provided by
infidels.org [see Malkin's FAQ post for links, I'm sick of educating
atheists as to where to find their own FAQ(s)]. In this document, it is
argued that agnostic position is actually (weak) atheism, because
technically, an agnostic does not have a belief in the existence of
god(s). I will apply this FAQ logic to what you have said in this
thread.
First, you claim to be a weak atheist:
Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<7po2u9$i7r$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>: Dr Sinister:
>>"I lack>belief in god(s)", then do you expect me to accept this claim?
Terry:
>Yes.
Next, you claim to *not* be a strong atheist:
Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<7po05i$auh$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
> I don't claim to
>*know* conclusively that god does not exist (strong atheism.)
>For that, I would indeed be required to provide evidence.
According to the FAQ, a strong atheist is someone who "believes that
god(s) are nonexistent."
So, you are making the following claims:
1] that you lack belief in the existence of god(s).
2] that you lack belief in the nonexistence of god(s).
[2] follows from your claim that you are not a strong atheist.
Therefore, you lack the belief "gods are nonexistent."
Now. How do you actualize [2]? I can claim that you are either a weak
atheist, or, that you are a "weak theist". You became upset at this
point:
>Tell me, Dr. Sinister, what's it like to lose? I have a
>lack of experience in losing.
I have two comments.
1) if you feel that your intelligence has been insulted, then let me
assure you that it has been. But direct your flames to infidels.org and
atheist idiots who impose these definitions which I have used. I am the
messenger. I did not formulate these definitions. I use them.
2) If winning or losing an argument was your concern, then you could
have told me that in the first place. I would have granted your wish.
--
If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard E Reboulet
>According to the FAQ, a strong atheist is someone who "believes that
The FAQ belongs to the same genre as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
Masons, VWF, etc.
If you believe in the FAQ, do you have your Jack Armstrong whistle or
your Orphan Annie secret decoder ring? Perhaps you know the secret
internet handshake. Try reality!
Skeptic
> >OK - I'll rephrase it pedantically - lack of non-existence is provable
> >with one example. All I need is one unicorn to prove that the unicorn
> >does not lack existence.
>
> Which completely contradicts your initial assumption that there is no
> supernatural existence. If IPU does not exist, then I should be able to
> find a reason why.
Skeptic:
What is that? Reverse Polish logic? It sounds totally unreasonable, Sin. The
reasonable position is to simply require evidence for any claim that
something exists. The working hypothesis must always be stated negatively.
Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
Terry
[snip]
>If IPU does not exist, then I should be able to
>find a reason why.
Wrong. You cannot find a reason why the IPU does not exist.
Similarly, one cannot find a reason God doesn't exist. This is
the heart of the problem -- and the reason for the argument.
People rarely argue (coherently) about facts, usually arguments
are about opinion.
-Terryo
"There's no use trying," said Alice. "One can't believe
impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice,"
said the Queen. "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six
impossible things before breakfast." >> Alice in Wonderland
Hah! Made you think! Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.
Terry
[snips here and there]
>The first thing I will demonstrate is that you are claiming
something
>contradictory about yourself. The second thing I will show is
that you
>do not understand the implications of your claims.
Actually this isn't the first thing you have demonstrated ... but
I won't go there.
>Conclusion: you are contradicting yourself.
Conclusion, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Either
because you don't understand it or because you are having trouble
integrating it into your god-fantasy. But let me reiterate:
First proposition:
-----------------------
1) Assume that <item under discussion> does not exist unless
there is evidence *for*
2) Assume that <item under discussion> does exist unless there is
evidence *against*
3) Assume 1 _and_ 2
I picked 1 because this appears to be the most useful way of
looking at the world.
_and_
Second Proposition:
----------------------------
I don't claim to *know* conclusively that god does not exist
(strong atheism.) For that, I would indeed be required to
provide evidence.
These aren't contradictory because in the first case I'm making
an *assumtion* (look it up in case you aren't familiar with what
this means -- hint: I'm not using the "taking a person up into
heaven" definition.) In the second case I'm not claiming to have
*knowledge* either. See? In neither case do I claim to know
conclusively.
As for your question about belief ... The three possiblities
above were arrived at via logic. My *selection* was based on my
*belief* that picking a useful way of looking at the world is a
good idea. Yes, I do have beliefs. Surprised?
>Next, I will show that you do not understand the implications of
what
>you claim about yourself. I will rely only on the FAQ logic
provided by
>infidels.org [see Malkin's FAQ post for links, I'm sick of
educating
>atheists as to where to find their own FAQ(s)]. In this
document, it is
>argued that agnostic position is actually (weak) atheism,
because
>technically, an agnostic does not have a belief in the existence
of
>god(s). I will apply this FAQ logic to what you have said in
this
>thread.
[snip]
Whatever. I read the FAQ too. I found it pretty well written.
The problem with your approach is that I tend to think for myself
and if you find an inconsistency in the FAQ, I won't really care.
Anyway, since you seem to be having trouble with the definitions
in the FAQ. I'll help. If I don't claim to be a strong atheist,
that doesn't imply that I have a "lack of belief in the
non-existence of God." Know why? (Probably you do, but are being
disingenuous on purpose.) The reason is that I *can* have a
*belief* in the non-existence of god(s) and still realize that my
*belief* isn't the same as *certain knowledge*. See how that
works? "Belief" does not equal "certain knowledge" (don't feel
bad, many theists have trouble with exactly this point.) Break
out your dictionary, take a look at some of these words, I
promise it will be an enlightening experience. Learning is
good -- give it a try.
Oh, well. I await your next tirade. You still haven't answered
the question by the way: What's it like to lose? I'll bet it
really sucks <shudder> -- I'd hate to have that happen to me,
especially in public.
Dr Sinister
>Supreme Patriarch:
>> >OK - I'll rephrase it pedantically - lack of non-existence is
>> >provable with one example. All I need is one unicorn to prove that
>> >the unicorn does not lack existence.
>>
>Dr Sinister:
>> Which completely contradicts your initial assumption that there is no
>> supernatural existence. If IPU does not exist, then I should be able
>> to find a reason why.
>
>Skeptic:
>What is that? Reverse Polish logic? It sounds totally unreasonable, Sin.
>The reasonable position is to simply require evidence for any claim that
>something exists. The working hypothesis must always be stated
>negatively. Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
Skep, you are confusing two issues. Let's deal with Patriarch's comment
first, then we will deal with your particular delusion of science later.
Patriarch suggest that producing an example of santa will falsify santa.
If this is so, then physical existence is like mathematical truths. I
only need to provide an example in order to establish absolute truth. If
I can show you a triangle with 4 sides, then I will have established the
existence of something which negates the validity of all human knowledge.
So, to say that I can prove IPU wrong by example, means that, at any
time, all of human knowledge can be shown to be false.
If you accept this, then you might as well believe in gods and the rest
of the supernatural parthenon.
You and I know that Patriarch isn't going to produce an example of IPU.
Why? Because of the laws of physics. So it isn't a question of
empirically observing IPU. It's a question of what is and is not
comprehensible from the point of view of science and logic.
If you think I have no reason to assume IPU is non-existent...
Sinister:
>>If IPU does not exist, then I should be able
>>to find a reason why.
Skeptic:
>What is that? Reverse Polish logic? It sounds totally unreasonable, Sin.
...then you and I are living in a different reality from me. If you
postulate a photon that has mass of 10 kg, I can supply you with reasons
why such a thing makes no sense.
Ok, so I'm deluded and unscientific because I claim that IPU contradicts
the laws of nature. So what is your definition of science? You are saying
that science is useless. That nature is supernatural.
The second point you make is a reiteration of the absolute bullshit:
>The working hypothesis must always be stated
>negatively. Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
to which I can respond:
proposition P: IPU does not exist.
Assume that this is false. Now, propose an experiment which shows that P
is false. And please don't say that you can physically produce IPU,
because we both know this isn't going to happen. Not in our reality, at
least.
Freddie Fearnot
>Skeptic <nos...@all.all> wrote in <4RAw3.411$SQ3....@news.uswest.net>:
>>Supreme Patriarch:
>>> >OK - I'll rephrase it pedantically - lack of non-existence is
>>> >provable with one example. All I need is one unicorn to prove that
>>> >the unicorn does not lack existence.
>>Dr Sinister:
>>> Which completely contradicts your initial assumption that there is no
>>> supernatural existence. If IPU does not exist, then I should be able
>>> to find a reason why.
>>Skeptic:
>>What is that? Reverse Polish logic? It sounds totally unreasonable, Sin.
>>The reasonable position is to simply require evidence for any claim that
>>something exists. The working hypothesis must always be stated
>>negatively. Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
>Skep, you are confusing two issues. Let's deal with Patriarch's comment
>first, then we will deal with your particular delusion of science later.
>Patriarch suggest that producing an example of santa will falsify santa.
Producing an example of something will falsify it? What kind of
crap is this?
Dr Sinister
<37c4803e....@news.flash.net>:
[snip]
>>Patriarch suggest that producing an example of santa will falsify
>>santa.
>
>Producing an example of something will falsify it? What kind of
>crap is this?
I'm sorry. It should read: "falsify the hypothesis that santa does not
exist" and not "falsify santa."
My apologies.
Skeptic
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8E2DBA62...@news.globalserve.net...
> Skeptic <nos...@all.all> wrote in <4RAw3.411$SQ3....@news.uswest.net>:
>
> >Supreme Patriarch:
> >> >OK - I'll rephrase it pedantically - lack of non-existence is
> >> >provable with one example. All I need is one unicorn to prove that
> >> >the unicorn does not lack existence.
> >>
> >Dr Sinister:
> >> Which completely contradicts your initial assumption that there is no
> >> supernatural existence. If IPU does not exist, then I should be able
> >> to find a reason why.
> >
> >Skeptic:
> >What is that? Reverse Polish logic? It sounds totally unreasonable, Sin.
> >The reasonable position is to simply require evidence for any claim that
> >something exists. The working hypothesis must always be stated
> >negatively. Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
>
> Skep, you are confusing two issues. Let's deal with Patriarch's comment
> first, then we will deal with your particular delusion of science later.
>
No. He is stating the perfectly reasonable fact that producing a santa will
falsify the only useful working hypothesis, "There is no santa."
> If this is so, then physical existence is like mathematical truths. I
> only need to provide an example in order to establish absolute truth.
No, you have it backwards. Super Pappy said, "All I need is one unicorn to
prove that the unicorn does not lack existence."
> If
> I can show you a triangle with 4 sides, then I will have established the
> existence of something which negates the validity of all human knowledge.
> So, to say that I can prove IPU wrong by example, means that, at any
> time, all of human knowledge can be shown to be false.
Not with one triangle.
>
> If you accept this, then you might as well believe in gods and the rest
> of the supernatural parthenon.
Why believe in anything. If something exists, the evidence will speak for
itself. No belief is required, in fact, belief can be counterproductive if
we are looking to expand what we can say we are sure of concerning the
nature of the world.
>
> You and I know that Patriarch isn't going to produce an example of IPU.
> Why? Because of the laws of physics. So it isn't a question of
> empirically observing IPU.
That's exactly what it is.
> It's a question of what is and is not
> comprehensible from the point of view of science and logic.
It's a question of evidence.
>
> If you think I have no reason to assume IPU is non-existent...
I wouldn't argue with the utility of being skeptical of the existence of
IPU, deities, or any other entities not as commonly, readily, observable as
flies on shit.
>
> Sinister:
> >>If IPU does not exist, then I should be able
> >>to find a reason why.
>
> Skeptic:
> >What is that? Reverse Polish logic? It sounds totally unreasonable, Sin.
>
> ...then you and I are living in a different reality from me.
OK. I'll go along. You and I can go look for me.
> If you
> postulate a photon that has mass of 10 kg, I can supply you with reasons
> why such a thing makes no sense.
I wouldn't dream of making such a wild claim. If the question is on the
existence of anything, say white ravens, then a useful scientific hypothesis
would be, "There are no white ravens." That is the only falsifiable strictly
universal statement possible on this question. It is falsifiable because
finding one white raven requires us to reject it.
Positively stated strictly existential statements such as, "There are white
ravens" have no utility in scientific investigation because they are not
falsifiable. Even if it were false we could not get rid of it by confronting
it with an observation report, a black raven, that contradicted it, or even
conducting a multimillion dollar search of all the jungles of the world. The
true believers will say we just haven't looked hard enough, or we are
blinded by our belief in logic and science. Unfalsifiable theories are like
the computer programs with no uninstall option that just clog up the
computers' precious storage space. Falsifiable theories, on the other hand,
enhance our control over error while expanding the richness of what we can
say about the world.
>
> Ok, so I'm deluded and unscientific because I claim that IPU contradicts
> the laws of nature. So what is your definition of science? You are saying
> that science is useless. That nature is supernatural.
>
> The second point you make is a reiteration of the absolute bullshit:
>
> >The working hypothesis must always be stated
> >negatively. Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
>
> to which I can respond:
>
> proposition P: IPU does not exist.
>
> Assume that this is false. Now, propose an experiment which shows that P
> is false. And please don't say that you can physically produce IPU,
> because we both know this isn't going to happen. Not in our reality, at
> least.
>
Backwards again, Sin. If the question is on the existence of IPU, just take,
"IPU does not exist" as your scientific working hypothesis. Anyone who is
interested is free to try to get the funding for a study of the question.
> --
> If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
> belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
--
Theism is the belief in god(s).
Atheism is the lack of theism.
Baldness is lack of hair. No belief is required. -- Skeptic
Ace Ventura
>
> Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> <7pvp96$h46$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Conclusion, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Either
> >because you don't understand it or because you are having trouble
> >integrating it into your god-fantasy.
>
> clairvoyant. You might have better luck with phrenology.
If memory serves you said you are not an atheist, a theist, or an agnostic,
but rather an "(a)atheist", whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm not
criticizing it, just don't have a clue what it means. Sure, literally it
would roughly translate into "not having a lack of belief in gods". Somehow
that doesn't make it any clearer though. Oh well...
> I'm going to snip all the nonsense to get to the essence. Both of us
> know what this essence is. We both know that your defense is going to be
> predicated on the difference between 'assertion', 'knowledge' and
> 'belief'.
>
> >I don't claim to *know* conclusively that god does not exist
> >(strong atheism.) For that, I would indeed be required to
> >provide evidence.
>
> Minor point: this is not the definition of strong atheism. You are
> equivocating on the correct definition. OK so you don't like that.
> Conplain to infidels.org. I use the correct definition. You don't.
I don't claim to be an expert on the meaning of atheism, but I
always thought "strong atheism" was an assertion that gods do not
exist, as opposed to "weak atheism", which merely is a lack of
belief in gods.
> >These aren't contradictory because in the first case I'm making
> >an *assumtion* (look it up in case you aren't familiar with what
> >this means -- hint: I'm not using the "taking a person up into
> >heaven" definition.) In the second case I'm not claiming to have
> >*knowledge* either. See? In neither case do I claim to know
> >conclusively.
>
> Terry, you've got to be a freakin' idiot to think that I haven't heard
> this defense a thousand times before. For the uninitiated, Terry is
> basing his defense against self-contradiction by asserting that there is
> a difference between "knowledge", "belief",and, "assertion for
> convenience". OK so let's accept this.
>
> I read Spinoza, Aquinas. I become completely convinced of god's existence
> as a necessary truth. This is knowledge, not belief. My entire noetic
> structure affirms this knowledge. There is no other knowledge than
> affirmation via noesis.
I don't follow. Reading a book, just like reading a post, on God, would
not be capable of producing knowledge, only belief. I could read a book
by Spinoza and say "wow, I think this guys got a good point", but that
wouldn't come from a state of knowing, only opinion, which is belief,
is it not? How can a knowledge of God's existence be imparted from a book?
> Therefore, since I lack belief in god, I am an
> atheist. Belief and knowledge are not the same. Hence, I can claim I am
> an atheist. And you have to believe me, since you declare that belief is
> not knowledge.
>
> I use the assumption: "god exists" because I find it convenient. If that
> is all I do, then I am an atheist.
>
> I assert as an axiom, that "god exists". If that is all I do, I am an
> atheist.
Lost me here. I suppose that's because you started out by confusing
knowledge with belief. Reading an essay on God will not impart knowledge
of God's existence.
<snipped for brevity>
Skeptic
error. Best regards, and welcome to the club of Fuckups Anonimous. I am
thinking of starting a twelve-step program for recovering fuckups.
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8E2DD270...@news.globalserve.net...
> Freddie Fearnot <fredd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> <37c4803e....@news.flash.net>:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>Patriarch suggest that producing an example of santa will falsify
> >>santa.
> >
> >Producing an example of something will falsify it? What kind of
> >crap is this?
>
> I'm sorry. It should read: "falsify the hypothesis that santa does not
> exist" and not "falsify santa."
>
> My apologies.
>
Ace Ventura
I snipped something relevant feel free to inject it back in)
Dr Sinister wrote:
>
> Ace Ventura <aceve...@goober.net> wrote in
> <37C4A49F...@goober.net>:
>
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
<snip>
> >If memory serves you said you are not an atheist, a theist, or an
> >agnostic, but rather an "(a)atheist", whatever that's supposed to mean.
> >I'm not criticizing it, just don't have a clue what it means. Sure,
> >literally it would roughly translate into "not having a lack of belief
> >in gods". Somehow that doesn't make it any clearer though. Oh well...
>
> A weak aatheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of atheists.
> A strong aatheist is someone who believes that atheists do not exist.
> Check the Aatheist thread for more info (in alt.atheism).
>
> Now. I'm a weak aatheist. That doesn't mean I can't be a theist. I
> believe my toaster is god. So, I consider myself to be a theist. Most
> atheist consider me to be a theist when asked off guard. That's because
> atheists consider "stupid beliefs" to be theisms. So I'm a theist. But
> when I press the issue, they deny it:
Get your meaning, (I think); you don't believe that those who claim
they're atheists _really_ are, although your claim is a "weak" one,
not a "strong" one.
> "Dr Sinister, I do not consider your toaster to be a god"
>
> which means they are denying that I am a theist, and they are telling me
> that I am an atheist. So at first they rejected my position because they
> thought it was stupid. Upon introspection, they rejected their own
> definitions, and they claim I am one of them.
I'm not so sure that's their claim. They would be saying that _they_
don't believe your toaster is a god, _not_ that _you_ don't claim
(or even possibly believe), that your toaster is a god.
> [snip]
>
> >I don't claim to be an expert on the meaning of atheism, but I
> >always thought "strong atheism" was an assertion that gods do not
> >exist, as opposed to "weak atheism", which merely is a lack of
> >belief in gods.
>
> Well, you are wrong. Check the FAQ. But let's say you are right. That
> 'belief' and 'assertion' are different. So...
I probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. I don't think that
assertion and belief have to be different, but they aren't necessarily
the same either. For instance, I can tell you that I'm not afraid to
die. I might even _think_ I believe this "assertion". Yet when the time
comes I might find I'm scared shitless, which would mean I didn't
really believe what I thought I believed, _and_ asserted.
> "I assert that god exists"
>
> ...and if that is all I do, I am an atheist.
>
> [snip]
>
> >I don't follow. Reading a book, just like reading a post, on God, would
> >not be capable of producing knowledge, only belief.
>
> Ok Ace. I usually don't like doing this, but in this case, I have no
> choice but to ask you what your definition of 'knowledge' is.
Oh man, do we really want to open _that_ can of worms? <g> Ok, I'll take
a quick stab at it: "Knowledge = 1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience
or study. 3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered,
or learned.4. Learning; erudition. 5. Specific information on something."
Ok, I cheated and used the dictionary, but it's late, and I essentially
agree with the definition. I would add that when it's used in relationship
to God, it would imply (to me), some sort of direct experience. Now,
one can argue that such "experience" may be imaginary, but that's another
matter. There are things that all of us (think we) know, but cannot prove.
> > I could read a book
> >by Spinoza and say "wow, I think this guys got a good point", but that
> >wouldn't come from a state of knowing, only opinion, which is belief,
> >is it not? How can a knowledge of God's existence be imparted from a
> >book?
>
> I understand your point. I require your to answer the above question
> before we can continue.
>
> Otherwise, you and I would be talking past each other.
<snip>
> >Lost me here. I suppose that's because you started out by confusing
> >knowledge with belief.
>
> Ace, Terry is the dude who claims there are differences between knowledge
> and belief. You did too. My statements above are the direct implications
> of your assertions. They are totally obvious.
I'll use an analogy I gave you the other day. Someone might say to you
that they had a dream about you the night before. You can believe them,
(or not), without the knowledge that this is true, (or not). So yes,
I am asserting that belief and knowledge are not (necessarily) the same
thing. They can be, I think, in the sense that if I know something ("fire
is hot"), I will (most likely) also believe it.
John A. De Goes
I don't claim to *know* conclusively that god does not exist (strong atheism.)
For that, I would indeed be required to provide evidence.
DE GOES
Dr Sinister has provided wonderfully clear counterexamples as to why the
distinctions that Terry draws between belief, assumption, and "knowledge"
cannot be valid unless people can (for example) assume that God does not exist
and yet believe that he does, etc. What if any distinctions can we rightly draw
between belief, assumption, and knowledge?
I propose the following definitions:
1. There is no biochemical difference between a belief in X, an assumption
of X, and a knowledge of X. That is, they are all stored in the same manner
within the mind.
2. A belief in X is a mental state whereby the mind conceives of X as being
true. Beliefs may or may not be true, and they may or may not be supported by
evidence.
3. A knowledge of X is a belief in X that happens to be valid, and is
typically (although not always) supported by convincing evidence.
4. An assumption of X is a belief in X that may or may not be true, but is
not supported by any evidence.
Terry assumes no gods exist. Since an assumption is an unsupported belief, we
may conclude that Terry believes no gods exist (and is therefore a strong
atheist) but lacks any evidence to support this belief.
--
John A. De Goes
* View artificial life on your computer with free software from
http://pages.prodigy.net/jdegoes/bugsss.html.
* Less than a nickel of every health care dollar is spent on medical research.
Visit http://www.researchamerica.org to learn what you can do.
Ace Ventura
>
> >(Note: All snipping was done for sake of brevity. If you feel
> >I snipped something relevant feel free to inject it back in)
>
> you've been a fairly good boy about it. Let's see what this post brings.
>
> [snip]
<snip>
> >> "Dr Sinister, I do not consider your toaster to be a god"
> >>
> >> which means they are denying that I am a theist, and they are telling
> >> me that I am an atheist. So at first they rejected my position because
> >> they thought it was stupid. Upon introspection, they rejected their
> >> own definitions, and they claim I am one of them.
> >
> >I'm not so sure that's their claim. They would be saying that _they_
> >don't believe your toaster is a god, _not_ that _you_ don't claim
> >(or even possibly believe), that your toaster is a god.
>
> Ace, you don't understand what you are talking about at all.
Actually, I understand quite well what I am talking about. Perhaps I
don't understand what you're talking about, but that's another matter.
Paraphrasing what you said above, you say that if someone doesn't consider
your toaster (which you've previously claimed to be a god), to be a god,
that they are denying you're a theist. I'm saying that's not what their
claim would mean, as they are not denying that's what you believe, they
are disclaiming a belief in your toaster god for themselves, not for you.
How is that telling you that you are an atheist? The fact that they
don't consider your toaster a god doesn't prove that YOU don't believe
it, or show that they don't believe it is what YOU believe, so you would,
according to that scenario, likely be considered a theist.
> Although I
> am a theist from my perspective, an atheist will claim that I am an
> atheist. It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong". This serves the
> purpose of revealing that atheists are not objective. Period. Until they
> can work out their psychological problems and present me with an
> objective way of determining whether or not I am a theist (and that they
> are atheists), they're just farting in the wind.
Farts in the wind can be heard coming from both sides of the theological
fence, no doubt about it.
> [snip]
>
> >I probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. I don't think that
> >assertion and belief have to be different, but they aren't necessarily
> >the same either. For instance, I can tell you that I'm not afraid to
> >die. I might even _think_ I believe this "assertion". Yet when the time
> >comes I might find I'm scared shitless, which would mean I didn't
> >really believe what I thought I believed, _and_ asserted.
>
> Fine. Then I can assert god's existence, and remain an atheist.
Actually, I believe you can. For instance, someone claims to be a Christian,
making an assertion that he/she believes in God, and believes they're going
to heaven when they die. Yet their behavior might reveal that they are
scared shitless of dying, and when push comes to shove, they don't at all
believe what they thought they did. So yes, you can assert God's existence,
yet at the end of the day, not really believe in God's existence. Some
people take comfort in such (imagined) beliefs, only to find out that
they don't have the faith they thought they had. This being said, I'm not
denying the possibility of God, only pointing out the wishful thinking of
others isn't always a deeply held belief, even if they think it is.
> >Oh man, do we really want to open _that_ can of worms? <g> Ok, I'll take
> >a quick stab at it: "Knowledge = 1. The state or fact of knowing.
> >2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience
> >or study. 3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered,
> >or learned.4. Learning; erudition. 5. Specific information on
> >something."
>
> By this definition, I can claim that Spinoza knew god in the sense of
> "knowledge". Thank you. #2 & #3 is noetic knowledge, by the way. I have
> used this term before in this thread.
>
> >Ok, I cheated and used the dictionary, but it's late, and I essentially
> >agree with the definition.
>
> It isn't a bad definition, so no need to apologize.
>
> [snip dream question - for later]
Okey dokey.
Dr Sinister
[snip]
>Conclusion, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Either
>because you don't understand it or because you are having trouble
>integrating it into your god-fantasy.
I'm not a theist. Interesting how your belief void makes you (flasely)
clairvoyant. You might have better luck with phrenology.
I'm going to snip all the nonsense to get to the essence. Both of us
know what this essence is. We both know that your defense is going to be
predicated on the difference between 'assertion', 'knowledge' and
'belief'.
>I don't claim to *know* conclusively that god does not exist
>(strong atheism.) For that, I would indeed be required to
>provide evidence.
Minor point: this is not the definition of strong atheism. You are
equivocating on the correct definition. OK so you don't like that.
Conplain to infidels.org. I use the correct definition. You don't.
>These aren't contradictory because in the first case I'm making
>an *assumtion* (look it up in case you aren't familiar with what
>this means -- hint: I'm not using the "taking a person up into
>heaven" definition.) In the second case I'm not claiming to have
>*knowledge* either. See? In neither case do I claim to know
>conclusively.
Terry, you've got to be a freakin' idiot to think that I haven't heard
this defense a thousand times before. For the uninitiated, Terry is
basing his defense against self-contradiction by asserting that there is
a difference between "knowledge", "belief",and, "assertion for
convenience". OK so let's accept this.
I read Spinoza, Aquinas. I become completely convinced of god's existence
as a necessary truth. This is knowledge, not belief. My entire noetic
structure affirms this knowledge. There is no other knowledge than
affirmation via noesis. Therefore, since I lack belief in god, I am an
atheist. Belief and knowledge are not the same. Hence, I can claim I am
an atheist. And you have to believe me, since you declare that belief is
not knowledge.
I use the assumption: "god exists" because I find it convenient. If that
is all I do, then I am an atheist.
I assert as an axiom, that "god exists". If that is all I do, I am an
atheist.
>Whatever. I read the FAQ too. I found it pretty well written.
>The problem with your approach is that I tend to think for myself
>and if you find an inconsistency in the FAQ, I won't really care.
There is something you just don't understand here. You are not a theist.
Why? Because theism is subjective, and you prefer to be objective. Now,
if you want to be Mr Objective, you should at least use objective
definitions and objective quantities that make sense. If you say that you
lack belief in (something left for a theist to define), you are not being
objective. You are no different from a theist. You are applying a
nonsensical definition to yourself, and then you are trying to dupe
others into accepting this as some sort of "scientific" or objective"
position.
If you say that you never wanted to claim any objectivity, then you are
no better than a theist. There is only some superficial differences. And
I doubt that you can even quantify these differences.
>Anyway, since you seem to be having trouble with the definitions
>in the FAQ. I'll help. If I don't claim to be a strong atheist,
>that doesn't imply that I have a "lack of belief in the
>non-existence of God." Know why? (Probably you do, but are being
>disingenuous on purpose.) The reason is that I *can* have a
>*belief* in the non-existence of god(s) and still realize that my
>*belief* isn't the same as *certain knowledge*.
I don't think you have a definition for "certain knowledge." Maybe you
think you do. But I think you are just shitting me.
To me, "certain knowledge" means either mathematical knowledge, or noetic
knowledge. Since mathematical knowledge is non-empirical to begin with,
you and I have totally different standards of truth and knowledge.
I can well imagine someone like Spinoza saying: "I know god". You really
don't have any case to contradict his noesis, unless you can show that
his a priori arguments of 'necessary being' are propositionally false.
Spinoza knows god. If that's all his mind does regarding god, he is an
atheist. Because, as you said: knowledge and belief are different things.
Atheism pertains to lack of belief, not lack of knowledge or lack-of
-assumption. According to your defense.
Concluion: either you clueless, or your FAQ writers are clueless.
>Oh, well. I await your next tirade. You still haven't answered
>the question
If you have a "lack of experience" in losing debates, you should stop
debating creationists.
>by the way: What's it like to lose?
Terry, I know what it's like to lose and win. Both of these things are
meaningless illusions. If I wanted to win an argument, I could just go
against a standard canonical idiot like Mark Richardson or David B.
Trout. If I wanted to re-experiece losing and getting the shit ripped out
of me, all I have to do is go head-to-head against Leonard Timmons, John
De Goes, or Xergog. It's that simple. Try it sometime, and get your guts
ripped out. It's good for you. I learned my lesson. Now, how about you?
How long are you going to live in this fantasy land where you think your
arguments mean something because you can stump a creationist?
> I'll bet it
>really sucks <shudder> -- I'd hate to have that happen to me,
>especially in public.
You'll never learn anything with that attitude.
Dr Sinister
<4B1x3.1646$H%4.11...@news.uswest.net>:
>A triangle has three sides by definition.
>
>Baldness is the lack of hair by definition. No belief is required.
God is my toaster by definition. No belief is required. If you say "no,
your toaster is not god" then:
1) you are denying that I am a theist.
2) you have a definition of god. Otherwise you would not be able to
reject mine, since you would have nothing to compare it to. Please
supply your definition of god.
Freddie Fearnot
>You are no different from a theist.
If you believe that, then you're an idiot.
>You are applying a nonsensical definition to yourself,
The realization of mythology, and that all gods are simply
myths made up by men is nonsensical until proven otherwise?
Do tell.
>and then you are trying to dupe others into accepting this as some
>sort of "scientific" or objective" position.
Why shouldn't we. Do you like being lied to and duped?
>If you say that you never wanted to claim any objectivity, then you are
>no better than a theist. There is only some superficial differences. And
>I doubt that you can even quantify these differences.
Maybe you can quantify them for us? Should we let you set the rules
for what people should believe in without proof?
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> <7pvp96$h46$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Conclusion, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Either
>> >because you don't understand it or because you are having trouble
>> >integrating it into your god-fantasy.
>>
>> I'm not a theist. Interesting how your belief void makes you (flasely)
>> clairvoyant. You might have better luck with phrenology.
>
>If memory serves you said you are not an atheist, a theist, or an
>agnostic, but rather an "(a)atheist", whatever that's supposed to mean.
>I'm not criticizing it, just don't have a clue what it means. Sure,
>literally it would roughly translate into "not having a lack of belief
>in gods". Somehow that doesn't make it any clearer though. Oh well...
A weak aatheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of atheists.
A strong aatheist is someone who believes that atheists do not exist.
Check the Aatheist thread for more info (in alt.atheism).
Now. I'm a weak aatheist. That doesn't mean I can't be a theist. I
believe my toaster is god. So, I consider myself to be a theist. Most
atheist consider me to be a theist when asked off guard. That's because
atheists consider "stupid beliefs" to be theisms. So I'm a theist. But
when I press the issue, they deny it:
"Dr Sinister, I do not consider your toaster to be a god"
which means they are denying that I am a theist, and they are telling me
that I am an atheist. So at first they rejected my position because they
thought it was stupid. Upon introspection, they rejected their own
definitions, and they claim I am one of them.
[snip]
>I don't claim to be an expert on the meaning of atheism, but I
>always thought "strong atheism" was an assertion that gods do not
>exist, as opposed to "weak atheism", which merely is a lack of
>belief in gods.
Well, you are wrong. Check the FAQ. But let's say you are right. That
'belief' and 'assertion' are different. So...
"I assert that god exists"
...and if that is all I do, I am an atheist.
[snip]
>I don't follow. Reading a book, just like reading a post, on God, would
>not be capable of producing knowledge, only belief.
Ok Ace. I usually don't like doing this, but in this case, I have no
choice but to ask you what your definition of 'knowledge' is.
> I could read a book
>by Spinoza and say "wow, I think this guys got a good point", but that
>wouldn't come from a state of knowing, only opinion, which is belief,
>is it not? How can a knowledge of God's existence be imparted from a
>book?
I understand your point. I require your to answer the above question
before we can continue.
Otherwise, you and I would be talking past each other.
>> Therefore, since I lack belief in god, I am an
>> atheist. Belief and knowledge are not the same. Hence, I can claim I
>> am an atheist. And you have to believe me, since you declare that
>> belief is not knowledge.
>>
>> I use the assumption: "god exists" because I find it convenient. If
>> that is all I do, then I am an atheist.
>>
>> I assert as an axiom, that "god exists". If that is all I do, I am an
>> atheist.
>
>Lost me here. I suppose that's because you started out by confusing
>knowledge with belief.
Ace, Terry is the dude who claims there are differences between knowledge
and belief. You did too. My statements above are the direct implications
of your assertions. They are totally obvious.
[snip]
Freddie Fearnot
>Freddie Fearnot <fredd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>Patriarch suggest that producing an example of santa will falsify
>>>santa.
>>
>>Producing an example of something will falsify it? What kind of
>>crap is this?
>I'm sorry.
A typo?
>It should read: "falsify the hypothesis that santa does not
>exist" and not "falsify santa."
>My apologies.
How can falsifying Santa even be in question here?
Freddie Fearnot
>Skeptic <nos...@all.all> wrote in
><4B1x3.1646$H%4.11...@news.uswest.net>:
>
>>A triangle has three sides by definition.
>>
>>Baldness is the lack of hair by definition. No belief is required.
>God is my toaster by definition. No belief is required. If you say "no,
>your toaster is not god" then:
>1) you are denying that I am a theist.
>2) you have a definition of god. Otherwise you would not be able to
>reject mine, since you would have nothing to compare it to. Please
>supply your definition of god.
My definition of god? How about MYTH?
Feel free to believe your toaster is god, but most people have
toasters, and we can see them, so we know what you're talking
about. Theists claim their god is invisible, and not many of them
can even agree on what the definition or qualities or aspects of
their god are. It's all subjective opinions, which originate in each
individuals mind.
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>You are no different from a theist.
>
>If you believe that, then you're an idiot.
>
>>You are applying a nonsensical definition to yourself,
>
>The realization of mythology, and that all gods are simply
>myths made up by men is nonsensical until proven otherwise?
>Do tell.
Electomagnetic theory is just a result from playing with loadstones and
amber trinkets. Mathematics is just a process of counting grain and doing
taxes.
That's called the genetic fallacy, by the way.
>>and then you are trying to dupe others into accepting this as some
>>sort of "scientific" or objective" position.
>
>Why shouldn't we. Do you like being lied to and duped?
You asked "why shouldn't we" as an answer to "why should we dupe
others..." Very telling.
>>If you say that you never wanted to claim any objectivity, then you are
>>no better than a theist. There is only some superficial differences.
>>And I doubt that you can even quantify these differences.
>
>Maybe you can quantify them for us? Should we let you set the rules
>for what people should believe in without proof?
I want _YOU_ to set the rules, Mr Objective.
You are Mr Objective. I'm just a stupid meme-infected theist who believes
in his toaster god. Please supply me with some scientifically accurate,
predictable and meaningful definitions of atheism.
_-
Freddie Fearnot
>Freddie Fearnot <fredd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are no different from a theist.
>>
>>If you believe that, then you're an idiot.
>>
>>>You are applying a nonsensical definition to yourself,
>>
>>The realization of mythology, and that all gods are simply
>>myths made up by men is nonsensical until proven otherwise?
>>Do tell.
>Electomagnetic theory is just a result from playing with loadstones and
>amber trinkets. Mathematics is just a process of counting grain and doing
>taxes.
I don't believe sentience on the part of some invisible god is
attributed to either of these things, do you? If it is, then it's
off base.
>That's called the genetic fallacy, by the way.
>
>>>and then you are trying to dupe others into accepting this as some
>>>sort of "scientific" or objective" position.
>>
>>Why shouldn't we. Do you like being lied to and duped?
>You asked "why shouldn't we" as an answer to "why should we dupe
>others..." Very telling.
Playing amateur psychologist are we?
>>>If you say that you never wanted to claim any objectivity, then you are
>>>no better than a theist. There is only some superficial differences.
>>>And I doubt that you can even quantify these differences.
>>
>>Maybe you can quantify them for us? Should we let you set the rules
>>for what people should believe in without proof?
>I want _YOU_ to set the rules, Mr Objective.
>You are Mr Objective. I'm just a stupid meme-infected theist who believes
>in his toaster god. Please supply me with some scientifically accurate,
>predictable and meaningful definitions of atheism.
I can only give you my own thoughts about my beliefs regarding
gods and some spirit world for that matter. And they are: Invisible
sentient beings don't exist except in the minds of believers. Until
proven otherwise, by experiencing one of these invisible beasties
myself, then I'll withhold belief in such critters. After studying
mythology in general, and realizing that old myths are realized as
such, there's no reason to believe that current stories about gods
and spirits are anything more than myths as well.
Kind of a stretch from "The lack of belief in gods", but that's my
view of it. Call me an atheist, a realist, or whatever you want.
Dr Sinister
>(Note: All snipping was done for sake of brevity. If you feel
>I snipped something relevant feel free to inject it back in)
Don't you worry. If you misrepresent me, I'll let you know. So far,
you've been a fairly good boy about it. Let's see what this post brings.
[snip]
>Get your meaning, (I think); you don't believe that those who claim
>they're atheists _really_ are, although your claim is a "weak" one,
>not a "strong" one.
Yes, that's it. Now, apply my own arguments here, and refute me. Then ask
yourself if special pleading should apply to 'atheism'.
>> "Dr Sinister, I do not consider your toaster to be a god"
>>
>> which means they are denying that I am a theist, and they are telling
>> me that I am an atheist. So at first they rejected my position because
>> they thought it was stupid. Upon introspection, they rejected their
>> own definitions, and they claim I am one of them.
>
>I'm not so sure that's their claim. They would be saying that _they_
>don't believe your toaster is a god, _not_ that _you_ don't claim
>(or even possibly believe), that your toaster is a god.
Ace, you don't understand what you are talking about at all. Although I
am a theist from my perspective, an atheist will claim that I am an
atheist. It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong". This serves the
purpose of revealing that atheists are not objective. Period. Until they
can work out their psychological problems and present me with an
objective way of determining whether or not I am a theist (and that they
are atheists), they're just farting in the wind.
[snip]
>I probably didn't choose my words carefully enough. I don't think that
>assertion and belief have to be different, but they aren't necessarily
>the same either. For instance, I can tell you that I'm not afraid to
>die. I might even _think_ I believe this "assertion". Yet when the time
>comes I might find I'm scared shitless, which would mean I didn't
>really believe what I thought I believed, _and_ asserted.
Fine. Then I can assert god's existence, and remain an atheist.
>Oh man, do we really want to open _that_ can of worms? <g> Ok, I'll take
>a quick stab at it: "Knowledge = 1. The state or fact of knowing.
>2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience
>or study. 3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered,
>or learned.4. Learning; erudition. 5. Specific information on
>something."
By this definition, I can claim that Spinoza knew god in the sense of
"knowledge". Thank you. #2 & #3 is noetic knowledge, by the way. I have
used this term before in this thread.
>Ok, I cheated and used the dictionary, but it's late, and I essentially
>agree with the definition.
It isn't a bad definition, so no need to apologize.
[snip dream question - for later]
--
Dr Sinister
[snip]
>I can only give you my own thoughts about my beliefs regarding
>gods and some spirit world for that matter.
Which is something I could not give a shit about. People like you are a
dime a dozen. I can get any opinion I want from anyone, randomly.
I thought your "atheism" bullshit confers some objectivity. Opinions
about god doesn't cut it, I can get that from a theist.
[snip]
Dr Sinister
Sinister:
>> Ace, you don't understand what you are talking about at all.
Ace Ventura:
>Actually, I understand quite well what I am talking about. Perhaps I
>don't understand what you're talking about, but that's another matter.
>Paraphrasing what you said above, you say that if someone doesn't
>consider your toaster (which you've previously claimed to be a god), to
>be a god, that they are denying you're a theist. I'm saying that's not
>what their claim would mean, as they are not denying that's what you
>believe, they are disclaiming a belief in your toaster god for
>themselves, not for you. How is that telling you that you are an
>atheist? The fact that they don't consider your toaster a god doesn't
>prove that YOU don't believe it, or show that they don't believe it is
>what YOU believe, so you would, according to that scenario, likely be
>considered a theist.
Ace, let me reiterate: you don't understand what you are talking about at
all. If you claim that 'my toaster isn't god' then you are saying I am an
atheist. You are NOT saying that you "believe that I believe in a god".
You are just point-blank assessing me and declaring that I am an atheist.
If my toaster isn't god, then, according to you, I believe in something,
but that something isn't god. Hence, I am an atheist, even though I am
claiming to be a theist.
You just don't know what you are saying here. You haven't given it enough
consideration. Think about it more carefully before you post a follow-up.
You seem like an intelligent fellow, and I don't want to classify you as
an idiot. But if you just post the same shit again without thinking,
well, then, you're an idiot.
[snip]
>Farts in the wind can be heard coming from both sides of the theological
>fence, no doubt about it.
I am not having a theological discussion with you, in case you haven't
noticed yet. The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
[snip]
Ace Ventura
>
> Sinister:
> >> Ace, you don't understand what you are talking about at all.
>
> Ace Ventura:
> >Actually, I understand quite well what I am talking about. Perhaps I
> >don't understand what you're talking about, but that's another matter.
> >Paraphrasing what you said above, you say that if someone doesn't
> >consider your toaster (which you've previously claimed to be a god), to
> >be a god, that they are denying you're a theist. I'm saying that's not
> >what their claim would mean, as they are not denying that's what you
> >believe, they are disclaiming a belief in your toaster god for
> >themselves, not for you. How is that telling you that you are an
> >atheist? The fact that they don't consider your toaster a god doesn't
> >prove that YOU don't believe it, or show that they don't believe it is
> >what YOU believe, so you would, according to that scenario, likely be
> >considered a theist.
>
> Ace, let me reiterate: you don't understand what you are talking about at
> all. If you claim that 'my toaster isn't god' then you are saying I am an
> atheist. You are NOT saying that you "believe that I believe in a god".
> You are just point-blank assessing me and declaring that I am an atheist.
> If my toaster isn't god, then, according to you, I believe in something,
> but that something isn't god. Hence, I am an atheist, even though I am
> claiming to be a theist.
Sin, let me reiterate: I don't understand what you are talking about. This
has to do with belief, not "reality". I don't have to believe in your god to
accept that _you_ believe in your god, and it is your belief that makes you
a theist, in this instance. Your god may be imaginary, that doesn't change
the fact that you believe it real. You're confusing terminology here, as
atheism, like theism, concerns belief. Now, you can be lying about what you
believe, but if you aren't, regardless of what I think about your belief,
you would remain a theist to me, so long as I thought you were being honest
about your belief. My opinion about your belief being in something real, or
not real, wouldn't change that fact.
Let's make it real simple:
If you believe in what you think is a god, you are a theist. It makes no
difference if you don't actually believe in a "real" god, it's what you
_think_ you believe in. You're trying to say that if (I think) your god is
not real, then I have to claim you are not a theist. The working definition
I have of theism is: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially
belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world." If you have
such a belief, you are a theist, whether your god is real (in my opinion),
or not.
> You just don't know what you are saying here. You haven't given it enough
> consideration. Think about it more carefully before you post a follow-up.
> You seem like an intelligent fellow, and I don't want to classify you as
> an idiot. But if you just post the same shit again without thinking,
> well, then, you're an idiot.
You seem to have me confused with someone who cares how you classify me.
I don't, I'm engaging in, or at least trying to engage in, a conversation
with you. Should you choose to classify me an idiot for not accepting a
definition that is contrary to the commonly accepted definition of a term,
then go for it. I'm having fun trying to follow your convoluted logic,
and when I tire, I'll ignore you, if you insist on being an asshole.
> [snip]
>
> >Farts in the wind can be heard coming from both sides of the theological
> >fence, no doubt about it.
>
> I am not having a theological discussion with you, in case you haven't
> noticed yet.
Whatever.
> The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
> that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
I suppose this is what concerns YOU about the discussion, I couldn't care
less what "stupid claims" atheism makes or doesn't make, I'm not an atheist.
You've been trying to assert that if I don't accept your god as a real god,
then I'm claiming you have no belief in gods (i.e.: that I'm saying you're
an atheist). That's bullshit. You are making up a definition of theism that
would mean: "One who believes in a god that has been proven to be real".
I have yet to find that definition, but feel free to point me in the
direction of where you think it might be located.
Ace Ventura
I don't usually tag my own posts, but I have something to add, and
to keep it in context, I'll put it here: Lest you think I don't follow
your train of thought, let me assure you, I do. You're saying that if
I don't believe your belief is in a "real" god, I must consider you
an atheist. I understand your point, I simply don't agree with it.
You being an theist or atheist (to me), has nothing to do with my belief
about the validity of your belief, only with your stated or implied belief,
assuming I don't think you're lying. If you say, for instance, you believe
in communism, then by my definition you're a communist. It doesn't matter
if I believe communism is bogus, it only matters what I think you believe,
when I proceed to define your particular belief system.
Mark Richardson
<jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>TERRY
>I don't claim to *know* conclusively that god does not exist (strong atheism.)
>For that, I would indeed be required to provide evidence.
>
>DE GOES
>Dr Sinister ...
...deliberately misinterprets peoples positions to start pointless
arguments.
I don't think we can go wrong by deleting his nonsense and thinking
things through ourselves without his "help".
> What if any distinctions can we rightly draw
>between belief, assumption, and knowledge?
>
I am not sure.
Educate me.
>I propose the following definitions:
>
>1. There is no biochemical difference between a belief in X, an assumption
>of X, and a knowledge of X. That is, they are all stored in the same manner
>within the mind.
>
True.
But is it relevant or interesting?
When I see a tree , think of my grand father or taste cheese these all
get represented in my brain as chemical and electrical changes.
Yet surely this does not say anything about trees, grand parents or
cheese?
>2. A belief in X is a mental state whereby the mind conceives of X as being
>true. Beliefs may or may not be true, and they may or may not be supported by
>evidence.
>
Correct.
>3. A knowledge of X is a belief in X that happens to be valid, and is
>typically (although not always) supported by convincing evidence.
>
Sounds reasonable.
However...
There is a whole universe of assumptions and begged questions hidden
in the word "valid".
We don't have to go there yet.
>4. An assumption of X is a belief in X that may or may not be true, but is
>not supported by any evidence.
>
Not necessarily.
An assumption may be consciously chosen from a set of possible
assumptions.
It is not necessarily a "thoughtless" or arbitrary assumption.
The critical thing about calling something an assumption is that we
are explicitly marking a thought as "provisional".
We all must make assumptions.
It is good to be aware of the assumptions we do make.
>Terry assumes no gods exist.
Yes.
> Since an assumption is an unsupported belief,
Is it?
I think you just made an assumption.
An assumption *may* be an unsupported belief.
Let me be generous and grant for the sake of argument that it is in
this case.
> we
>may conclude that Terry believes no gods exist (and is therefore a strong
>atheist) but lacks any evidence to support this belief.
How do you conclude that?
Are you a mind reader?
I am sceptic towards all claims of mind reading.
Your claim is absurd on logical grounds.
Heres why:
There is an infinite number of potential beliefs that Terry does not
subscribe to, from this you would apparently conclude he actively
disbelieves in an infinite number of propositions!
Terry is a finite being who has been in existence for a finite time (I
am assuming!) and so this is clearly impossible.
OR
are you making this claim *only* for his lack of belief in gods?
If so you are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
What is the difference between lacking a belief in "God" and lacking a
belief in sentient cucumber - like beings on the fifth planet of alpha
centauri?
Better still...
What is John De Goes position on the presence of sentient cucumbers on
alpha centauri V ?
Do you
(1) definitely believe they exist?
(equivalent of theism)
(2) definitely believe they do not exist?
(equivalent of strong atheism)
or
(3) ....
Please think and answer carefully, your answer is directly applicable
to this topic.
By the way...
Did you read my response to your last
"Definition of atheism" post that you addressed to me?
I looked for a reply but didn't see one.
Mark.
jeff
> Skeptic <nos...@all.all> wrote in
> <4B1x3.1646$H%4.11...@news.uswest.net>:
>
> >A triangle has three sides by definition.
> >
> >Baldness is the lack of hair by definition. No belief is required.
>
> God is my toaster by definition. No belief is required. If you say "no,
> your toaster is not god" then:
>
> 1) you are denying that I am a theist.
No. Your being a theist only refers to your belief. He would be saying your
claim is incorrect, not that you don't have a belief.
>
> 2) you have a definition of god. Otherwise you would not be able to
> reject mine, since you would have nothing to compare it to. Please
> supply your definition of god.
>
He is probably using the definition of god found in the common vernacular.
In that context, there would be a reason to either say that your toaster
isn't god or ask what your definition of god is. Given the nature of the
dicussion it is neither surprising nor unreasonable to make the first
choice.
jeff
jeff
> Ace Ventura <aceve...@goober.net> wrote in
> <37C4D0DA...@goober.net>:
>
> Sinister:
> >> Ace, you don't understand what you are talking about at all.
>
> Ace Ventura:
> >Actually, I understand quite well what I am talking about. Perhaps I
> >don't understand what you're talking about, but that's another matter.
> >Paraphrasing what you said above, you say that if someone doesn't
> >consider your toaster (which you've previously claimed to be a god), to
> >be a god, that they are denying you're a theist. I'm saying that's not
> >what their claim would mean, as they are not denying that's what you
> >believe, they are disclaiming a belief in your toaster god for
> >themselves, not for you. How is that telling you that you are an
> >atheist? The fact that they don't consider your toaster a god doesn't
> >prove that YOU don't believe it, or show that they don't believe it is
> >what YOU believe, so you would, according to that scenario, likely be
> >considered a theist.
>
> Ace, let me reiterate: you don't understand what you are talking about at
> all. If you claim that 'my toaster isn't god' then you are saying I am an
> atheist.
This is patently incorrect.
Saying that your toaster isn't god is not the same as saying you don't
believe it is god. If you don't see the difference between these two
statements it is because you are unable to differentiate concepts.
jeff
dgnorth
>The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
>that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
Atheism is just as stupid a claim as theism. Both are based on unfounded
beliefs. Atheists say, "We don't believe in God." Theists say, "We believe
in God." And, in the end, neither group has a scrap of evidence to support
its claims. The atheists are close to the "objective" or "scientific
default position" but miss it entirely. Here's why:
Atheists point out that there is no evidence to support the existence of
God.
True. Theists have no *valid* evidence for the existence of God. (valid
meaning some type of physical evidence that god exists. A sacred text
written by a person who was supposedly "inspired" by God won't cut it. If
you want to try presenting evidence for the existence of God, start your own
thread and well discuss it there.) Anyway, here is where the atheists make
the fatal error.
Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for God,
God does not exist.
Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! A lack of evidence does not make a theory wrong,
it simply makes it _arbitrary_. Let me clearly define "arbitrary" as I use
it here. "arbitrary" means neither true nor false. So, when someone makes
a claim like "God exists" or "God doesn't exits" without some type of valid
evidence for or against, we can't say that the claim is either true or
false; it is arbitrary. You can't make a statement either way as to the
existence of God. That, in turn, makes your theory invalid (either for or
against God). Because you have no reason to believe your theory is true,
the "objective" or "scientific default position" is to go about your life as
you would had you never heard of God or the lack thereof.
Victor Danilchenko
dgnorth wrote:
>
> >The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
> >that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
>
> Atheism is just as stupid a claim as theism. Both are based on unfounded
> beliefs. Atheists say, "We don't believe in God." Theists say, "We believe
> in God."
So far so good.
> And, in the end, neither group has a scrap of evidence to support
> its claims. The atheists are close to the "objective" or "scientific
> default position" but miss it entirely. Here's why:
>
> Atheists point out that there is no evidence to support the existence of
> God.
>
> True. Theists have no *valid* evidence for the existence of God. (valid
> meaning some type of physical evidence that god exists. A sacred text
> written by a person who was supposedly "inspired" by God won't cut it. If
> you want to try presenting evidence for the existence of God, start your own
> thread and well discuss it there.) Anyway, here is where the atheists make
> the fatal error.
>
> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for God,
> God does not exist.
Liar. Atheists make no such conclusion. What we DO conclude is that,
since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in it;
therefore, "we don't believe in god', to use your own characterization.
> Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! A lack of evidence does not make a theory wrong,
> it simply makes it _arbitrary_. Let me clearly define "arbitrary" as I use
> it here. "arbitrary" means neither true nor false. So, when someone makes
> a claim like "God exists" or "God doesn't exits" without some type of valid
> evidence for or against, we can't say that the claim is either true or
> false; it is arbitrary. You can't make a statement either way as to the
> existence of God.
Can you tell a difference between 'We don't believe god exists' and
'god does not exist'? Take a look at
http://anytime.cs.umass.edu/~danilche/default_E-.html -- it should
clarify a few things. Don't strain your brain too much.
> That, in turn, makes your theory invalid (either for or
> against God). Because you have no reason to believe your theory is true,
> the "objective" or "scientific default position" is to go about your life as
> you would had you never heard of God or the lack thereof.
You should really learn a bit about epistemology.
--
Victor Danilchenko
alt.atheist 696
Skeptic
John A. De Goes <jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7q2f9o$5tmi$3...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> TERRY
> I don't claim to *know* conclusively that god does not exist (strong
atheism.)
> For that, I would indeed be required to provide evidence.
>
> DE GOES
> distinctions that Terry draws between belief, assumption, and "knowledge"
> cannot be valid unless people can (for example) assume that God does not
exist
draw
> between belief, assumption, and knowledge?
>
>
> 1. There is no biochemical difference between a belief in X, an
assumption
> of X, and a knowledge of X. That is, they are all stored in the same
manner
> within the mind.
you can demonstrate in neurochemestry, or is that just your belief?
There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at
observable behavior behavior. If you claim to have knowledge of anything you
should be able to demonstrate it somehow.
>
> 2. A belief in X is a mental state whereby the mind conceives of X as
being
> true. Beliefs may or may not be true, and they may or may not be supported
by
> evidence.
If you conceive of X as being true, without looking at the evidence, that is
an assumption.
A belief (untested assumption) might be true or false. There is no way to
know without testing the belief by looking at the evidence.
>
> 3. A knowledge of X is a belief in X that happens to be valid, and is
> typically (although not always) supported by convincing evidence.
Belief is irrelevant to knowledge. Knowledge is that which has been tested
and demonstrated to be supported by evidence. Knowledge is ALWAYS supported
by evidence.
>
> 4. An assumption of X is a belief in X that may or may not be true, but
is
> not supported by any evidence.
No belief is required here either. An assumption is a convenient tool for
deciding a question ("Does a deity exist?) Assume X, then, if the
assumption can be stated as a testable strictly universal statement ("There
are no deities") then go look at the evidence. Belief is not relevant to
scientific inquiry.
>
> Terry assumes no gods exist. Since an assumption is an unsupported belief,
we
> may conclude that Terry believes no gods exist (and is therefore a strong
> atheist) but lacks any evidence to support this belief.
>
That would be an erroneous conclusion about Terry. The premise, "... an
assumption is an unsupported belief..." is not valid.
maff91
wrote:
>...snip...
>
>>The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
>>that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
>
>
>Atheism is just as stupid a claim as theism. Both are based on unfounded
>beliefs. Atheists say, "We don't believe in God." Theists say, "We believe
>in God." And, in the end, neither group has a scrap of evidence to support
>its claims. The atheists are close to the "objective" or "scientific
>default position" but miss it entirely. Here's why:
>
>Atheists point out that there is no evidence to support the existence of
>God.
>
>True. Theists have no *valid* evidence for the existence of God. (valid
>meaning some type of physical evidence that god exists. A sacred text
>written by a person who was supposedly "inspired" by God won't cut it. If
>you want to try presenting evidence for the existence of God, start your own
>thread and well discuss it there.) Anyway, here is where the atheists make
>the fatal error.
Nope. You put the question aside until evidence turns up.
>
>Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for God,
>God does not exist.
>
>Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! A lack of evidence does not make a theory wrong,
>it simply makes it _arbitrary_. Let me clearly define "arbitrary" as I use
>it here. "arbitrary" means neither true nor false. So, when someone makes
Nope. It'll remain a speculation.
>a claim like "God exists" or "God doesn't exits" without some type of valid
>evidence for or against, we can't say that the claim is either true or
>false; it is arbitrary. You can't make a statement either way as to the
>existence of God. That, in turn, makes your theory invalid (either for or
A theory in a scientific context explains facts (observations) and has
some predictive power.
>against God). Because you have no reason to believe your theory is true,
>the "objective" or "scientific default position" is to go about your life as
>you would had you never heard of God or the lack thereof.
http://www.scientificmethod.com/chapters.htm
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
--
L.P.#0000000001
Morat
dgnorth wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> >The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
> >that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
>
> Atheism is just as stupid a claim as theism. Both are based on unfounded
> beliefs. Atheists say, "We don't believe in God." Theists say, "We believe
> in God." And, in the end, neither group has a scrap of evidence to support
> its claims. The atheists are close to the "objective" or "scientific
> default position" but miss it entirely. Here's why:
>
> Atheists point out that there is no evidence to support the existence of
> God.
>
> True. Theists have no *valid* evidence for the existence of God. (valid
> meaning some type of physical evidence that god exists. A sacred text
> written by a person who was supposedly "inspired" by God won't cut it. If
> you want to try presenting evidence for the existence of God, start your own
> thread and well discuss it there.) Anyway, here is where the atheists make
> the fatal error.
>
> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for God,
> God does not exist.
>
> Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!! A lack of evidence does not make a theory wrong,
> it simply makes it _arbitrary_. Let me clearly define "arbitrary" as I use
> it here. "arbitrary" means neither true nor false. So, when someone makes
> a claim like "God exists" or "God doesn't exits" without some type of valid
> evidence for or against, we can't say that the claim is either true or
> false; it is arbitrary. You can't make a statement either way as to the
> existence of God. That, in turn, makes your theory invalid (either for or
> against God). Because you have no reason to believe your theory is true,
> the "objective" or "scientific default position" is to go about your life as
> you would had you never heard of God or the lack thereof.
That makes agnosticism (I'm not sure if there is a God or not, since I lack
proof either way) the logical choice, correct?
--
spam blocking in effect. To reply remove "not"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mankind must without a doubt be the most conceited race
in the universe, for who else believes that God has
nothing better to do than sit around all day and help
him out of tight spots? ---Alan Dean Foster
------------------------------------------------------------------
G & G
dgnorth wrote in message <0fhx3.48$yt4.4...@news1.i1.net>...
>...snip...
>
>Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for God,
>God does not exist.
>
Glenn R. wrote:
Actually this may be true for SOME atheists. The ones I know don't say
this, however. They simply withhold belief until there is evidence provided
that would make continued withholding of belief unjustifiable. Until such
evidence is provided they will continue to say "I don't believe in any god."
I hope you can see the difference between what the two of us are saying. It
is subtle, but important, in my opinion.
Dave Haas
>
>
> dgnorth wrote:
>
> > ...snip...
> >
> > >The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
> > >that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
> >
> > Atheism is just as stupid a claim as theism. Both are based on unfounded
> > beliefs. Atheists say, "We don't believe in God." Theists say, "We believe
> > in God." And, in the end, neither group has a scrap of evidence to support
> > its claims. The atheists are close to the "objective" or "scientific
> > default position" but miss it entirely. Here's why:
> >
> > Atheists point out that there is no evidence to support the existence of
> > God.
> >
> > True. Theists have no *valid* evidence for the existence of God. (valid
> > meaning some type of physical evidence that god exists. A sacred text
> > written by a person who was supposedly "inspired" by God won't cut it. If
> > you want to try presenting evidence for the existence of God, start your own
> > thread and well discuss it there.) Anyway, here is where the atheists make
> > the fatal error.
> >
> > God does not exist.
> >
> > it simply makes it _arbitrary_. Let me clearly define "arbitrary" as I use
> > it here. "arbitrary" means neither true nor false. So, when someone makes
> > a claim like "God exists" or "God doesn't exits" without some type of valid
> > evidence for or against, we can't say that the claim is either true or
> > false; it is arbitrary. You can't make a statement either way as to the
> > existence of God. That, in turn, makes your theory invalid (either for or
> > against God). Because you have no reason to believe your theory is true,
> > the "objective" or "scientific default position" is to go about your life as
> > you would had you never heard of God or the lack thereof.
>
> That makes agnosticism (I'm not sure if there is a God or not, since I lack
> proof either way) the logical choice, correct?
>
>
The logical choice is the choice that explains life and the universe
using the simplest scenario. Either we are animals evolved in a universe
that came about in a manor we don't understand or we are special
creatures created by an invisible but complex human like thing living
outside our universe having unimaginable powers but possessing human like
needs like needing humans to worship and believe in it. Which scenario
would you put your money on? Too bad you can't win that bet.
D. Haas
Mark Richardson
"dgnorth" <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> >The discussion concerns a refutation of the stupid claim
> >that atheism is an "objective stance" or a "scientific default position."
>
> Atheism is just as stupid a claim as theism. Both are based on unfounded
> beliefs. Atheists say, "We don't believe in God." Theists say, "We believe
> in God." And, in the end, neither group has a scrap of evidence to support
> its claims. The atheists are close to the "objective" or "scientific
> default position" but miss it entirely. Here's why:
>
> Atheists point out that there is no evidence to support the existence of
> God.
>
> True. Theists have no *valid* evidence for the existence of God. (valid
> meaning some type of physical evidence that god exists. A sacred text
> written by a person who was supposedly "inspired" by God won't cut it. If
> you want to try presenting evidence for the existence of God, start your own
> thread and well discuss it there.) Anyway, here is where the atheists make
> the fatal error.
>
> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for God,
> God does not exist.
>
I am afraid that is just a Strawman.
I am an atheist.
What you have outlined would be an argument from ignorance - a logical
falacy.
"absence of evidence" is not proof of anything in itself.It does however
demonstrate that the belief "there is no god" is not contradicted by
observation.
This is a pleasing confirmation or support for the belief rather than
the reason for such a belief.
The reasons for being an atheist are many and various.
I will briefly illustrate one.
(1) We know a great deal about human culture.
Every culture of humans have sytsems of belief - mythology.
Many of these mythologies concern gods.
Many of these mythologies are mutually incompatible.
Conclusion :Not all god can be real.
Or to express that another way, most of them are false.
(2)There is no rational or logical way of determining which gods are
real and which are false.
Therefore the only way of deciding to believe in a god is through an
emotional or aesthetic choice.(faith)
(3) When confronted with a vast array of indistiguishable entities
with certain knowledge that most of them cannot exist
AND
with compeling evidence (anthropological) that gods are works of
fiction.
Then it is reasonable to conclude (at least provisionally) that they are
all false.
[In summary I KNOW that most gods are false
And I believe (for various reasons) that all gods are.]
Taken together with various other arguments such arguments do begin to
present a totality which I find would find difficult (and perverse) to
ignore.
Also-
Since choosing a god is a matter of faith - (personal "taste" if you
like.)
there are considerations from ethics and aesthetics which eliminate
,for me, the desire to have "faith" in any god.
That is all the gods I have so far considered are unworthy of worship.
Hope this has given something to think about.
Cheers, Mark. (strong atheist)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8E2DBA62...@news.globalserve.net...
[snip]
>No. He is stating the perfectly reasonable fact that producing a santa
>will falsify the only useful working hypothesis, "There is no santa."
Ok. The hypothesis is that "Santa does not exist." Let us assume that
this is actually false. Ok. So how do you falsify it? How do you design
some experimental apparatus which enables you to detect something which
negates the validity of the physics upon which the experimental equipment
is based?
[snip]
>No, you have it backwards. Super Pappy said, "All I need is one unicorn
>to prove that the unicorn does not lack existence."
Again. How do you detect an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
>> You and I know that Patriarch isn't going to produce an example of
>> IPU. Why? Because of the laws of physics. So it isn't a question of
>> empirically observing IPU.
>
>That's exactly what it is.
How are you going to empirically observe something which negates the
theories upon which your empirical instruments operate?
[snip]
>Backwards again, Sin. If the question is on the existence of IPU, just
>take, "IPU does not exist" as your scientific working hypothesis. Anyone
>who is interested is free to try to get the funding for a study of the
>question.
How do you falsify the assumption "IPU does not exist?" Show me an
IPU-detector. If you don't have an IPU-detector, how are you going to
produce evidence for IPU to falsify this hypothesis?
It's clear that you don't understand what a falsifiable hypothesis is.
dgnorth
>> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for
God,
>> God does not exist.
>
>since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in it;
>therefore, "we don't believe in god', to use your own characterization.
Again, the same error. "We don't believe in god" is just as invalid as
"There is no god." The idea is pretty subtle, so I'm not surprised you
missed it the first time through. Let me point it out.
"There is no god" tries to make a statement about a theory: the existance of
god. The error here is that since there is no evidence AT ALL that can in
any way support or disprove this theory, you cannot make any statement about
the theory of god.
By saying "we don't believe in god" you make what could be a true statement
(meaning it is true that you don't believe in god) but is also an invalid
statement. Because the theory of the existence of god has no evidence, you
cannot logically refrence it in a statement. It's not, "We don't believe in
god" or, "There is no god." Insted, it is, "There is no reason to mention
god because it is an arbitrary theory with no support and therefore I will
put it out of my mind unless some evidence comes to light that would support
that theory. The only reason I'm talking with you is to correct your
epistemelogical errors so that I don't have to put up with poeple leading
irrational lives because of those errors."
> You should really learn a bit about epistemology.
Since I'm a generally nice person, I won't point out that you're the one
getting the lesson here. I don't appreciate rudeness.
Also, I am including the definition of 'atheism' from the American Heritage
Dictionary:
atheism - 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
So, I guess that means that both "We don't believe in God" and "There is no
God" are both statements an atheist could make. (Though, they would still
be invalid.)
dgnorth
> That makes agnosticism (I'm not sure if there is a God or not, since I
lack
>proof either way) the logical choice, correct?
Correct. But even more than just not siding one way or the other as to the
existence of god, you must ignore the whole notion of the existence of god
until some evidence is presented.
Just to make it clear, I'm not here to argue about god. I'm here to argue
with the arguments about god. There simply should be no arguments,
discussions, debates, or even thoughts about god unless you have some reason
(i.e. evidence to support or refute the existence of god). You can't argue
or discuss something and treat it as fact when it is not. (Well, I suppose
you can argue all you want, but it won't do you any good) That is why I am
here to end these pointless and empty arguments.
dgnorth
>The reasons for being an atheist are many and various.
>I will briefly illustrate one.
>
>(1) We know a great deal about human culture.
>Every culture of humans have sytsems of belief - mythology.
>Many of these mythologies concern gods.
>Many of these mythologies are mutually incompatible.
>Conclusion :Not all god can be real.
>Or to express that another way, most of them are false.
OK, but tell me why these people believe in god(s). Do they have some
evidence I haven't seen or did they just make them up?
>(2)There is no rational or logical way of determining which gods are
>real and which are false.
>Therefore the only way of deciding to believe in a god is through an
>emotional or aesthetic choice.(faith)
Are you saying that emotions and aesthetics are not rational? I would be
glad to argue that if you would like. Anyway, the reason one can't be
chosen is because you have no valid reason to choose any of them.
>(3) When confronted with a vast array of indistiguishable entities
>with certain knowledge that most of them cannot exist
>AND
>with compeling evidence (anthropological) that gods are works of
>fiction.
>Then it is reasonable to conclude (at least provisionally) that they are
>all false.
You seem to be dealing with all of the various specific cases of gods, but
that does not preclude the posibility that _some_ god or gods may exist.
>[In summary I KNOW that most gods are false
>And I believe (for various reasons) that all gods are.]
So what it all comes down to, for you, is faith that there is no god? That
would make you a sort of theist whose god is the lack thereof?? An od point
to take for a supposed 'atheist'.
>Taken together with various other arguments such arguments do begin to
>present a totality which I find would find difficult (and perverse) to
>ignore.
That's because you missed the flaw in the 'totality'.
>Also-
>Since choosing a god is a matter of faith - (personal "taste" if you
>like.)
>there are considerations from ethics and aesthetics which eliminate
>,for me, the desire to have "faith" in any god.
>That is all the gods I have so far considered are unworthy of worship.
Again, a rather bizzarre position for an 'athiest' to take.
>Hope this has given something to think about.
>Cheers, Mark. (strong atheist)
not "strong atheist" but "strong theist".
dgnorth
>Actually this may be true for SOME atheists. The ones I know don't say
>this, however. They simply withhold belief until there is evidence
provided
>that would make continued withholding of belief unjustifiable. Until such
>evidence is provided they will continue to say "I don't believe in any
god."
>I hope you can see the difference between what the two of us are saying.
It
>is subtle, but important, in my opinion.
Pleas read my response to Victor's post. It explains the subtlety in
detail. I also thank you for posting a polite response. It's so hard to
find that here. Anyway, check out the post and I'd love to reply to any
comments or questions you might have.
Ace Ventura
"End these pointless and empty arguments"? May the Force be with you. :)
Sterling Crowe
dgnorth <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tjHx3.51$Jt6.6...@news1.i1.net...
> snip
> >> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for
> God,
> >> God does not exist.
> >
> > Liar. Atheists make no such conclusion. What we DO conclude is that,
> >since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in it;
> >therefore, "we don't believe in god', to use your own characterization.
>
>
> Again, the same error. "We don't believe in god" is just as invalid as
> "There is no god." The idea is pretty subtle, so I'm not surprised you
> missed it the first time through. Let me point it out.
Interesting that you completely miss the boat by adding assumptions not
implicit in the simple statement "I do not believe in god".
> "There is no god" tries to make a statement about a theory: the existance
of
> god. The error here is that since there is no evidence AT ALL that can in
> any way support or disprove this theory, you cannot make any statement
about
> the theory of god.
You just did. You have stated that there is no evidence at all. That is a
statement regarding the hypothetical "god exists". Clearly one can make
statements regarding that hypothesis. In this case, a statement that there
is no supporting evidence for it.
> By saying "we don't believe in god" you make what could be a true
statement
> (meaning it is true that you don't believe in god) but is also an invalid
> statement.
The truth is invalid? Interesting.
> Because the theory of the existence of god has no evidence, you
> cannot logically refrence it in a statement.
Of course you can. You can state that you lack belief in the validity of the
hypothesis. It's that simple. Without compelling evidence to believe, the
only valid position is to withhold such belief.
> It's not, "We don't believe in
> god" or, "There is no god." Insted, it is, "There is no reason to mention
> god because it is an arbitrary theory with no support and therefore I will
> put it out of my mind unless some evidence comes to light that would
support
> that theory.
Or, to put it succinctly: I don't believe in gods.
If you wish to elaborate as above, by giving a reason that you lack belief
in the validity of the hypothesis, then you may do so. The fact that one can
go into greater detail does not invalidate that one can simply state that he
lacks belief nor does it invalidate that someone may have another reason to
state that he does not believe in gods (the contrary evidence of the sheer
multiplicity of mutually exclusive gods, for instance).
Your narrow view is not valid for all people who do not believe in gods.
> The only reason I'm talking with you is to correct your
> epistemelogical errors so that I don't have to put up with poeple leading
> irrational lives because of those errors."
The problem is that those irrational lives make up the majority and they
encroach on nearly every aspect of public life (and wish to make aspects of
private lives fall under their reign as well). In the face of the vast
majority of people holding a belief in one god or another, the simple
statement that one lacks such beliefs is a valid distinction.
> > You should really learn a bit about epistemology.
>
>
> Since I'm a generally nice person, I won't point out that you're the one
> getting the lesson here. I don't appreciate rudeness.
But arrogance is A-OK with you, eh?
> Also, I am including the definition of 'atheism' from the American
Heritage
> Dictionary:
>
> atheism - 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Note that implicit in the definition is the assumption that gods exist.
> b.
> The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
>
> So, I guess that means that both "We don't believe in God" and "There is
no
> God" are both statements an atheist could make.
Depends on the atheist. An implicit, or weak, atheist will state that he
does not believe in gods without necessarily denying the possibility that
gods could exist. An explicit, or strong, atheist will state that there is
no god.
Definition 1a. above describes both sorts. For the purposes of clearer
definitions, the alt.atheism FAQ divides the first definition into its
component parts and identifies each type of atheism more clearly.
> (Though, they would still
> be invalid.)
By your incredibly narrow assumptions, yes.
--
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur,
Sterling Crowe
#1168, Knight of BAAWA
The church is near,
but the road is icy.
The tavern is far,
but I will walk carefully.
-Ukranian proverb
>
Dr Sinister
<7pp5cv$7bo$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>:
>Dr Sinister wrote in message
><8E2A2D9F...@news.globalserve.net>...
[snip]
>No, because I wouldn't be asserting that chickens in fact are not
>good housepets. I would be asserting that this is what I
>believe. I would not point to anything to _prove_ that that is
>what I believe (I might point to things to prove that this is a
>true statement, but not to prove that this is what I believe.)
There is no way to _prove_ anything about a belief. All you can do is
point to a behavior and ask that I accept that behavior as evidence.
This isn't something you can do for a lack of belief. So there is no
evidence _even in principle_ that I can accept, no matter how low my
standards are concerning behavior/belief evidence.
> I
>don't find it necessary to prove to others things about my mental
>state.
Apparently you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be pressing this issue. Mark
Richardson has also made a similar comment:
Mark Richardson <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in
<37bfa084...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>:
>Many of us have pointed out the difference between being a weak
>atheist AND demonstrating that weak atheism to a third person.
>The first being a valid and commonly held stance the second being a
>case of "who cares?".
But he never fails to make his useless presence known when this issue
turns up. His _behavior_ is evidence that he holds a position in his mind
contrary to what he verbally claims.
>You may doubt me, but that has no bearing on what I
>choose to believe.
It only has bearing on your claim of objectivity and consistency. You've
forfited those claims.
>Futhermore, what I believe may be
>theoretically impossible, but I can still believe it.
That is true.
>I don't
>know why people choose to do this, but they can and (evidently)
>do. If you don't accept that I'm telling the truth about what I
>believe then there is no way to check this and you are stuck with
>a choice about whether to accept my statement or assume I'm
>lying, regardless of the fact that it is theoretically possible
>that what I say about my beliefs is true (or theoretically
>possible that what I say about my beliefs is false.)
Here you provide an interesting Freudian slip that reveals the true
nature of what you are. Why are you defending your belief claims if you
are an atheist? What sort of beliefs are involved in your atheism? There
is nothing in this paragraph that refers to your lack-of-beliefs.
It's your lack-of-belief claims that I take issue with, not your belief
claims.
>Well, you
>don't *have* to choose, I suppose. You could remain agnostic
>about my statements about my beliefs. Note that my beliefs may
>or may not be correct, but that I can still *believe* them.
We are talking about lack-of-beliefs. That was the original issue. You
keep saying you can *believe* what you believe, regardless of what I
think. OK, How do you *believe* a lack of belief? How is a 'lack of
belief' "correct" or "incorrect"?
>>However, if you tried to point to your lack of chicken as evidence that
>>you are acting out a lack of belief (e.g. 'I lack belief that chickens
>>make good house-pets'), the causal relationship between these two
>>states becomes incoherent.
>
>
>I wouldn't point to this either as evidence. Again, I wouldn't
>attempt to supply evidence of _belief_ to anybody.
It's clear that I am talking about lack-of-belief in my above paragraph.
You seem to make no distinction in your mind between a belief and the
absence of one. How am I supposed to accept that you are an atheist if
you are supplying me with evidence that you misunderstand the difference
between these two concepts?
[snip]
>>There are an infinite number of beliefs you lack. Please don't say that
>>they result in an infinite number of behaviors/lack of behaviors,
>>because then you would be faced with your previous argument concerning
>>economy of claims.
>
>
>This is exactly what I claim. There *are* an infinity of
>behaviors that I am not exhibiting. Isn't this self evident?
>I'm not piercing my body, I'm not getting tattoos, I'm not biting
>my fingernails, ad infinitum.
You didn't understand what I said. I said that there are an infinite
number of beliefs you lack, and if you propose that they RESULT in an
infinite number of lack-of-behaviors, you are proposing an infinite
number of cause-effect relationships.
I don't have to accept such a ludicrous claim of infinite plurality of
causations between nonexistent things. Besides, it contradicts your
'economy of claims' principle.
>This certainly doesn't violate my
>previous argument about an economy of claims;
Yes it does. You just didn't read what I wrote.
>do you know why?
>Because they are verifiable: no pierced holes, no tattoos, no
>bite marks on the fingernails, and lo and behold -- no chickens.
>The argument for the economy of claims only applies to claims for
>which there is no evidence.
Give me some evidence that a 'lack of belief in getting tattoed' is what
_caused_ you not to have a tattoo.
>Once conclusive evidence is
>available, then it is no longer necessary to infer a conclusion,
>it is then possible to prove a conclusion.
You know that conclusive evidence for nonexistent causations
isn't something you're going to provide anyone anytime soon. So you
should stop claiming it.
>The only effect my lack of belief has is in my behavior, it
>doesn't "cause things to happen" (like God striking me down, for
>instance.)
You told me it causes things to 'not happen'.
>Well, that depends on how far one takes one's skepticism. I'm
>not generally as skeptical about epistemological claims, only
>about physical claims.
Most atheists agree with you here. But most psychologists will have a
good laugh.
> For epistemological claims, one must take
>into account circumstantial evidence and past experience. If you
>tell me that you believe the moon is made of green cheese, and
>that you are not joking and that you really, really believe it
>then I have no choice but to conclude that this is in fact what
>you believe based on the following evidence: the words you
>uttered, your facial expression, past experience that, when
>pressed, people generally tell the truth unless there is some
>clear motive to lie.
This idea should be eliminated from the sphere of objective thought. I'm
preparing a short essay which will lay to rest this criminally stupid
paragon of gullibility.
Sterling Crowe
> ...snip...
>
>
> > That makes agnosticism (I'm not sure if there is a God or not, since I
> lack
> >proof either way) the logical choice, correct?
Correct, although that more closely describes the position of weak, or
implicit, atheism than of agnosticism. As dgnorth points out, agnosticism
holds with additional assumptions which simple lack of belief in the
proposition "god exists" do not.
>
> Correct. But even more than just not siding one way or the other as to
the
> existence of god, you must ignore the whole notion of the existence of god
> until some evidence is presented.
This is flat out baloney. One does not have to ignore the proposition "god
exists" and, in fact, I find the idea of sitting on my ass waiting for
someone else to present what I might consider valid evidence to be
distasteful as well as boring.
Your assumption that one is not even allowed to investigate the propostion
to see if there is any evidence beyond "a lot of people believe in it"
strikes me as lazy and is one of the major roots of why I refuse to label
myself "agnostic".
The basic assumption most often given regarding agnosticism is that one
cannot know, not merely that no evidence exists but that no evidence can
exist. This strikes me as insufferably silly as it is an assumption which
claims knowledge about the nature of that which the very statement claims
nothing can be known.
> Just to make it clear, I'm not here to argue about god. I'm here to argue
> with the arguments about god. There simply should be no arguments,
> discussions, debates, or even thoughts about god unless you have some
reason
> (i.e. evidence to support or refute the existence of god).
Quite frankly, I do. There are several arguments for or against several
definitions of god, each relying on various types of evidence. The fact that
you have chosen to ignore this and, instead, have taken a position of
voluntary ignorance and have chosen another position for which you have no
positive evidence (ie, the lack of belief in the idea that evidence exists
or that it could exist, depending on which "flavor" of agnosticism you hold)
does not affect the fact that theists will continue to present what they
consider evidence and interested atheists like myself will continue to
examine the evidence and, where necessary, refute it or provide counter
evidence.
> You can't argue
> or discuss something and treat it as fact when it is not.
Ummm. Duh. That's why you argue against something being presented as fact by
showing that it is not. Or, when you think you have the facts, you argue for
it.
> (Well, I suppose
> you can argue all you want, but it won't do you any good) That is why I
am
> here to end these pointless and empty arguments.
By bringing up another pointless and empty argument about whether other
people should spend their time doing something you don't want to do?
Fine. You've brought it up and I reject your position. Feel free to go away,
rather than perpetuate a pointless argument in support of your belief that
an enjoyable pastime of mine is a waste of my time.
Mark Richardson
On 27 Aug 1999 23:05:26 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>Again. How do you detect an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
You cant.
That is why you need "faith".
Exactly the situation for "God".
That is the beauty of the analogy.
Mark.
Dr Sinister
<lSIx3.341$mo.22396@viper>:
>dgnorth <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tjHx3.51$Jt6.6...@news1.i1.net...
>> snip
>> >> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence
>> >> for
>> God,
>> >> God does not exist.
>> >
>> > Liar. Atheists make no such conclusion. What we DO conclude is that,
>> >since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in
>> >it; therefore, "we don't believe in god', to use your own
>> >characterization.
>>
>>
>> Again, the same error. "We don't believe in god" is just as invalid
>> as "There is no god." The idea is pretty subtle, so I'm not surprised
>> you missed it the first time through. Let me point it out.
>
>Interesting that you completely miss the boat by adding assumptions not
>implicit in the simple statement "I do not believe in god".
Please help us to _not_ make any assumptions concerning what you mean
when you say "I lack belief in the existence of god(s)." Provide us with
objective definitions of "existence", "belief", and "god(s)."
Hopefully, these will be definitions which can be reliably applied to the
real world.
>Or, to put it succinctly: I don't believe in gods.
Which doesn't mean anything. By the way, the correct definition of
atheism is "Lack of belief in god(s)." You should read your FAQ carefully
next time.
[snip]
>The problem is that those irrational lives make up the majority and they
>encroach on nearly every aspect of public life
Yes, this is a concern. Just witnessed what enlightened atheists did in
China and the former USSR.
> (and wish to make aspects
>of private lives fall under their reign as well).
See above.
[snip]
--
Dr Sinister
>[temporarily removed from kill file]
Mark, don't think for a moment this means you aren't a jackass. You've
been following my posts all along, and you will continue to do so. How
would you *know* that this is an opportune moment to remove me from your
killfile if you haven't been reading my posts in the first place?
Oooh. I know. You piggyback.
Ok, so, to idiots like you, Blackguard, stix, Dan Fake, etc, publicly
announcing "killfiling" (as you did above), and then tell us it means
that you post the string symbol "k.i.l.l.f.i.l.i.e.d", but then
proceed to merrily read the subject's posts & respond to them
anyway. Like nothing happened.
Just look at Blackguard. He's "killfiled" me, but we're still having a
nice conversation. He replies promptly too. Doesn't waste a moment.
You aren't any different. No wonder trolls enjoy sending you shitheads
into the weeds.
>On 27 Aug 1999 23:05:26 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Again. How do you detect an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
>
>You cant.
>That is why you need "faith".
>Exactly the situation for "God".
I need "faith" to say that "IPU exists" is a falsifiable hypothesis and
"IPU does not exist" isn't??
>That is the beauty of the analogy.
Friggin' idiot.
John A. De Goes
There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at observable
behavior behavior.
DE GOES
There is no neural difference between belief in X and knowledge of X. This is a
negative assumption, a working hypothesis, and, according to you, the only kind
that can be falsified. Therefore, if you wish to dispute it, you must provide
evidence for your view, by your own standards. I expect substantial quotes from
journals on biochemistry, biophysics, neurobiology, and other relevant fields.
SKEPTIC
If you conceive of X as being true, without looking at the evidence, that is an
assumption.
DE GOES
From this, we may conclude that Skeptic believes assumptions are untested (that
is, lacking evidence). In addition, Skeptic asserts elsewhere that:
1. Assumptions are not beliefs. Evidence: "No belief is required here [for
assumption] either. " "The premise, '... an assumption is an unsupported
belief...' is not valid." Since he admits an assumption is unsupported, he must
deny an assumption is a belief.
2. Beliefs are assumptions. Evidence: "A belief (untested assumption) might
be true or false." Here he equates a belief with an untested assumption, but
since he admits all assumptions are untested, he therefore equates belief with
assumption.
Let X be an assumption and Y be the property that makes a thing a belief.
Skeptic's assertions then become:
1. All things that are X lack property Y.
2. All things that have property Y are X.
3. Therefore, according to Skeptic, all things that have property Y lack
property Y.
This incoherent babbling, evidenced by Skeptic in the last thread in which he
participated, indicates he does not think about what he writes, but rather,
invents statements as he goes along in order to save face, even if said
statements make no sense or contradict one another completely.
--
John A. De Goes
* View artificial life on your computer with free software from
http://pages.prodigy.net/jdegoes/bugsss.html.
* Less than a nickel of every health care dollar is spent on medical research.
Visit http://www.researchamerica.org to learn what you can do.
John A. De Goes
Mark, don't think for a moment this means you aren't a jackass. You've been
following my posts all along, and you will continue to do so. How would you
*know* that this is an opportune moment to remove me from your killfile if you
haven't been reading my posts in the first place?
Oooh. I know. You piggyback.
DE GOES
Killfiling appears to be a symbolic gesture intended to insult the person
killfiled, rather than an actual pledge to avoid reading the person's post.
Extremely odd and quite childish.
John A. De Goes
An assumption of X is a belief in X that may or may not be true, but is not
supported by any evidence.
RICHARDSON
An assumption may be consciously chosen from a set of possible assumptions.
DE GOES
You are confusing the *choice* of an assumption, which may be done with a set
of guidelines, with the assumption itself, which is necessarily unsupported, by
definition.
RICHARDSON QUOTING DE GOES
...we may conclude that Terry believes no gods exist (and is therefore a strong
atheist) but lacks any evidence to support this belief.
RICHARDSON
How do you conclude that?
Are you a mind reader?
DE GOES
Terry has admitted to assuming that no gods exist. Therefore, if assumption is
unsupported belief, as you granted, then Terry believes something unsupported,
by his own admission.
RICHARDSON
I looked for a reply but didn't see one.
DE GOES
I have gone into more depth on this issue recently, so before posting, read the
"definition of atheism" thread.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
> <Mark Richardson wrote>
>>The reasons for being an atheist are many and various.
>>I will briefly illustrate one.
>>
>>(1) We know a great deal about human culture.
>>Every culture of humans have sytsems of belief - mythology.
>>Many of these mythologies concern gods.
>>Many of these mythologies are mutually incompatible.
>>Conclusion :Not all god can be real.
>>Or to express that another way, most of them are false.
>
>
>OK, but tell me why these people believe in god(s). Do they have some
>evidence I haven't seen or did they just make them up?
>
We actually have a lot of evidence that people do make them up.
(that is one of the points I was trying to make.)
I would say people create gods because they need them.
(This is a huge topic in itself.)
>>(2)There is no rational or logical way of determining which gods are
>>real and which are false.
>>Therefore the only way of deciding to believe in a god is through an
>>emotional or aesthetic choice.(faith)
>
>
>Are you saying that emotions and aesthetics are not rational?
I would say emotions definitely can be irrational, not that they are
necessarily irrational.
(I am not certain if ethics or aesthetics can ever be reduced to any
rational system.
Something is always lost in the translation, it seems to me.)
> I would be
>glad to argue that if you would like. Anyway, the reason one can't be
>chosen is because you have no valid reason to choose any of them.
>
Exactly my point, there is no test that can say "Zeus" is a real god
but "Thor" is not.
Yet people definitely have their favorite gods.
>>(3) When confronted with a vast array of indistiguishable entities
>>with certain knowledge that most of them cannot exist
>>AND
>>with compeling evidence (anthropological) that gods are works of
>>fiction.
>>Then it is reasonable to conclude (at least provisionally) that they are
>>all false.
>
>
>You seem to be dealing with all of the various specific cases of gods, but
>that does not preclude the posibility that _some_ god or gods may exist.
>
I cannot prove that some god does not exist.
What I can show is that it is reasonable to believe that no god
exists.
>>[In summary I KNOW that most gods are false
>>And I believe (for various reasons) that all gods are.]
>
>
>So what it all comes down to, for you, is faith that there is no god?
I wouldn't put it that way.
I have a belief that there is no god.
I am arguing that it is a reasonable belief.
You can call that "faith" if you like but I dont use the word myself.
"Faith" has too many shades of meaning.
There is "faith" and there is faith.
8-)
(far too much equivacation over the word "faith" goes on so I try to
avoid the word.)
I have "faith" that the world is real if you like.
> That
>would make you a sort of theist whose god is the lack thereof?? An od point
>to take for a supposed 'atheist'.
Not really.
None of us can think or believe anything without making some basic
assumptions.
I have beliefs - that doesn't make me a theist.
It makes me a functioning, conscious human being.
Show me a person without beliefs and I will show you a corpse.
>
>>Taken together with various other arguments such arguments do begin to
>>present a totality which I find would find difficult (and perverse) to
>>ignore.
>
>
>That's because you missed the flaw in the 'totality'.
>
Do tell.
I am open to suggestions.
I have been arguing religion for over thirty years now and haven't
encountered any serious objections to my viewpoint.
I invite you to find holes or contradictions.
What I presented was just one brief argument against theism.
There are others.
>>Also-
>>Since choosing a god is a matter of faith - (personal "taste" if you
>>like.)
>>there are considerations from ethics and aesthetics which eliminate
>>,for me, the desire to have "faith" in any god.
>>That is all the gods I have so far considered are unworthy of worship.
>
>
>Again, a rather bizzarre position for an 'athiest' to take.
>
I can live with you thinking me bizarre.
I am not interested in your approval or anything so adolescent.
I am just admitting to being human - we are creatures of emotion as
much as creatures of reason.
My belief (that all gods are false ) does not contradict reason AND it
is in tune with my moral and aesthetic sense.
I don't see why you should consider that "bizarre".
>>Hope this has given something to think about.
>>Cheers, Mark. (strong atheist)
>
>
>not "strong atheist" but "strong theist".
>
To be a theist I would need to believe in a god.
I don't, so I am not.
Cheers, Mark.
Dr Sinister
[snip]
> My opinion about your belief being in something real, or
>not real, wouldn't change that fact.
[snip]
>Let's make it real simple:
>If you believe in what you think is a god, you are a theist. It makes no
>difference if you don't actually believe in a "real" god, it's what you
>_think_ you believe in. You're trying to say that if (I think) your god
>is not real, then I have to claim you are not a theist. The working
>definition I have of theism is: "Belief in the existence of a god or
>gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the
>world." If you have such a belief, you are a theist, whether your god is
>real (in my opinion), or not.
There are two points I will make in rebuttal to this.
1. You make the statement:
>it makes no
>difference if you don't actually believe in a "real" god,
This means you have a definition of what a "real" god is and what an
"unreal" god (e.g. toaster-god) is. Please supply this definition.
2. You are implicitly re-defining the term "theism" to suit your purpose:
> My opinion about your belief being in something real, or
>not real, wouldn't change that fact.
>if you have
>such a belief, you are a theist, whether your god is real (in my
>opinion), or not.
It doesn't matter if my god is "real" according to your opinion. As long
as he is a god by accepted definitions. That's all. A theist is someone
who "believes in the existence of god(s)."
Suppose I believe in the existence of X. Is that enough to make me a
theist? If you say yes, then this conversation can serve no more purpose.
I can be a theist if X is encompassed within the definition of "god(s)",
otherwise, the term 'theist' is meaningless.
Now, if you wish to talk your way out of this morass of illogicality by
saying "Doc, I believe that *you* believe your X is a god, but I don't
believe it is" it means the following:
You are implicitly redefining 'theist' to mean 'someone who believes in
the existence of an X which he believes is a god. An atheist with respect
to this is someone who denies any definition of god which relates it to
any quantity X which a theist may possibly consider to be a god.
Surely, you don't mean to say such a stupid thing.
Ace Ventura
>
> Ace Ventura <aceve...@goober.net> wrote in
> <37C4EE28...@goober.net>:
>
> [snip]
>
> > My opinion about your belief being in something real, or
> >not real, wouldn't change that fact.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Let's make it real simple:
> >If you believe in what you think is a god, you are a theist. It makes no
> >difference if you don't actually believe in a "real" god, it's what you
> >_think_ you believe in. You're trying to say that if (I think) your god
> >is not real, then I have to claim you are not a theist. The working
> >definition I have of theism is: "Belief in the existence of a god or
> >gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the
> >world." If you have such a belief, you are a theist, whether your god is
> >real (in my opinion), or not.
>
> There are two points I will make in rebuttal to this.
>
> 1. You make the statement:
>
> >it makes no
> >difference if you don't actually believe in a "real" god,
>
> This means you have a definition of what a "real" god is and what an
> "unreal" god (e.g. toaster-god) is. Please supply this definition.
No, I do not. It doesn't matter. I meant "real" to the person who
is observing the claimant of the said belief. It makes no difference
if it's the "real" god to them. If you have a belief in what you think
is a god, then you are a theist in your book, and mine (so long as I
don't think you're lying to me). What god is or is not is irrelevant
to the definition, so long as YOU think you believe in a god. I don't
have to agree with your definition of god to agree that you are (in
your opinion) a theist...one who believes in a god. If you consider
yourself to be one who believes in a god, I will consider you a
theist as well.
*I'll put a qualifier on the above. Here are some definitions of God:
1. God.a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith
and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a
manifestation or aspect of this being. c. Christian Science. “Infinite
Mind; Spirit; Soul; Principle; Life; Truth; Love” (Mary Baker Eddy).
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control
some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
I would accept a claim of theism based on #1 or #2, not on the others.
The first two are the commonly accepted uses of the term when discussing
theism and atheism. The other dictionary definitions are not.
> 2. You are implicitly re-defining the term "theism" to suit your purpose:
You mean the purpose of communicating with other people who share a
common understanding of a term? Is this "re-defining" to you? The most
commonly held definition of a theist is someone who believes in god/gods.
This definition of theism is about the best I've found: "Belief in the
existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as
creator and ruler of the world." Note that it (the definition), doesn't
require a god to be real, only that there be a belief in a god.
> >My opinion about your belief being in something real, or
> >not real, wouldn't change that fact. if you have
> >such a belief, you are a theist, whether your god is real (in my
> >opinion), or not.
>
> It doesn't matter if my god is "real" according to your opinion. As long
> as he is a god by accepted definitions. That's all. A theist is someone
> who "believes in the existence of god(s)."
Do you possess another definition of a theist? I have looked and haven't
found any other definition that veers very far from that one. Feel free
to offer one, however.
> Suppose I believe in the existence of X. Is that enough to make me a
> theist? If you say yes, then this conversation can serve no more purpose.
> I can be a theist if X is encompassed within the definition of "god(s)",
> otherwise, the term 'theist' is meaningless.
What is X? Toothpaste? Bubble gum? If so, then belief in these things
does not make you a theist, unless of course you believe gum is a god.
> Now, if you wish to talk your way out of this morass of illogicality by
> saying "Doc, I believe that *you* believe your X is a god, but I don't
> believe it is" it means the following:
What morass? You're trying to imply one can only say a theist is someone
who believes in "the real God", and if they don't, then they can't be
labeled a theist. If you choose to say to them: "Hey, the god you
believe in isn't real, therefore I don't consider you a theist", then
fine for you. I wouldn't make that claim. They believe in what they
think is a god, therefore they are theists, both to themselves, and to
me. Again, I'll refer you to the definition of theism: "Belief in the
existence of god or gods". Nothing mentioned about the belief having
to be in something real, so long as the claimant has the belief. We
can reject the claim that they believe in a "real" god, but it does
nothing to take away from the fact that they believe in _a_ god.
> You are implicitly redefining 'theist' to mean 'someone who believes in
> the existence of an X which he believes is a god.
The problem with your statement is that I'm not redefining the term.
Since I am not, I don't accept any subsequent conclusion you might draw
from your false assumption that I have done so.
> An atheist with respect
> to this is someone who denies any definition of god which relates it to
> any quantity X which a theist may possibly consider to be a god.
Is this _your_ definition of an atheist? It's not mine. An atheist would
be someone who lacks belief in any god. He/she doesn't have to deny any
definition, just lack belief. Now, one can argue that people don't always
believe what they think they do. For instance, a declared atheist might
harbor some belief in god that has been sublimated, just as a theist
might have subconscious doubts about the existance of god. However, it
is generally the conscious declaration of belief or lack thereof that
we use to determine the terminology in these matters. Once again if you
disagree, offer your viewpoint on how you think we are to apply the term.
> Surely, you don't mean to say such a stupid thing.
Words are symbols, twice removed from reality, and it's a mistake to
get too hung up in them. They are useful for communication purposes,
like any tool they can be used, or abused. Beyond this, I'm not very
interested in semantic games, they're not very useful in communication.
Jake the Snake
>SINISTER
>Mark, don't think for a moment this means you aren't a jackass. You've been
>following my posts all along, and you will continue to do so. How would you
>*know* that this is an opportune moment to remove me from your killfile if you
>haven't been reading my posts in the first place?
>
>Oooh. I know. You piggyback.
>
>DE GOES
>Killfiling appears to be a symbolic gesture intended to insult the person
>killfiled, rather than an actual pledge to avoid reading the person's post.
>Extremely odd and quite childish.
The only thing childish is all this bickering going on when you people
could be out wrestling with rattlesnakes and proving your faith.
--
Pastor Jake
Jesus is the antidote for snakebites
dgnorth
Sterling Crowe wrote in message ...
>
>dgnorth <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tjHx3.51$Jt6.6...@news1.i1.net...
>> snip
>> >> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence for
>> God,
>> >> God does not exist.
>> >
>> > Liar. Atheists make no such conclusion. What we DO conclude is that,
>> >since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in it;
>> >therefore, "we don't believe in god', to use your own characterization.
>>
>>
>> Again, the same error. "We don't believe in god" is just as invalid as
>> "There is no god." The idea is pretty subtle, so I'm not surprised you
>> missed it the first time through. Let me point it out.
>
>Interesting that you completely miss the boat by adding assumptions not
>implicit in the simple statement "I do not believe in god".
Could you be specific what assumptions and who made them that you are
talking about.
>> "There is no god" tries to make a statement about a theory: the existance
>of
>> god. The error here is that since there is no evidence AT ALL that can
in
>> any way support or disprove this theory, you cannot make any statement
>about
>> the theory of god.
>
>You just did. You have stated that there is no evidence at all. That is a
>statement regarding the hypothetical "god exists". Clearly one can make
>statements regarding that hypothesis. In this case, a statement that there
>is no supporting evidence for it.
"There is no evidence supporting ____" is fundamentally different from
"There is no ___" The root of these two statements are the same: "There is"
But, the object of each of these two statements are very different. The
second statement tries to make a claim about the invalid theory ____
(invalid because it lacks any evidence or logical reason for it to even have
been thought up). The first statement is in reference to a specific type of
evidence you might have. You can't make statements about a theory except in
the context of the evidence. Maybe that wasn't clear before. You can only
make statements or references within the context of the evidence because
without the evidence, the theory itself is impotent.
>> By saying "we don't believe in god" you make what could be a true
>statement
>> (meaning it is true that you don't believe in god) but is also an invalid
>> statement.
>
>The truth is invalid? Interesting.
Study basic logic. You can make a statement that is true because that is
actually what is, but invalid, because the premises it is based upon are
false. Conversely, you can have a valid statement because it is the logical
conclusion of your premises, but it can be false if the premises are not
correct.
>> Because the theory of the existence of god has no evidence, you
>> cannot logically reference it in a statement.
>
>Of course you can. You can state that you lack belief in the validity of
the
>hypothesis. It's that simple. Without compelling evidence to believe, the
>only valid position is to withhold such belief.
Be careful here. It is valid to say "There is no compelling evidence that
would lead me to believe ____" It is not valid to say "I don't believe in
____ because there is no compelling evidence" You can't make a logically
consistent statement about an invalid theory. You cannot logically say
about some invalid theory X "I don't believe in X" nor "I believe in X".
Both assume that you have evidence to support you claims: the first assumes
evidence to refute X and the second assumes evidence to support X. Since
you have no evidence at all, you can't make either claim. You can only say
"I don't have any reason (evidence) to believe X"
>> It's not, "We don't believe in
>> god" or, "There is no god." Insted, it is, "There is no reason to
mention
>> god because it is an arbitrary theory with no support and therefore I
will
>> put it out of my mind unless some evidence comes to light that would
>support
>> that theory.
>
>Or, to put it succinctly: I don't believe in gods.
I hope I've made my point on this.
>If you wish to elaborate as above, by giving a reason that you lack belief
>in the validity of the hypothesis, then you may do so. The fact that one
can
>go into greater detail does not invalidate that one can simply state that
he
>lacks belief nor does it invalidate that someone may have another reason to
>state that he does not believe in gods (the contrary evidence of the sheer
>multiplicity of mutually exclusive gods, for instance).
>Your narrow view is not valid for all people who do not believe in gods.
My view can only be invalid to others if their premises are wrong. "Check
your premises."
>> The only reason I'm talking with you is to correct your
>> epistemelogical errors so that I don't have to put up with poeple leading
>> irrational lives because of those errors."
>
>The problem is that those irrational lives make up the majority and they
>encroach on nearly every aspect of public life (and wish to make aspects of
>private lives fall under their reign as well). In the face of the vast
>majority of people holding a belief in one god or another, the simple
>statement that one lacks such beliefs is a valid distinction.
Oh, it's a distinction alright. Not valid, but a distinction none the less.
As for the majority, that's what I'm up against. A mass of irrational,
bloodsucking theists. I'm sure or religious fellows will love that little
bit :)
>> > You should really learn a bit about epistemology.
>>
>>
>> Since I'm a generally nice person, I won't point out that you're the one
>> getting the lesson here. I don't appreciate rudeness.
>
>But arrogance is A-OK with you, eh?
>> Also, I am including the definition of 'atheism' from the American
>Heritage
>> Dictionary:
>>
>> atheism - 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
>
>Note that implicit in the definition is the assumption that gods exist.
I'm afraid I don't see it. That looks exactly like strong and weak atheism
summed up into one definition. Please elaborate where the assumption that
god exists is in that definition.
..snip..
I hope that clears up some of your questions.
dgnorth
>> But even more than just not siding one way or the other as to the
god
>> until some evidence is presented.
>
>This is flat out baloney. One does not have to ignore the proposition "god
>exists" and, in fact, I find the idea of sitting on my ass waiting for
>someone else to present what I might consider valid evidence to be
>distasteful as well as boring.
I'm not saying you have to sit back and let everyone else scurry around
looking for god. The point is, you have no reason to believe god exists.
As a result, it would be a complete waste of time to go out and look for
evidence that god does in fact exist. You have no reason to think you'll
find it. Instead, just be aware of everything that goes on around you. If
you find and inconsistencies or contradictions, that's the time to really be
alert. If, when you examine the evidence closely, and no other current
theory can account for it, then it is up to you to create a new theory or
modify and existing one. If it turns out that the most likely theory based
on the evidence is that "god exists", then you can go and search for
corroborating evidence to your heart's content. But, without that one
contradiction or piece of evidence, you would otherwise have no reason for
your search.
>Your assumption that one is not even allowed to investigate the proposition
>to see if there is any evidence beyond "a lot of people believe in it"
>strikes me as lazy and is one of the major roots of why I refuse to label
>myself "agnostic".
Now you can label yourself "agnostic". I think I have cleared up the
discrepancy.
>The basic assumption most often given regarding agnosticism is that one
>cannot know, not merely that no evidence exists but that no evidence can
>exist. This strikes me as insufferably silly as it is an assumption which
>claims knowledge about the nature of that which the very statement claims
>nothing can be known.
I was unaware the "one cannot know" was part of agnosticism. I've never
seen that before, but you might be right. The "one cannot know" sounds
closer to skepticism to me, though.
dgnorth
>
>I would say emotions definitely can be irrational, not that they are
>necessarily irrational.
>(I am not certain if ethics or aesthetics can ever be reduced to any
>rational system.
>Something is always lost in the translation, it seems to me.)
Emotions may seem irrational sometimes, but really, short of some type of
mental disorder, it is almost impossible for emotions to be irrational.
Emotions are based on our system of values. If things are as your values
say they should be, you are happy. If If you are sad, it is because things
aren't the way your values say they should be. Fear is more of a
combination of losing something of value and your sort of instinctual fear
of being eaten by a tiger or some such. Emotions are a sort of sum total of
the state of your values. It is an instant gauge on the state of your life.
If you find yourself sad when you think you should be happy, it is because
you don't really know what your values are. Just because you think you know
what your values should be, it is not necessarily those you have "chosen"
(either subconsciously or a kind of default value gained from society,
etc.).
I don't argue that having beliefs are wrong. I argue that certain types of
beliefs keep you from being a functioning, conscious human being,
specifically beliefs without any rational base. To be a functioning,
conscious human being, a belief system that is coherent and logical is
necessary. We put people with extreme cases irrational and illogical belief
systems in institutions. The lesser cases get to walk free, though.
>>Again, a rather bizzarre position for an 'athiest' to take.
>
>I can live with you thinking me bizarre.
>I am not interested in your approval or anything so adolescent.
Good. It's nice to meet someone with some sense of self worth. I'm not
really calling you bizzarre. It's just that you take an unusual stance for
an atheist. Basically, it shows that you're willing to think for yourself
and not just follow the herd blindly. That is also nice to see.
>I am just admitting to being human - we are creatures of emotion as
>much as creatures of reason.
Like I said, specific emotions occur for reasons.
>My belief (that all gods are false ) does not contradict reason AND it
>is in tune with my moral and aesthetic sense.
Actually, it does contradict reason. It also may be in tune with your moral
and aesthetic sense, but those are just as rational as emotions. If you
would like a full explanation of my position, just request it and than we'll
find out just how big a post Usenet can handle.
Ace Ventura
>
> ...snip...
<another snip>
> >The basic assumption most often given regarding agnosticism is that one
> >cannot know, not merely that no evidence exists but that no evidence can
> >exist. This strikes me as insufferably silly as it is an assumption which
> >claims knowledge about the nature of that which the very statement claims
> >nothing can be known.
>
> I was unaware the "one cannot know" was part of agnosticism. I've never
> seen that before, but you might be right. The "one cannot know" sounds
> closer to skepticism to me, though.
There's a number of definitions of agnosticism floating around:
1) Doubt about the existence of gods
2) A lack of knowledge about the existence of gods
3) A claim that the existence of gods is unknowable at this time
4) A claim that the existence of gods must always remain unknowable
5) Combinations of the above
Who knows? :)
Marvin B. Edwards
[Emotions may seem irrational sometimes, but really, short of some type of
mental disorder, it is almost impossible for emotions to be irrational.
Emotions are based on our system of values. If things are as your values
say they should be, you are happy. If you are sad, it is because things
aren't the way your values say they should be.]
That's an interesting point. There are values, an assessment of current
reality in terms of those values, and a resulting emotion. The function of
Church includes conveying both values and emotions. The "spiritual" mission
of Church to assure that we value Good (God) and that we feel good when we
pursue It (Him). This is an important function for the well-being of
civilization.
My point is that the values and emotions you speak of do not arrive in the
genetics but are learned through culture. Religion is often an important
part of this process.
[Fear is more of a combination of losing something of value and your sort of
instinctual fear of being eaten by a tiger or some such.]
I've heard it said that Christians prayed and sang n the Roman arena when
facing their deaths at the hands (claws) of lions. The human response can
adapt and is not limited to instinct.
[To be a functioning, conscious human being, a belief system that is
coherent and logical is necessary.]
God, I hope not. If so we're all out of luck!
Kenny
It it (or he) exists, he is supposed to be responsible for everything. He is
so omni-
potent, so omnipresent, so omniscent that he is playing around with us, poor
mortals.
If he knew long before your grandparents were born, that you would be born
with the evil of Adam & Eve inside, that your parents would baptize you and
with the
years you would go to hell for your sins, what can you do?
It is ironical to say we are at our "free will" if we have been prepared by
him to
sin, he put in us everything , genetics, violence, sex, competition, hate and
gave us
all the tools to kill, seduce, steal, etc. It is like if I made a lion and
expected him not
to kill and eat other animals.
So if God knows you are going to hell, don´t worry... it is his fault,
building you
the way he did and if he knew it was going to happen and he let you be born it
is
all his responsability.
But, you cannot sue him. All he is doing is playing with us til boredom.
It is a pity that a GREAT GOD, who made everything, loses his time
over and over with each one of us in this silly game!
Or is it our imagination that wants to make us feel important
with
such existence veiling upon us?
Kenny
Ace Ventura
meaning of terms used in these NG's, specifically "theist,
atheist, gnostic, and agnostic". I think it's important
to keep the following in mind when discussing these things:
Words are only symbols, twice removed from reality. If
1=reality, and 2=the thought that perceives this reality,
then 3=the words we use to describe the thought, which
perceives the reality. Two steps removed, at best. Add to
this the fact that we're not using the spoken word here,
only the written, so it looses even a little more when
it's being communicated, as we are left without the tone
of voice, facial expressions, and body language that is
used and deciphered by humans when speaking to each other.
We seek as much precision as we are able to achieve, so
that we might better communicate with each other. This is
as it should be. We need to remember, however, that we are,
by the very nature of language itself, subject to a
certain amount of imprecision and limitation, no matter
how succinct we might try to be.
Sterling Crowe
>
> Sterling Crowe wrote in message ...
> >
> >dgnorth <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tjHx3.51$Jt6.6...@news1.i1.net...
> >> snip
> >> >> Atheists conclude, then, that since there is currently no evidence
for
> >> God,
> >> >> God does not exist.
> >> >
> >> > Liar. Atheists make no such conclusion. What we DO conclude is that,
> >> >since there is no evidence for god, there is no reason to believe in
it;
> >> >therefore, "we don't believe in god', to use your own
characterization.
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, the same error. "We don't believe in god" is just as invalid as
> >> "There is no god." The idea is pretty subtle, so I'm not surprised you
> >> missed it the first time through. Let me point it out.
> >
> >Interesting that you completely miss the boat by adding assumptions not
> >implicit in the simple statement "I do not believe in god".
>
>
> Could you be specific what assumptions and who made them that you are
> talking about.
I'm talking about your assumptions and I detailed my exact objections later
in the post.
I have. In this situation, basic logic does not apply as the statement "I do
not believe in gods" is based on a personal investigation of belief state,
not on a logical argument.
> You can make a statement that is true because that is
> actually what is, but invalid, because the premises it is based upon are
> false.
There is no premise proffered by the simple statement "I do not believe in
gods". This is a statement about one's own belief state, not a logical
argument.
> Conversely, you can have a valid statement because it is the logical
> conclusion of your premises, but it can be false if the premises are not
> correct.
Regardless, the statement "I do not believe in gods" is not invalid because
it is not based on any premises other than a lack of belief in gods (or on a
lie, but that has been excluded because we are talking about true
statements)
> >> Because the theory of the existence of god has no evidence, you
> >> cannot logically reference it in a statement.
> >
> >Of course you can. You can state that you lack belief in the validity of
> the
> >hypothesis. It's that simple. Without compelling evidence to believe, the
> >only valid position is to withhold such belief.
>
>
> Be careful here. It is valid to say "There is no compelling evidence that
> would lead me to believe ____" It is not valid to say "I don't believe in
> ____ because there is no compelling evidence" You can't make a logically
> consistent statement about an invalid theory. You cannot logically say
> about some invalid theory X "I don't believe in X" nor "I believe in X".
> Both assume that you have evidence to support you claims: the first
assumes
> evidence to refute X and the second assumes evidence to support X. Since
> you have no evidence at all, you can't make either claim. You can only
say
> "I don't have any reason (evidence) to believe X"
And it would be illogical to believe X without reason, so it is perfectly
valid to state that you do not believe X.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that "I do not believe X" is akin
to "I believe the opposite of X" or even "I believe X to be false". One is
stating a lack of belief in a proposition which the English language itself
assumes to be true. It is a statement of a lack of belief, not a positive
belief in a different proposition.
> >> It's not, "We don't believe in
> >> god" or, "There is no god." Insted, it is, "There is no reason to
> mention
> >> god because it is an arbitrary theory with no support and therefore I
> will
> >> put it out of my mind unless some evidence comes to light that would
> >support
> >> that theory.
> >
> >Or, to put it succinctly: I don't believe in gods.
>
>
> I hope I've made my point on this.
You have only demonstrated that you cannot deal with the phrase "I do not
believe in gods" without adding additional assumptions "I do not believe in
gods because..." or "I do not believe in gods = I have rejected the
possibility that later evidence could convince me". "I do not believe in
gods" is a statment of current belief state, not a conclusion about the
entire universe or a statement of a positive belief in another proposition.
Until you are able to see that withholding belief is not the same as having
a belief in another proposition, you will never understand the stated
atheist position or why it differs from the classic agnostic position.
> >If you wish to elaborate as above, by giving a reason that you lack
belief
> >in the validity of the hypothesis, then you may do so. The fact that one
> can
> >go into greater detail does not invalidate that one can simply state that
> he
> >lacks belief nor does it invalidate that someone may have another reason
to
> >state that he does not believe in gods (the contrary evidence of the
sheer
> >multiplicity of mutually exclusive gods, for instance).
> >Your narrow view is not valid for all people who do not believe in gods.
>
>
> My view can only be invalid to others if their premises are wrong. "Check
> your premises."
My premise is that I have examined my current belief state and find that it
contains no beliefs that gods exist, so I can definitively state that I do
not believe in gods.
I am also aware that I have not examined all possible evidence and that the
proposition "no gods exist" is not one I could defend, so I do not state
that I have a positive belief in the proposition no gods exist.
I am also aware that I do not assume that no evidence exists at all, so I am
unable to say that I believe that no evidence exists or can exist, so I am
not an agnostic.
That being the case, I am not a theist. Greek gives us a prefix meaning
"not", that prefix is "a" and is applicable to the Greek word "theist", so
combine the two and I am an "atheist".
And I do not believe in gods.
Your view is invalid because it is based on a faulty premise: namely that
the phrase "I do not believe in gods" cannot be valid without evidence that
gods do not exist. That is where you have gone wrong.
> >> The only reason I'm talking with you is to correct your
> >> epistemelogical errors so that I don't have to put up with poeple
leading
> >> irrational lives because of those errors."
> >
> >The problem is that those irrational lives make up the majority and they
> >encroach on nearly every aspect of public life (and wish to make aspects
of
> >private lives fall under their reign as well). In the face of the vast
> >majority of people holding a belief in one god or another, the simple
> >statement that one lacks such beliefs is a valid distinction.
>
>
> Oh, it's a distinction alright. Not valid, but a distinction none the
less.
A distinction is only invalid if it does not allow one two distinguish
between two different things. Then it ceases to be a distinction.
<snip>
> >>
> >>
> >> Since I'm a generally nice person, I won't point out that you're the
one
> >> getting the lesson here. I don't appreciate rudeness.
> >
> >But arrogance is A-OK with you, eh?
>
>
>
>
> >> Also, I am including the definition of 'atheism' from the American
> >Heritage
> >> Dictionary:
> >>
> >> atheism - 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
> >
> >Note that implicit in the definition is the assumption that gods exist.
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't see it. That looks exactly like strong and weak
atheism
> summed up into one definition. Please elaborate where the assumption that
> god exists is in that definition.
Read the definition. It assumes that a god exists and that atheism is the
denial of that "fact".
Sterling Crowe
> ...snip...
> >> But even more than just not siding one way or the other as to the
> god
> >> until some evidence is presented.
> >
> >This is flat out baloney. One does not have to ignore the proposition
"god
> >exists" and, in fact, I find the idea of sitting on my ass waiting for
> >someone else to present what I might consider valid evidence to be
> >distasteful as well as boring.
>
>
> I'm not saying you have to sit back and let everyone else scurry around
> looking for god.
Excuse me, but when you state that one must deliberately ignore the notion
entirely until "some evidence is presented", you are declaring exactly that.
You have stated that one should not go and look for himself and that
evidence must be presented before you would even consider the notion.
>The point is, you have no reason to believe god exists.
I have reason to believe that other people believe such a thing exists, so I
examine the roots of their beliefs and attempt to ascertain if there is
indeed any evidence to support it.
> As a result, it would be a complete waste of time to go out and look for
> evidence that god does in fact exist.
Perhaps it would. It would be a waste in one of several situations: a. no
gods exist or b. a god exists but is hiding or c. a god exists but I am
handicapped in some way and will never find it.
I am not willing to believe either proposition because I have no support for
them, so I can declare that it is worthwhile to look.
> You have no reason to think you'll
> find it.
I have reason to think others think they have found it. The fact that they
do not seem to be significantly different in
> Instead, just be aware of everything that goes on around you. If
> you find and inconsistencies or contradictions, that's the time to really
be
> alert. If, when you examine the evidence closely, and no other current
> theory can account for it, then it is up to you to create a new theory or
> modify and existing one. If it turns out that the most likely theory
based
> on the evidence is that "god exists", then you can go and search for
> corroborating evidence to your heart's content. But, without that one
> contradiction or piece of evidence, you would otherwise have no reason for
> your search.
I have plenty of pieces of proffered evidence. I am not going to make a
faith based decision and ignore them out of hand just because they do not
reach some arbitrary bar, or rather because I imagine they won't reach some
arbitrary bar. You don't know until you examine what is proffered as
evidence and the financial success of the churches is enough for me to want
to find out the skinny behind them, since it shows a level of belief in
followers beyond a mere desire to fit in. They are willing to put their
money where their mouth is and I am not so arrogant as to declare that their
reasons must be bullshit before I've even examined them.
> >Your assumption that one is not even allowed to investigate the
proposition
> >to see if there is any evidence beyond "a lot of people believe in it"
> >strikes me as lazy and is one of the major roots of why I refuse to label
> >myself "agnostic".
>
>
> Now you can label yourself "agnostic". I think I have cleared up the
> discrepancy.
Agnosticism is a belief in a proposition that I am not willing to place any
faith in any more than I am willing to place faith in the proposition "gods
exist" OR the proposition "gods do not exist". I do not believe that no
evidence exists or can exist because, to do so, I would have to arbitrarily
reject reams of offered exhibits without even glancing at them.
> >The basic assumption most often given regarding agnosticism is that one
> >cannot know, not merely that no evidence exists but that no evidence can
> >exist. This strikes me as insufferably silly as it is an assumption which
> >claims knowledge about the nature of that which the very statement claims
> >nothing can be known.
>
>
> I was unaware the "one cannot know" was part of agnosticism. I've never
> seen that before, but you might be right. The "one cannot know" sounds
> closer to skepticism to me, though.
Skepticism is not the proposition that one cannot know. Skepticism is the
withholding of belief until evidence is presented. It is not the belief that
evidence does not and cannot exist. I am skeptical regarding the proposition
"god exists", but I am not agnostic regarding the proposition because I do
not deny the possibility that evidence can exist.
I hope I have cleared up any discrepancies :)
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>>>Are you saying that emotions and aesthetics are not rational?
>>
>>I would say emotions definitely can be irrational, not that they are
>>necessarily irrational.
>>(I am not certain if ethics or aesthetics can ever be reduced to any
>>rational system.
>>Something is always lost in the translation, it seems to me.)
>
>
>Emotions may seem irrational sometimes, but really, short of some type of
>mental disorder, it is almost impossible for emotions to be irrational.
>Emotions are based on our system of values.
What are systems of values based on?
Have you ever seen two people argue from radically different points of
view?
Is one system of values correct and another false?
Are democrats *always* wrong and republicans always right?
There are some rational judgements being made but there is also "gut"
reactions and loyalties and such.
Same with religion.
> If things are as your values
>say they should be, you are happy. If If you are sad, it is because things
>aren't the way your values say they should be. Fear is more of a
>combination of losing something of value and your sort of instinctual fear
>of being eaten by a tiger or some such. Emotions are a sort of sum total of
>the state of your values. It is an instant gauge on the state of your life.
>If you find yourself sad when you think you should be happy, it is because
>you don't really know what your values are. Just because you think you know
>what your values should be, it is not necessarily those you have "chosen"
>(either subconsciously or a kind of default value gained from society,
>etc.).
>
I don't have a strong objection to any of that.
I never denied that emotion *can* have causes.
What i deny is that they are compelled to be rational causes.
Sometimes people have emotional commitments that they themselves do
not understand.
People have prejudices, likes and dislikes that have no conscious
rational origin.
Emotion can still be, and often is, irrational.
That is an observation, not an abstract theory.
>>None of us can think or believe anything without making some basic
>>assumptions.
>>
>>I have beliefs - that doesn't make me a theist.
>>It makes me a functioning, conscious human being.
>>Show me a person without beliefs and I will show you a corpse.
>
>
>I don't argue that having beliefs are wrong. I argue that certain types of
>beliefs keep you from being a functioning, conscious human being,
>specifically beliefs without any rational base. To be a functioning,
>conscious human being, a belief system that is coherent and logical is
>necessary. We put people with extreme cases irrational and illogical belief
>systems in institutions. The lesser cases get to walk free, though.
>
My belief is not irrational.
It is in perfect accord with my observations of people and the world.
What makes human beings different from other animals?
We walk upright, have opposable thumbs, use language,think and
communicate abstract ideas, create and tell stories.
That is an observation of the real world.
It would be irrational to ignore such facts of our existence.
Every time someone adopts a religion while ignoring ten thousand other
religions he or she is being irrational.
That is fine as long as they realize it is irrational.
<snip>
>>My belief (that all gods are false ) does not contradict reason AND it
>>is in tune with my moral and aesthetic sense.
>
>
>Actually, it does contradict reason.
How? Why?
It is not *compelled* by reason but it is certainly *permitted* by
reason.
Mark.
Skeptic
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8E2FC65D...@news.globalserve.net...
> Skeptic <nos...@all.all> wrote in <5A%w3.1535$H%4.9...@news.uswest.net>:
>
> >Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8E2DBA62...@news.globalserve.net...
>
> [snip]
> Skeptic:
> >No. He is stating the perfectly reasonable fact that producing a santa
> >will falsify the only useful working hypothesis, "There is no santa."
>
Dr Sinister
> Ok. The hypothesis is that "Santa does not exist." Let us assume that
> this is actually false. Ok. So how do you falsify it? How do you design
> some experimental apparatus which enables you to detect something which
> negates the validity of the physics upon which the experimental equipment
> is based?
>
> [snip]
That is precisely the right question, Sin. There you have it! If We assume
the statement, "There is no X" is false. That means that the statement, "X
exists" is assumed to be true. (The negation of a universal statement is
always an existential statement.) And you are exactly correct, existential
statements are impossible to contradict!
Logic is the science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity
of inference and demonstration. Logic is the science of the formal
principles of reasoning. You may be clouding that which is at issue (the
existence of X) a bit with too many needless falsifications of assumed false
statements. This is not that much like rocket science. The reasonable
aproach to the question of existence of anything is as follows:
If X is any controversial entity, and the question is on the existence of X,
the only falsifiable statement concerning the existence of X is the purely
universal statement, "There is no X." Any statement reporting a verifiable
observation of X forces us to reject the statement, "There is no X."
The purely existential statement, "X exists" is imposible to contradict,
even if it is false. No basic statement, no statement of an observed event
can possibly contradict a purely existential statement.
Skeptic
Dr Sinister:
>
> Give me some evidence that a 'lack of belief in getting tattoed' is what
> _caused_ you not to have a tattoo.
>
Skeptic:
If having a tattoo serves as evidence of belief in getting tattoed, then a
lack of tattoo serves as even better evidence of a lack of belief in getting
tattoed. There might be relationships here that are direct and positive, but
there is no rquirement that either relationship be causal. If getting
tattoed was determined by anything, it was determined by contingent
reinforcement, not belief. Or perhaps his friends had him tattoed while he
was too drunk to know what was happening. That happens regularly.
Skeptic
John A. De Goes <jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7q7v3t$1kcc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> SKEPTIC
> There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at
observable
>
You snipped the last sentence of the paragraph, nitwit, with no indication
you snipped it. That is not ethical behavior. The above paragraph should
read as follows:
<<Skeptic: There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look
at observable behavior behavior. If you claim to have knowledge of anything
you should be able to demonstrate it somehow.>>
You have no response to the last sentence above?
> DE GOES
> There is no neural difference between belief in X and knowledge of X. This
is a
> negative assumption, a working hypothesis, and, according to you, the only
kind
> that can be falsified. Therefore, if you wish to dispute it, you must
provide
> evidence for your view, by your own standards. I expect substantial quotes
from
> journals on biochemistry, biophysics, neurobiology, and other relevant
fields.
>
Science doesn't work that way, shit-for-brains.
Your statement, "There is no neural difference between belief in X and
knowledge of X" means exactly the same thing as your original assertion that
belief and knowledge are identical!
Now, it is your study. I don't have anything to do with it. But if you want
it to be considered a scientific study your working hypothesis, the the only
universal statement that can possibly contradict your theory, originally
stated as the existential claim that belief in X and nowledge of X are
identical would be the strictly universal statement, "It is NOT the case
that belief and knowledge are identical, there IS a difference between
knowledge and belief."
Then it is up to you to go search for published studies concerning this
question (if there are any, which I doubt), and then gather some evidence.
If the evidence indicates that belief and knowledge are identical, then you
might be justified in rejecting the working hypothesis. Publish the findings
here. I will be happy to read them, critically. I will not, however accept a
shifting of the burden of proof where an ungrounded assertion of yours is
concerned.
John A. De Goes
<<Skeptic: There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at
observable behavior behavior. If you claim to have knowledge of anything you
should be able to demonstrate it somehow.>>
You have no response to the last sentence above?
DE GOES
The statement was so obviously inane that I refrained from commenting on it.
But as you insist.
Since you yourself claim to know you are a weak atheist, I demand you
demonstrate it now. But weak atheism cannot be demonstrated, since there is no
way of examining the contents of your mind, and your behavior, at beast,
indicates only that you are irreligious, not that you lack god-beliefs.
Therefore, we may conclude that you do not know you are a weak atheist. Perhaps
this is a personal belief of yours, a subjective fantasy, or a delusion, but it
is definitely not knowledge, by your own standards.
Further, you will claim, if questioned, that you know you are a conscious
being. I ask you now to demonstrate the truth of this claim now, or else we may
conclude you do not know you are a conscious being, you merely think it to be
so -- you could be wrong.
Examples like these are numerous, and they all reveal the ad hoc, incogitant
nature of your definition of knowledge.
SKEPTIC
Now, it is your study. I don't have anything to do with it.
DE GOES
On the contrary. You have asserted that there *exists* a measurable difference
between belief and knowledge inside a person's brain. This is like someone
asserting that god exists. Both are "positive" statements, and therefore, by
your own standard, you must supply proof.
That a positive statement can easily be turned into a negative one, and visa
versa, is something you should have considered before you made the erroneous
claim that negative statements are defaults.
As for demonstrating there does not exist a difference between knowledge and
belief in the brain, it is sufficient to point out that if this were the case,
there would have to exist some mechanism in the brain that could a priori
distinguish between true conceptions and invalid ones, and then tag these
conceptions as such, since consciousness does not possess this ability.
For example, people claim to know the earth is flat, but such knowledge is
obviously false knowledge, and nothing more than belief. People also claim to
know the earth is round, and this claim is in fact true. But from the
perspective of these people, both think they know the geometry of the earth.
Therefore, if there exists a mental distinction between the "knowledge" that
the earth is flat, and the "knowledge" that the earth is round, this
distinction cannot have conscious origin, and must therefore be generated by a
mechanism in the brain that has the supernatural ability to distinguish between
true and false claims, without examining evidence. If this is true, then we
should be able to construct a computer program that operates from the same
principles, and examines a list of (say) ASCII strings, and determines which
ones are true or false, completely from the claims themselves, without
reference to external evidence. This is preposterous under the current view of
science, therefore we may conclude there does not exist a difference between
knowledge and belief in the brain.
Knowledge may be supported by reasons, and commonly is, but this is no
different from belief; an actual knowledge of X, and an belief in X, are stored
in the same way within the brain. It can simply be no other way, as a moment's
thought would have revealed to you, had you actually spent time considering
these issues, rather than merely replying however was convenient for the
moment, regardless of the nature, validity, or consistency of your replies, all
in an effort to come out looking good, which effort is itself delusional.
John A. De Goes
[snip]
DE GOES
Skeptic's implicit acknowledgement of the contradictions in his previous post
is noted.
Skeptic
> SKEPTIC
> [snip]
>
> DE GOES
> Skeptic's implicit acknowledgement of the contradictions in his previous
post
> is noted.
>
John A. De Goes
If that is what you believe, you are an idiot.
DE GOES
I formerly demonstrated the following conclusive proof that you contradict
yourself blindly, to which you did not reply:
BEGIN QUOTE
From this, we may conclude that Skeptic believes assumptions are untested (that
is, lacking evidence). In addition, Skeptic asserts elsewhere that:
1. Assumptions are not beliefs. Evidence: "No belief is required here [for
assumption] either. " "The premise, '... an assumption is an unsupported
belief...' is not valid." Since he admits an assumption is unsupported, he must
deny an assumption is a belief.
2. Beliefs are assumptions. Evidence: "A belief (untested assumption) might
be true or false." Here he equates a belief with an untested assumption, but
since he admits all assumptions are untested, he therefore equates belief with
assumption.
Let X be an assumption and Y be the property that makes a thing a belief.
Skeptic's assertions then become:
1. All things that are X lack property Y.
2. All things that have property Y are X.
3. Therefore, according to Skeptic, all things that have property Y lack
property Y.
This incoherent babbling, evidenced by Skeptic in the last thread in which he
participated, indicates he does not think about what he writes, but rather,
invents statements as he goes along in order to save face, even if said
statements make no sense or contradict one another completely.
END QUOTE
Fish
> John A. De Goes <jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:7q7v3t$1kcc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> > SKEPTIC
> > There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at
> > observable behavior.
>
> You snipped the last sentence of the paragraph, nitwit, with no indication
> you snipped it. That is not ethical behavior.
The dishonest fuck does that all the time, Skeptic. On purpose. It's his
favorite tactic. He does it so he doesn't have to respond to portions of
a post he feels uncomfortable with as they tend to make him out to be
the idiot he is.
<snip remainder>
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is
that the universe lacks anything like a god,
then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one." -- Neal M. Stevens (NMS)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Fish
> SKEPTIC
> [snip]
>
> DE GOES
> Skeptic's implicit acknowledgement of the contradictions in his previous post
> is noted.
The dishonest, blowhard coward (aka "John 'I snip what I don't wish to
address' De Goes") strikes again!
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in
veneration -- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness,
and, above all, love of the truth." -- H. L. Mencken
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Skeptic
> SKEPTIC
> <<Skeptic: There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we
look at
> observable behavior behavior. If you claim to have knowledge of anything
you
> should be able to demonstrate it somehow.>>
>
> You have no response to the last sentence above?
>
> DE GOES
> The statement was so obviously inane that I refrained from commenting on
it.
> But as you insist.
>
> Since you yourself claim to know you are a weak atheist, I demand you
> demonstrate it now.
Wait a minute! I am a skeptic. Anyway, why change the subject? My post was
concerning my skepticism of your ungrounded claim, on 8-25-99 that,
QUOTEING DE GOES:
1. There is no biochemical difference between a belief in X, an
assumption
of X, and a knowledge of X. That is, they are all stored in the same manner
within the mind.
2. A belief in X is a mental state whereby the mind conceives of X as
being
true. Beliefs may or may not be true, and they may or may not be supported
by
evidence.
3. A knowledge of X is a belief in X that happens to be valid, and is
typically (although not always) supported by convincing evidence.
4. An assumption of X is a belief in X that may or may not be true, but
is
not supported by any evidence.
UNQUOTE
Skeptic:
My question was, since your statement,
"There is no biochemical difference between a belief in X, an assumption of
X, and a knowledge of X. That is, they are all stored in the same manner
within the mind" is identical to the existential statement, "Belief and
knowledge are identical,"
do you have any evidence of that in neurology, or elsewhere? Is that
knowledge you can demonstrate, or is it another of your beliefs?
Please answer that question without changing the subject.
> But weak atheism cannot be demonstrated, since there is no
> way of examining the contents of your mind, and your behavior, at beast,
> indicates only that you are irreligious, not that you lack god-beliefs.
> Therefore, we may conclude that you do not know you are a weak atheist.
Perhaps
> this is a personal belief of yours, a subjective fantasy, or a delusion,
but it
> is definitely not knowledge, by your own standards.
I am a skeptic.
>
> Further, you will claim, if questioned, that you know you are a conscious
> being. I ask you now to demonstrate the truth of this claim now, or else
we may
> conclude you do not know you are a conscious being, you merely think it to
be
> so -- you could be wrong.
how do you know what I will do? I might just cut your balls off for asking
such a stupid question.
You not only claim to know all about me, you claim to be able to predict
what I will do in the future? How arrogant.
>
> Examples like these are numerous, and they all reveal the ad hoc,
incogitant
> nature of your definition of knowledge.
All examples like these "reveal" is your stupidity. I accept the standard
definition of knowledge: The ability to demonstrate possession of skills or
facts acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience and
practice. Faith or belief are not involved in knowledge.
>
> SKEPTIC
Science doesn't work that way, shit-for-brains.
Your statement, "There is no neural difference between belief in X and
knowledge of X" means exactly the same thing as your original assertion that
belief and knowledge are identical!
Now, it is your study. I don't have anything to do with it. But if you want
it to be considered a scientific study your working hypothesis, the the only
universal statement that can possibly contradict your theory, originally
stated as the existential claim that belief in X and nowledge of X are
identical would be the strictly universal statement, "It is NOT the case
that belief and knowledge are identical, there IS a difference between
knowledge and belief."
Then it is up to you to go search for published studies concerning this
question (if there are any, which I doubt), and then gather some evidence.
If the evidence indicates that belief and knowledge are identical, then you
might be justified in rejecting the working hypothesis. Publish the findings
here. I will be happy to read them, critically. I will not, however accept a
shifting of the burden of proof where an ungrounded assertion of yours is
concerned.
> DE GOES
> On the contrary. You have asserted that there *exists* a measurable
difference
> between belief and knowledge inside a person's brain. This is like someone
> asserting that god exists. Both are "positive" statements, and therefore,
by
> your own standard, you must supply proof.
No I have not. YOU asserted on 8-25-99 that belief and knowledge consist of
identical brain states. (See copy from that post, above.) The only way I am
involved is in being skeptical of YOUR claim.
>
> That a positive statement can easily be turned into a negative one, and
visa
> versa, is something you should have considered before you made the
erroneous
> claim that negative statements are defaults.
It is not negative statements, Dilbert, but rather UNIVERSAL STATEMENTS
(There is no X), that are the only statements that can possibly contradict
EXISTENTIAL STATEMENTS (X exists). In your case you are stuck with the
existential statement made in 1, above, " There is no biochemical difference
between a belief in X, an assumption of X, and a knowledge of X." It is true
that it is negatively stated, using the words 'there is no', but that does
not change it from an existential statement to a universal statement, it
means the same as the existential statement, "There exists an identity
between belief, assumption, and knowledge." Get it? Go away and study some
logic.
> De Goes:
Faulty conclusion. There is no such thing as false knowledge. The fact that
some people confuse their beliefs for knowledge does not make belief and
knowledge identical. Knowledge is that which can be verified or
demonstrated, even if the demonstration is through valid inference. Belief
is faith in something without verification. Assumptions can be made for the
sake of argument, with no belief involved whatsoever. That is essentially
what a working hypothesis is.
>
> Knowledge may be supported by reasons, and commonly is, but this is no
> different from belief; an actual knowledge of X, and an belief in X, are
stored
> in the same way within the brain.
That may be your belief. You must present some scientific evidence involving
neuroscience if you want me to agree that you know it to be true.
> It can simply be no other way, ...
Yes it can.
> as a moment's
> thought would have revealed to you, had you actually spent time
considering
> these issues, rather than merely replying however was convenient for the
> moment, regardless of the nature, validity, or consistency of your
replies, all
> in an effort to come out looking good, which effort is itself delusional.
>
Ad hom attack, shit for brains. Adds nothing to the knowledge base.
John A. De Goes
The dishonest fuck does that all the time, Skeptic. On purpose. It's his
favorite tactic. He does it so he doesn't have to respond to portions of a post
he feels uncomfortable with as they tend to make him out to be the idiot he is.
DE GOES
Incorrect. I quote those points that are most difficult for me to respond to,
or those that are representative of the entire message. I disregard lesser
points, those that are off topic, or, in the case of Fish, his inane babbling
to himself, his arguments by fictitious stories, and his endless
bandwidth-wasting descriptions of his every bodily function.
FISH
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks anything
like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that there isn't
ne." -- Neal M. Stevens (NMS)
DE GOES
Somehow it is not surprising to see Fish endorsing the fallacy of argumentum ad
ignorantum.
John A. De Goes
If having a tattoo serves as evidence of belief in getting tattooed, then a
lack of tattoo serves as even better evidence of a lack of belief in getting
DE GOES
Skeptic fallaciously reasons that (a->b)->(~a->~b). This is the precise form of
his sentence, and therefore his error is unmistakable.
Skeptic
mental state that determines behavior, and lack of belief being a lack of
mental state. Faulty logic, shit for brains. Quit trying to change the
subject with ad hom attacks. Just provide some proof for your assertions
that lack of belief cannot be an alternative mental state, and that
knowledge, belief and assertion are identical.
Skeptic
today. EAC would be notified, if it existed, but it doesn't.
Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
news:MPG.12334f8cd...@news.earthlink.net...
> Skeptic posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> > John A. De Goes <jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:7q7v3t$1kcc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > SKEPTIC
> > > There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at
> > > observable behavior.
> >
> > You snipped the last sentence of the paragraph, nitwit, with no
indication
> > you snipped it. That is not ethical behavior.
>
> The dishonest fuck does that all the time, Skeptic. On purpose. It's his
> favorite tactic. He does it so he doesn't have to respond to portions of
> a post he feels uncomfortable with as they tend to make him out to be
> the idiot he is.
>
> <snip remainder>
>
> --
> "Fish" (David B. Trout)
> Alt.Atheism #623
> ICQ# 25302291
> fi...@infidels.org.god
> (remove "god" to reply by email)
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> "If the sum of credible evidence we have is
> that the universe lacks anything like a god,
> then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
> there isn't one." -- Neal M. Stevens (NMS)
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
Skeptic
John A. De Goes:
[snip]
> FISH
> "If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks
anything
> like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that there isn't
>
> Somehow it is not surprising to see Fish endorsing the fallacy of
argumentum ad
> ignorantum.
>
If you ask the truly faithful believers in "beer in the fridge" if there is
any evidence of beer existing in the fridge, and the evidence indicates that
your fridge lacks anything like beer, and you conclude that there isn't any,
would you consider that a logical fallacy on your part concerning the
existence of beer in the fridge?
Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is exhibited by those who claim that
their god must exist because there is no proof that it does not, or those
who maintain that belief and knowledge are identical, or those who insist,
whith no reasonable way of proving it, that atheists cannot simply have a
lack of belief that any gods exist.
Skeptic
> SKEPTIC
> If having a tattoo serves as evidence of belief in getting tattooed, then
a
> lack of tattoo serves as even better evidence of a lack of belief in
getting
> tattooed.
>
> DE GOES
> Skeptic fallaciously reasons that (a->b)->(~a->~b). This is the precise
form of
> his sentence, and therefore his error is unmistakable.
>
De Goes fallaciously concludes that belief determines behavior, while lack
of belief can not determine behavior, and does not understand reductio ad
absurdum.
Are you ready to be added to my killfile, son?
dgnorth
Marvin B. Edwards wrote in message <93586087...@helium.cstone.net>...
>dgnorth <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>[Emotions may seem irrational sometimes, but really, short of some type of
>mental disorder, it is almost impossible for emotions to be irrational.
>say they should be, you are happy. If you are sad, it is because things
>aren't the way your values say they should be.]
>
>That's an interesting point. There are values, an assessment of current
>reality in terms of those values, and a resulting emotion. The function of
>Church includes conveying both values and emotions. The "spiritual"
mission
>of Church to assure that we value Good (God) and that we feel good when we
>pursue It (Him). This is an important function for the well-being of
>civilization.
Having a value system isn't enough. It has to be the right values for it to
be of any benefit. Otherwise, using a bad value system will only hurt you.
Obviously, valuing mind altering substances isn't going to help you. But if
you do value it, then you will be happy with it, despite the harm it might
do to you. And by the way, there is a right value system.
>My point is that the values and emotions you speak of do not arrive in the
>genetics but are learned through culture.
Yes, as a child you lack the ability to rationally decide what your values
are so you sort of inherit them from family, culture (TV, movies), etc.
However, an important part of growing up usually occurs during the teenage
years when you usually start to question the values you "inherited" and try
to figure out if they are right.
>Religion is often an important part of this process.
That's true, and it's too bad. Religion has too much influence on morals
and values for most people.
>[Fear is more of a combination of losing something of value and your sort
of
>instinctual fear of being eaten by a tiger or some such.]
>
>I've heard it said that Christians prayed and sang n the Roman arena when
>facing their deaths at the hands (claws) of lions. The human response can
>adapt and is not limited to instinct.
True, the response can adapt, but instinct can sometimes play a valuable
role.
>[To be a functioning, conscious human being, a belief system that is
>coherent and logical is necessary.]
>
>God, I hope not. If so we're all out of luck!
Not some of us. We have found it. Or, at the very least, we're working on
fixing the flaws as we come across them.
dgnorth
say "I believe in god" nor "I do not believe in god". Here is why:
Any statement you make is in some context. That context generally includes
your reasons for saying that the statement is valid. Essentially, you can't
make a statement without any support and expect it to hold up when
questioned. Any statement also has another important attribute, and that is
truth. Is the statement true or false? Lets do some syllogisms!
A false statement, but valid within the context of your knowledge:
My table can fly under it's own power.
You and I know (hopefully) that this isn't going to happen. The statement
is obviously false. However, to a two year old, it may make perfect sense
within the context of his knowledge. Here is what the child "knows":
Things with wings (birds, planes) can fly under their own power.
My kitchen table has wings.
For the child, the obvious implication is that the table can fly! Within
the context of his knowledge, this is all valid. The child doesn't yet know
everything about how different kinds of wings work and what makes things
fly.
A true statement, but invalid within the context of your knowledge:
I do not believe in god.
This statement can be completely true if the person who makes it really
doesn't believe in god. A belief state implies that there is a reason for
the belief. This is where the context of a person's knowledge is important.
If the belief is based on "faith" then that person is ignoring reason and it
is not worthwhile to even try to reason with them. However, if a person
uses reason and logic, this is the argument to make:
In, "I do not believe in god" the phrase "believe in god" is a
contradiction.
If belief implies a reason for it, and
there is no evidence for god, then
you cannot hold a belief in god.
The "I do not" part of the statement tries to negate the "believe in god"
part and the result is that you are trying the negate a floating
abstraction. Because there is no basis for a "belief in god", you cannot
negate it.
In summary:
Belief implies evidence. If there is no evidence, you can have no valid
belief (or even a lack of belief). As I've said before, you must take ideas
in context. When you drop the context of the idea, the idea itself loses
its meaning and becomes useless. That is why you can have no belief (which
is different than not believing - not believing implies evidence that a
theory is false) about god.
dgnorth
>I have plenty of pieces of proffered evidence. I am not going to make a
>faith based decision and ignore them out of hand just because they do not
>reach some arbitrary bar, or rather because I imagine they won't reach some
>arbitrary bar. You don't know until you examine what is proffered as
>evidence and the financial success of the churches is enough for me to want
>to find out the skinny behind them, since it shows a level of belief in
>followers beyond a mere desire to fit in. They are willing to put their
>money where their mouth is and I am not so arrogant as to declare that
their
>reasons must be bullshit before I've even examined them.
Good for you. Neither would I. I've looked at every piece of evidence I
have come across and none of it has added up to anything that even resembles
valid support for the theory of god. The problem is, when people come
across something that doesn't fit in with their own world view (usually
distorted by some misconception or outright denial of reality), a large
group just attributes it to "god". The only valid evidence is some type of
physical evidence. I hear plenty of stories, but only a few times have I
seen anything physical presented. Some faked, some mistaken, some much
better explained by other theories. I personally haven't found anything
which I could attribute to a god. It would take some _very_ compelling
evidence to make me abandon my current world view in favor of a god. And
the amount of evidence required to make this happen is anything but
arbitrary. The minute the evidence makes the theory of god more likely than
any other theory, then I will add it to my world view. However, until I see
any evidence whatsoever that is actually valid or come across some
contradiction in my own understanding, I won't even consider god.
> Agnosticism is a belief in a proposition that I am not willing to place
any
>faith in any more than I am willing to place faith in the proposition "gods
>exist" OR the proposition "gods do not exist". I do not believe that no
>evidence exists or can exist because, to do so, I would have to arbitrarily
>reject reams of offered exhibits without even glancing at them.
Just to clear this up, agnosticism does not say that no evidence _can_
exist, it just says that no evidence currently _does_ exist. You don't need
to put any "faith" in agnosticism. You just need to use reason and your own
observations of reality to know that it is the correct course.
>> >The basic assumption most often given regarding agnosticism is that one
>> >cannot know, not merely that no evidence exists but that no evidence can
>> >exist. This strikes me as insufferably silly as it is an assumption
which
>> >claims knowledge about the nature of that which the very statement
claims
>> >nothing can be known.
>>
>>
>> I was unaware the "one cannot know" was part of agnosticism. I've never
>> seen that before, but you might be right. The "one cannot know" sounds
>> closer to skepticism to me, though.
>
>Skepticism is not the proposition that one cannot know. Skepticism is the
>withholding of belief until evidence is presented. It is not the belief
that
>evidence does not and cannot exist. I am skeptical regarding the
proposition
>"god exists", but I am not agnostic regarding the proposition because I do
>not deny the possibility that evidence can exist.
>I hope I have cleared up any discrepancies :)
Actually, you're wrong about this. Skepticism, as a philosophy, holds that
no absolute or definite knowledge is possible. You can only have an
approximation of what is because you can't know for sure. For a true
skeptic, you cannot convince them of anything, because they don't believe
the evidence is valid. The reason for this, in my understanding, is that
because we must use the senses to detect the world around us, we can't
really know what's going on. They seem to want some type of direct mind
link to "reality" so that they can bypass the senses. Don't ask me why.
Blue8682
to have been created, right?
Fred
Rythem and balance
http://members.aol.com/Blue8682/index.html
Robert J. Kolker
Blue8682 wrote:
> So, how do factive minded types explain the existence of the universe? It had
> to have been created, right?
>
The Universe was either created, came into existed spontaneously or
has always existed. That pretty well covers the possibilities.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Blue8682 wrote:
>
> > So, how do factive minded types explain the existence of the universe? It had
> > to have been created, right?
> >
>
> The Universe was either created, came into existed
......................................................................existence........................
B
says...
>
>So, how do factive minded types explain the existence of the universe? It had
>to have been created, right?
>
No.
--
BJM #1519
Jeffrey A. Young
John A. De Goes <jdegoesR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>SKEPTIC
>If having a tattoo serves as evidence of belief in getting tattooed, then a
>lack of tattoo serves as even better evidence of a lack of belief in getting
>tattooed.
>
>DE GOES
>Skeptic fallaciously reasons that (a->b)->(~a->~b). This is the precise form of
>his sentence, and therefore his error is unmistakable.
Absolutely. And if anyone cares to investigate further, it's called
the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
Jeff
----
"Whether you like it or not, the square root of minus one has about as
much to do with the real world as a unicorn does." - NMS
G & G
dgnorth wrote in message
Glenn R. wrote:
I do not believe that you have any concept of what you are saying.
I believe that you like to hear your own voice too much.
G & G
>
>Having a value system isn't enough. It has to be the right values for it
to
>be of any benefit. Otherwise, using a bad value system will only hurt you.
>Obviously, valuing mind altering substances isn't going to help you. But
if
>you do value it, then you will be happy with it, despite the harm it might
>do to you. And by the way, there is a right value system.
>
Glenn R. wrote:
Let me guess. The "right" value system looks exactly like yours. Correct?
Jeffrey A. Young
Ace Ventura <aceve...@goober.net> wrote:
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>> Now, if you wish to talk your way out of this morass of illogicality by
>> saying "Doc, I believe that *you* believe your X is a god, but I don't
>> believe it is" it means the following:
>
>What morass? You're trying to imply one can only say a theist is someone
>who believes in "the real God", and if they don't, then they can't be
>labeled a theist.
Nope. He's saying that if you grant that someone is a theist because
he or she believes 1) that an object, say a toaster, exists and 2)
that that object is a god; then you grant the theist the right to
claim *you* as a fellow theist if you believe that the toaster exists.
In other words, by granting the right to believe that a toaster is
god, you deny yourself the right to challenge that belief (lest you
abandon all consistency) and you thus deny your right to claim to the
theist that you are an atheist (if you believe in the existence of
toasters). Now if you want to claim that *to you* you are an atheist
while at the same time *to the theist* you are a theist, then you have
just made atheism completely subjective. That's fine; just prepare
yourself for the Wrath of the Atheists (nach Chris Lee).
Skeptic
dgnorth <dgn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%jny3.54$ob4.6...@news1.i1.net...
statements can be made concerning controversies such as the existence of
controversial entities such as gods. Existential statements (X exists) are
not scientific statements. There is no way to contradict such statements,
even if they are false. Scientific statements are universal statements (X
does not exist). If a universal statement is false then any one basic
statement describing any observable event in which existence of X is either
clearly shown, or reasonably inferred can contradict it. (Logic is the
science that deals with the principles and criteria of valid inference and
demonstration.)
That which can be demonstrated is knowledge, not belief. Belief is taking
some existential statement as true when it is controversial, and there is no
way of showing that it is false, if it is false. I haven't done that since I
was a child. Now that I am a man, and have put away childish things, I can
report that I lack belief in gods, since I don't take any existential
statements as true.
egor
Name a term that one labels themselves, or others by, that isn't subjective.
jeff
So then, you are sayihg that there is no difference between
believing and knowing? Do you believe this otr do you know this? Do you know
what you are saying about neurons with respect to this or any other aspect
of human existence or do you believe it? If you know them, then what happens
to your argument and can you show them to be true or are you also saying
that you don't have to show what you say you know to be true or is it that
you don't have to show what you believe to be true is true? Also, if there
is no difference, then are you saying that knowing is as reliable as
believing or is believing as reliable as knowing, that is, for those of us
who have made a distinction between the two? I mean, should we treat or
believing as though it was as good an indicator of reality as our knowing or
our knowing as good an indicator of reality as our believing? And why then
should we accept your arguments in this matter since you don't make a
distinction? What makes your knowing/believing more accurate as an indicator
of the nature of reality than anyone else's knowing or believing?
jeff
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, John A. De Goes wrote:
> SKEPTIC
> There is a big difference between belief and knowledge if we look at observable
> behavior behavior.
>
> DE GOES
> There is no neural difference between belief in X and knowledge of X. This is a
> negative assumption, a working hypothesis, and, according to you, the only kind
> that can be falsified. Therefore, if you wish to dispute it, you must provide
> evidence for your view, by your own standards. I expect substantial quotes from
> journals on biochemistry, biophysics, neurobiology, and other relevant fields.
>
> SKEPTIC
> If you conceive of X as being true, without looking at the evidence, that is an
> assumption.
>
> DE GOES
> From this, we may conclude that Skeptic believes assumptions are untested (that
> is, lacking evidence). In addition, Skeptic asserts elsewhere that:
>
> 1. Assumptions are not beliefs. Evidence: "No belief is required here [for
> assumption] either. " "The premise, '... an assumption is an unsupported
> belief...' is not valid." Since he admits an assumption is unsupported, he must
> deny an assumption is a belief.
>
> 2. Beliefs are assumptions. Evidence: "A belief (untested assumption) might
> be true or false." Here he equates a belief with an untested assumption, but
> since he admits all assumptions are untested, he therefore equates belief with
> assumption.
>
> Let X be an assumption and Y be the property that makes a thing a belief.
>
> Skeptic's assertions then become:
>
> 1. All things that are X lack property Y.
> 2. All things that have property Y are X.
> 3. Therefore, according to Skeptic, all things that have property Y lack
> property Y.
>
> This incoherent babbling, evidenced by Skeptic in the last thread in which he
> participated, indicates he does not think about what he writes, but rather,
> invents statements as he goes along in order to save face, even if said
> statements make no sense or contradict one another completely.
>
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8E2FC65D...@news.globalserve.net...
[snip]
>Dr Sinister
>> Ok. The hypothesis is that "Santa does not exist." Let us assume that
>> this is actually false. Ok. So how do you falsify it? How do you
>> design some experimental apparatus which enables you to detect
>> something which negates the validity of the physics upon which the
>> experimental equipment is based?
>>
>> [snip]
>
>That is precisely the right question, Sin. There you have it! If We
>assume the statement, "There is no X" is false. That means that the
>statement, "X exists" is assumed to be true.
Can you demonstrate that 'existence' is a boolean predicate?
Now, if X is IPU, then how do you build an IPU detector to falsify
the hypothesis "There is no IPU"? Which property does IPU have which
makes it detectable by an IPUscope?
You see, you have been confusing 'hypothesis' with 'belief'. Whether or
not you believe IPU exists, is of no interest to science. What _is_ of
interest, is that IPU's purported physical properties are self
-contradictory. If you assume that IPU exists, then you immediately have
to rewrite all of physics.
>(The negation of a
>universal statement is always an existential statement.)
The above has no meaning. I suspect you make up laws of logic and
"science" as you go along.
>And you are
>exactly correct, existential statements are impossible to contradict!
I think you are wrong here.
[snip]
>If X is any controversial entity, and the question is on the existence
>of X, the only falsifiable statement concerning the existence of X is
>the purely universal statement, "There is no X."
You don't understand what a hypothesis is.
>Any statement reporting
>a verifiable observation of X forces us to reject the statement, "There
>is no X."
You're talking as if this is possible for IPU. That it is somehow
possible to produce empirical evidence for something that contradicts all
laws of physics.
>The purely existential statement, "X exists" is imposible to contradict,
>even if it is false.
Would you say it is possible to contradict the statement 'There are 10kg
photons'?
>No basic statement, no statement of an observed
>event can possibly contradict a purely existential statement.
Do elaborate on this "principle of logic", or whatever the hell it's
supposed to be.
--
If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Dr Sinister
-100...@freenet2.afn.org>:
>So then, you are sayihg that there is no difference between
>believing and knowing? Do you believe this otr do you know this? Do you
>know what you are saying about neurons with respect to this or any other
>aspect of human existence or do you believe it? If you know them, then
>what happens to your argument and can you show them to be true or are
>you also saying that you don't have to show what you say you know to be
>true or is it that you don't have to show what you believe to be true is
>true?
Let's assume there is a difference between believing and knowing. Ok so
now I can 'know' god, and I'm still an atheist because I don't believe in
him.
Let's assume that there is no difference between believing and knowing.
Then we get to the absurd situation where a weak atheist must lack belief
in the nonexistence of gods in order to remain a weak atheist. Do recall
that Terry tried to defend himself against this implication by suggesting
there is a difference between knowledge and belief. That's what started
this whole subthread.
No matter how you look at it, atheism, in it's present definition, is
screwed.
>Also, if there
>is no difference, then are you saying that knowing is as reliable as
>believing or is believing as reliable as knowing, that is, for those of
>us who have made a distinction between the two? I mean, should we treat
>or believing as though it was as good an indicator of reality as our
>knowing or our knowing as good an indicator of reality as our believing?
You have considerable confusion here. It is possible to have knowledge
that the earth is flat, from the subject's point of view. You may claim
that this isn't knowledge because you disagree with the content of the
knowledge and can demonstrate that it is false.
Unfortunately, that isn't how the brain works. The brain does not have a
module which detects objective truth of knowledge as a direct perception.
Just look at the way your brain interprets geometrical optics when you
look into a mirror.
You can have some crazy beliefs, but then modify them through analytical
processes involving the left temporal lobe. You now have new beliefs and
new semantic relationships. If you developed a lesion in your right
parietal lobe, it is possible that you will simply maintain this crazy
belief, because the denial mechanism may be interfered with. Just look at
anosognosics or sufferers of Capgras's Syndrome. They claim some pretty
strange knowledge about themselves and others. In rare cases of reversal,
these patients explain that, at the time, they were _absolutely_ certain
about their knowledge, because they were perceiving it directly as
factual and not hallucinations or vague beliefs. But more often than not,
they deny that they ever maintained these anomalous beliefs.
'Knowlegde', 'belief', and 'intuition' seem to be perceived qualia on the
semantics contained in the temporal lobes.
Ok, so the usual objection can be inserted here: "Doc, nobody had
_knowledge_ that the earth was flat. They must have _believed_, because,
as we know, this knowledge is objectively false. So it couldn't have been
true knowledge." Sure, but you only know this through the benefit of
hindsight. There are a lot of stupid things claimed as knowledge by the
denizens of alt.atheism, not necessarily having to do with theology. Even
when you demonstrate the falsity of these stupid assertions, atheists
still claim certain knowledge of them anyway. Just look at maff91. As far
as I'm concerned, he behaves as if he had lesions in this right parietal
lobe. He probably does, too.
>And why then
>should we accept your arguments in this matter since you don't make a
>distinction?
Jeff, you never have anything useful to add, it seems.
>What makes your knowing/believing more accurate as an
>indicator of the nature of reality than anyone else's knowing or
>believing? jeff
Please ask an atheist that. It's they who claim their opinions are
objective facts.