Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Thermal]

The fact that we have to keep continually defending the Garage Dragon analogy from people who seem to think Chris's alien one is fine short of tips peoples hand that they really aren't having a problem with the analogy, just its conclusion.

So we can all stop pretending not to "get" the Dragon in the Garage now.

Sagans Dragon is about claims that cannot be tested, ad hoc excuses that render the claims unfalsifiable. He concludes that there is no difference between an incorporeal beast and no beast at all. Agreed.

The "might there be a god" discussion has no mother ******* claims. That's why it is so profoundly dishonest to hitch your argument to the Dragon. Speculation and abstract musing is not a ******* claim.

 

[Leumas]

That's all apologetics IS, special pleading away special pleading.

Everything, everything, everything being said "No it's not special pleading because it's god and he's special."

Exactly!!!

If you permit me my indulgence of saying it on your behalf...

QED!!!




.

 

[Thermal]

So what you are saying is that god-hawkers have no idea whatsoever what it is they are hawking and thus their hawking is a special case of hawking unlike that peddling for fake imaginary things that we can concretely define???





So... special pleading for why the special pleading of god-hawkers is not special pleading...

I'm not interested in formal god hawking. I think their argument is self-defeating. I'm talking about the simple "might there be something" and concluding "insufficient data for a meaningful conclusion".

 

[JoeMorgue]

The "might there be a god" discussion has no mother ******* claims.

Like seriously do you hear yourself? "There might be a god" is not a claim.

What we just looped right back to "Just asking questions" yet again as something that isn't inherently intellectually dishonest? "I'm not saying I'm just saying." Push polling basically?

Again the excuse is going to be "Well this is different because it's god" with words around it and theatrics.

 

[Leumas]

Sagans Dragon is about claims that cannot be tested, ad hoc excuses that render the claims unfalsifiable. He concludes that there is no difference between an incorporeal beast and no beast at all. Agreed.

The "might there be a god" discussion has no mother ******* claims. That's why it is so profoundly dishonest to hitch your argument to the Dragon. Speculation and abstract musing is not a ******* claim.

Other than the all but endless litany of claims that are claimed by the god-hawkers.

Are the first mover and the uncaused causer and the necessary claptrap and morality hawker etc. etc. etc. not claims???

 

[JoeMorgue]

I swear if we actually reach "Show me were anyone actually claimed there was a god" level I will manifest a god into existence just so I can swear to it.

 

[Thermal]

Is there any other subject where the conclusion "I don't know" is attacked? Kind of thought science relished in that one as a reflection of intellectual honesty.

 

[Leumas]

I'm not interested in formal god hawking. I think their argument is self-defeating. I'm talking about the simple "might there be something" and concluding "insufficient data for a meaningful conclusion".

Who are these... don't they use arguments at all... at all???

If they do... then the Dragon in the Garage applies to their arguments... and if they do not... then "might there be a dragon in the garage" applies to their non-arguments.

 

[Thermal]

Other than the all but endless litany of claims that are claimed by the god-hawkers.

Are the first mover and the uncaused causer and the necessary claptrap and morality hawker etc. etc. etc. not claims???

Still don't care about God hawkers. That's your imagination. Not interested.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Arrantly not even close to approaching coming in the vicinity of possibly being a true statement.

SETI is a thing. It's happening at this very moment.

Because we have only existed as god-peddling species for less than 250,000 years and despite our abject arrogance we do not know everything with our severely limited miniscule window of time-space to look at the COSMOS.

Perhaps we'll be able to create life from a few buckets of amino acids someday, perhaps not. There's an unknown missing ingredient that we've yet to understand. Many that believe in God would likely agree that an intelligent design is the factor yet to be understood by science. Many in Science would likely agree that the answer will reveal itself with enough research. Though they don't know the answer yet, somehow they can claim to know it's definitely not God.

That is like an ant in my backyard telling another there is no evidence that there are anteaters.

Have we looked everywhere in the universe???

Again SETI has been looking for decades and is looking at this moment. You'd be surprised how many different ongoing projects there are searching for ETs.

The Universe is a big place. I agree. Our little Milky Way has been searched for decades so far without good result. There was some fuss made years ago about the "Wow" signal but as it turned out it was never repeated and more likely a publicity stunt to acquire funding.

No... only god-hawkers hope for a god despite not having had a single iota of any confirmation that there is one and OODLES of confirmation that there is not any.

Speculators about life on other planets only SPECULATE ... not hope... and their speculations are supported by solid evidence and science of reality.

Equivocating the two is yet another casuistic chicanery used by apologists to obfuscate the intellectual and rational bankruptcy of god-hawking.

I would argue that life on planet Earth and Science's failure to create life would be points for the "god-hawkers".

If life is common in the Universe simply because it's common on Earth we've yet to see any evidence of that theory. Don't get me wrong I like Star Trek as much as the next SciFi nerd but it's not real.

Speculate: form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

The evidence is lacking. To claim Science is valid without evidence is no different than claiming your Cancer was cured by God without evidence.

 

[Leumas]

Is there any other subject where the conclusion "I don't know" is attacked? Kind of thought science relished in that one as a reflection of intellectual honesty.

The scientific "I do not know" is a conclusion one can hold about a hypothesis that tries to negate the null hypothesis.

And that means the null hypothesis still holds despite the lack of knowledge of the one who says they do not know.

When it comes to the "god"-hypothesis.... the null hypothesis is "no there is not god(s)".

So when one says "I do not know" then the null hypothesis stands and is what is to be taken by any rational person.

So "I do not know" in the gods question means ... I cannot negate the hypothesis that there are no gods and thus there are no gods is the most rational stance one can hold.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is there any other subject where the conclusion "I don't know" is attacked? Kind of thought science relished in that one as a reflection of intellectual honesty.

Is there any other subject where something has has no trace, leaves no evidence, has no qualities, is barely defined gets put on the table for discussion where we are expected to pick a side? (And yes before you start big showy "Oh there's no evidence either way so I'm neutral" is a side.)

Again you don't have a strong opinion about the existence of a dragon in my garage because you understand it's a non-valid question and no one is attacking your for that or sitting there putting on a show of pretending that they simply don't get why you are not genuinely intellectually curious about it. There's no dragon in the garage. You know, it know, so I'm not attacking your for not choosing a team.

But apply that to "god" and you and others put on a big act, yes act, of acting like you can't get why people are doing the exact same thing.

Again you get it for everything that isn't god, nobody really believes you don't get it here.

 

[Thermal]

Who are these... don't they use arguments at all... at all??

Is the concept of a discussion without a pissy argument utterly foreign to you? Seriously?

If they do... then the Dragon in the Garage applies to their arguments... and if they do not... then "might there be a dragon in the garage" applies to their non-arguments.

The Dragon applies to unfalsifiable claims, ad hoc reasoning, and burden of proof. It does not apply to speculating into the unknown. Here:

"What, if anything, existed before time and space?"

"Hurr durr, there's no absence of time and space in my garage! QED!"

 

[acbytesla]

I would argue that life on planet Earth and Science's failure to create life would be points for the "god-hawkers".
If life is common in the Universe simply because it's common on Earth we've yet to see any evidence of that theory. Don't get me wrong I like Star Trek as much as the next SciFi nerd but it's not real.

Speculate: form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

The evidence is lacking. To claim Science is valid without evidence is no different than claiming your Cancer was cured by God without evidence.

We're not talking about SciFi. And no, it's not points for the "god hawkers." The failure to prove a scientific hypothesis by a specific date is not evidence for a superstitious one.

 

[Thermal]

The scientific "I do not know" is a conclusion one can hold about a hypothesis that tries to negate the null hypothesis.

And that means the null hypothesis still holds despite the lack of knowledge of the one who says they do not know.

When it comes to the "god"-hypothesis.... the null hypothesis is "no there is not god(s)".

So when one says "I do not know" then the null hypothesis stands and is what is to be taken by any rational person.

So "I do not know" in the gods question means ... I cannot negate the hypothesis that there are no gods and thus there are no gods is the most rational stance one can hold.

The null hypothesis is not a slam dunk conclusion. You reject it constantly, every day, in favor of "not proven", or "don't know yet", which is off to the side of that.

How often in your day to day life do you affirm disbelief in something you literally know nothing about one way or the other?

The Dragon only has teeth in the face of specific claims. It doesn't grant you license to not believe in gravity this morning.

 

[Thermal]

Is there any other subject where something has has no trace, leaves no evidence, has no qualities, is barely defined gets put on the table for discussion where we are expected to pick a side? (And yes before you start big showy "Oh there's no evidence either way so I'm neutral" is a side.)

Again you don't have a strong opinion about the existence of a dragon in my garage because you understand it's a non-valid question and no one is attacking your for that or sitting there putting on a show of pretending that they simply don't get why you are not genuinely intellectually curious about it. There's no dragon in the garage. You know, it know, so I'm not attacking your for not choosing a team.

But apply that to "god" and you and others put on a big act, yes act, of acting like you can't get why people are doing the exact same thing.

Again you get it for everything that isn't god, nobody really believes you don't get it here.

Yes, speculating about universal First Causes is nothing whatsoever like wondering if you have any beer in the fridge.

I can't believe this is where we are at.

 

[Leumas]

SETI is a thing. It's happening at this very moment.

So???

The ants in my backyard in North America have been searching for anteaters for the last 10 years... they are still searching... but some of them use that to conclude that there are no anteaters.

Perhaps we'll be able to create life from a few buckets of amino acids someday, perhaps not. There's an unknown missing ingredient that we've yet to understand. Many that believe in God would likely agree that an intelligent design is the factor yet to be understood by science. Many in Science would likely agree that the answer will reveal itself with enough research. Though they don't know the answer yet, somehow they can claim to know it's definitely not God.

So???

Some of the ants in my backyard cannot recreate anteaters in their laboratories either.

Again SETI has been looking for decades and is looking at this moment. You'd be surprised how many different ongoing projects there are searching for ETs.

The Universe is a big place. I agree. Our little Milky Way has been searched for decades so far without good result. There was some fuss made years ago about the "Wow" signal but as it turned out it was never repeated and more likely a publicity stunt to acquire funding.

You really have too much lack of appreciation for the vastness of the universe and the limited ability of humanity and how miniscule our time-space window is compared to the COSMOS.

And you also have no appreciation for SCIENCE or what it is....

I would argue that life on planet Earth and Science's failure to create life would be points for the "god-hawkers".

Only for ones who do not know anything about biology or chemistry or physics and cannot begin to fathom the vastness of the universe and the mind-boggling number of galaxies and stars and planets.

If life is common in the Universe simply because it's common on Earth we've yet to see any evidence of that theory.

The ants in my yard also want evidence while they are sitting on their anthill in North America for anteaters in Brazil.

Don't get me wrong I like Star Trek as much as the next SciFi nerd but it's not real.

Yes... Star Trek is not real just like the Buybull but infinitely cleverer and infinitely more entertaining although equally impossible and equally fictional.

Speculate: form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

The evidence is lacking. To claim Science is valid without evidence is no different than claiming your Cancer was cured by God without evidence.

Only if one has no inkling about science or any understanding of how the scientific method works or total blindness to the success of science and the products that science has afforded humanity.

Religious "faith" is blind gullible unquestioning acceptance of unfalsifiable codswallop that is 99.99999% PROVEN already to be lies and using rationalization and special pleading and moving the goals posts and red herring wafting and wishful thinking and all sorts of irrational fallacious nonsense in order to alleviate the Cognitive Dissonance caused by its lack of any basis in reality.

Equivocating the two is yet another casuistic chicanery used by apologists to obfuscate the intellectual and rational bankruptcy of god-hawking.

 

[Olmstead]

Right, and I get that. The conflation problem is that we know what is in a garage and how to detect it, because within the four corners of time and space, there are rules that we plus or minus get. When the question goes beyond time and space, we don't have any rules that we get, because I don't think humans can conceive them. I don't even get how others can possibly claim to. Yet here we are. "The possible existence of a god is just like looking for a can of beer in my refrigerator".

"Special Pleading" some will screech. Well, duh. It's a one of a kind proposition. There genuinely is NOTHING else like such a speculation. A universal driving force beyond time and space that might have ******* created it is in fact not at all like being out of Budweiser.

An essential part of the invisible dragon analogy is that the dragon always avoids detection, no matter what. Until we have some way to completely thwart its anti-detection technology, the analogy remains apt.

But to be fair, I'm not too attached to that analogy. In fact, as a Lovecraft fan, I'd much prefer the analogy of Azathoth floating "beyond time and space" as analogous to any god.

Somehow, I don't believe Azathoth exists beyond time and space. Yes, Azathoth is a specific creature invented by an author, but so is any god. The moment one postulates an entity creating the universe, one has already imagined a completely fictional character, vague as it may be.

 

[Chanakya]

No, and that's why these discussions go round and round with everyone talking past each other.

Short version: god of the gaps means that you prove/infer that the god is or must be correct. That has nothing to do with the argument at hand, where an agnostic says it is not proven and unevidenced, but not disproven to any substantial degree either. So in a cloud it stays. That doesn't apply to the whole flowing white robes and stone tablets god, though. That one can be shown to just not be where he said he is, and not do what he claims he does.




Why? I mean, most of us on the agnostic spectrum have a starting assumption that some kind of universal prime mover would be far beyond human comprehension by nature. It's not like it would be a can of beer in the refrigerator, which we know all the properties of.

Come on, Thermal, seriously?

No reason why there should be a prime mover at all. That logic's nonsensical.

As for not smuggling in attributes. Say you go with quantum fluctuations. Say you now refer to the quantum fluctuations as God. What now? Where do you go from here?

Also, not to forget: No religion thinks of its God as lifeless quantum fluctuations. That's ...crazy, why the **** call it God of all things? Aquinas was merely pulling off a semantic legerdemain, is all his first argument was.

 

[Leumas]

The null hypothesis is not a slam dunk conclusion. You reject it constantly, every day, in favor of "not proven", or "don't know yet", which is off to the side of that.

No I do not... you might... but I... do not.

And if you do it then you must have been fleeced so many times over.

How often in your day to day life do you affirm disbelief in something you literally know nothing about one way or the other?

I do not affirm disbelief... it is the belief that needs affirming.

Every time I delete a spam email or swipe to delete a spam text without ever looking at it or opening it I am assuming the null hypothesis and relying on it to not get screwed.

When I look to the left and right when I cross a pedestrian crossing I am using my eyes to NEGATE the null hypothesis that there is a car that will kill me if I just carry on walking.

The Dragon only has teeth in the face of specific claims. It doesn't grant you license to not believe in gravity this morning.

I think you are totally misunderstanding the Dragon-in-the-garage parable... it has nothing to do with the proven gravity and all to do with the blind-faith of god-hawking.