thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
I haven't enough information to believe you've worn so cks this past year. However, probability leads me to belive that you have worn socks in your lifetime.
What's wrong with saying "we don't know"?
- Thread starter AudioFreak
- Start date
I haven't enough information to believe you've worn so cks this past year. However, probability leads me to belive that you have worn socks in your lifetime.
Poor analogy - you're asking about a belief that by definition has an infinite (or at least beyond human comprehension) number of possible answers. The question, "Do you believe god exists?" has only two answers - 'yes' and 'know'. This can be shown by rephrasing the question so that it relates to absolute knowledge: "When did I remove my socks?" and "Does god exist?" From this it can be seen that the former question has an infinite number of possible answers, while the latter question can have only two answers - 'yes' and 'no'. Note that these answers are independant of whether or not any person can answer them - they are objective possibilities.
If you were to ask me, "When do you believe I removed my socks?" you are therefore asking a very different type of question. More appropriate would be the question, "Do you believe I removed my socks [at time x]?" The curious thing is that for every possible value of x, my answer would be 'no'. While this is paradoxical (as I have already stated that I don't believe you are wearing warm socks at the moment, and that I do believe you have worn warm socks in the past), it actually makes perfect sense. I know that, given a period of time, as the period grows longer, the probability that you removed your socks in that time period tends to 1. However, I have no extra information as to when within that time period the socks were removed, and so without that information while I can say that I believe that you have worn socks and that you are not wearing socks, I cannot say the specific time at which you removed the socks.
To summarise: I do not believe you are wearing socks at the moment because I have no reason to - I have no evidence, hell, you haven't even said whether or not you are wearing socks. I believe you have worn socks in the past because, in modern Western society, nearly everybody wears socks at least some of the time, and so it is highly probable that you have worn socks in the past. I cannot, however, say when the socks were removed as I do not have enough information, and thus while I believe the socks were removed, I would respond 'no' if asked, "Do you believe the socks were removed at [time x]?"
I apologise - I did have a long post written up in reply to your last reply to me, but my computer chucked a wobbly. I would like to continue the conversation, but to summarise what I've said before: I don't think the issue is with the definition of atheist or theist, instead the issue is with the definition of 'god'. And on top of that, I disagree with your assessment that atheism is an extreme position. Sorry I don't have more, but it got wiped and I've got to get to Melbourne now!
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
This is a loaded question that assumes I must believe you've removed your socks. Just because I don't believe you are wearing socks doesn't mean I must believe you aren't wearing socks.
Radrook: a Fractally wrong Christian posing as an Agnostic
Fractally wrong thinking exposes itself. As you expose yourself the arguments you present become more flawed.
You are a Christian posing as an agnostic. I don't really understand why you are doing this but you are exposed. Be honest. Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bare false witness?
How do I know?
1. Your arguments are all purely from a Christian perspective. I suspect that this is probably the only religion that you have had experience with.
2. You are using typical Christian arguments from the Bible as authority and have a weak understanding of atheism. I suspect that you might know a couple of atheists but thats about it.
3. You accept the Bible as truth. As evidenced in the above quotes.
4. Your claim of eyewitnesses shows a weak theological grasp of the document you chose as evidence.
The Bible is neither proof or evidence. The Christian New Testament is an ancient document that has been miscopied, edited, changed, and was selected by committee. Both the Old and New Testament are riddled with contradictions, flaws, bad math, and bad advise. It is historically inaccurate, cosmologically inaccurate, and biologically ludicrous (Noah's Arc, Genesis, and Eden) Any claims based on these documents require faith - blind faith to even originate.
So, Bible expert. I want your response to this post to be in fluent Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT). You claim to have the truth about the Bible. You will need to have an incredible understanding of it's original language to make any fair assessment of the information. This is because any translation is an interpretation.
So if you are able to dream in Greek (that would be the fluency required). And if you have read all of the lost and yet unrecovered texts. And if you can show me the original copies of the books before they were reproduced and edited. And if you can actually materially demonstrate the need for a divine plan, design, intervention, or inspiration to write a book. Then I will listen to your claims of the Bible as a quality source. You would need to prove more to make it truth but that would be a nice start.
Yes, belief in a god is blind faith - and an argument from authority does not change this. Romans chapter two has nothing to do with anything unless you already believe in the truth of the Bible. The only credibility that this document has is that people (you) believe in it.
Atheism is a reaction to the belief in a supernatural god.
Your request for the atheist to prove a negative (non-existence) is further evidence of your religious agenda. Any intellectual remotely familiar or experienced in logical thinking knows that the person making the claim has the burden of proof.
All agnostics are atheists but all atheists are not agnostics.
This is a statement of logic demonstrating what was mentioned before. The agnostic is a type of atheist. The agnostic is not the weak pushover that you make him out to be. The agnostic leaves a little room for the possibility of a god, not necessarily your god. This possibility could be as small as less than a billionth of a trillionth of a percent probability and you are an agnostic. However a Christian with a few doubts is not an agnostic.
Your argument assumes that we can absolutely know anything with 100% certainty. Any scientist will tell you that we know nothing with 100% certainty.
Only a theist claims to have a complete knowledge over a claim. This demonstrates the weakness and hubris of theism.
Let's be clear; the belief is the claim. The atheist or agnostic is awaiting proof to believe.
Since you already believe you are having a hard time understanding this perspective because your worldview incorporates the acceptance of supernatural claims as being equal to material claims.
They are not equal.
Questions unanswered are something that you have to be conformable with to be an atheist. So when any rational thinker makes a statement of knowledge they are talking about a probability. If you want to argue this point further it is splitting hairs. I have stated the philosophical stance of agnosticism and atheism in both basic and complex ways. Either you try to understand or you don't.
But please be honest about your religion.
Fractally wrong thinking exposes itself. As you expose yourself the arguments you present become more flawed.
You are a Christian posing as an agnostic. I don't really understand why you are doing this but you are exposed. Be honest. Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bare false witness?
How do I know?
1. Your arguments are all purely from a Christian perspective. I suspect that this is probably the only religion that you have had experience with.
2. You are using typical Christian arguments from the Bible as authority and have a weak understanding of atheism. I suspect that you might know a couple of atheists but thats about it.
3. You accept the Bible as truth. As evidenced in the above quotes.
4. Your claim of eyewitnesses shows a weak theological grasp of the document you chose as evidence.
The Bible is neither proof or evidence. The Christian New Testament is an ancient document that has been miscopied, edited, changed, and was selected by committee. Both the Old and New Testament are riddled with contradictions, flaws, bad math, and bad advise. It is historically inaccurate, cosmologically inaccurate, and biologically ludicrous (Noah's Arc, Genesis, and Eden) Any claims based on these documents require faith - blind faith to even originate.
So, Bible expert. I want your response to this post to be in fluent Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT). You claim to have the truth about the Bible. You will need to have an incredible understanding of it's original language to make any fair assessment of the information. This is because any translation is an interpretation.
So if you are able to dream in Greek (that would be the fluency required). And if you have read all of the lost and yet unrecovered texts. And if you can show me the original copies of the books before they were reproduced and edited. And if you can actually materially demonstrate the need for a divine plan, design, intervention, or inspiration to write a book. Then I will listen to your claims of the Bible as a quality source. You would need to prove more to make it truth but that would be a nice start.
Yes, belief in a god is blind faith - and an argument from authority does not change this. Romans chapter two has nothing to do with anything unless you already believe in the truth of the Bible. The only credibility that this document has is that people (you) believe in it.
Atheism is a reaction to the belief in a supernatural god.
Your request for the atheist to prove a negative (non-existence) is further evidence of your religious agenda. Any intellectual remotely familiar or experienced in logical thinking knows that the person making the claim has the burden of proof.
All agnostics are atheists but all atheists are not agnostics.
This is a statement of logic demonstrating what was mentioned before. The agnostic is a type of atheist. The agnostic is not the weak pushover that you make him out to be. The agnostic leaves a little room for the possibility of a god, not necessarily your god. This possibility could be as small as less than a billionth of a trillionth of a percent probability and you are an agnostic. However a Christian with a few doubts is not an agnostic.
Your argument assumes that we can absolutely know anything with 100% certainty. Any scientist will tell you that we know nothing with 100% certainty.
Only a theist claims to have a complete knowledge over a claim. This demonstrates the weakness and hubris of theism.
Let's be clear; the belief is the claim. The atheist or agnostic is awaiting proof to believe.
Since you already believe you are having a hard time understanding this perspective because your worldview incorporates the acceptance of supernatural claims as being equal to material claims.
They are not equal.
Questions unanswered are something that you have to be conformable with to be an atheist. So when any rational thinker makes a statement of knowledge they are talking about a probability. If you want to argue this point further it is splitting hairs. I have stated the philosophical stance of agnosticism and atheism in both basic and complex ways. Either you try to understand or you don't.
But please be honest about your religion.
Radrook: a Fractally wrong Christian posing as an Agnostic
Fractally wrong thinking exposes itself. As you expose yourself the arguments you present become more flawed.
You are a Christian posing as an agnostic. I don't really understand why you are doing this but you are exposed. Be honest. Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bare false witness?
How do I know?
1. Your arguments are all purely from a Christian perspective. I suspect that this is probably the only religion that you have had experience with.
2. You are using typical Christian arguments from the Bible as authority and have a weak understanding of atheism. I suspect that you might know a couple of atheists but thats about it.
3. You accept the Bible as truth. As evidenced in the above quotes.
4. Your claim of eyewitnesses shows a weak theological grasp of the document you chose as evidence.
5. A true agnostic would be willing to explore other theologic positions and would argue from a broader knowledge of religions in general.
The Bible is neither proof or evidence. The Christian New Testament is an ancient document that has been miscopied, edited, changed, and was selected by committee. Both the Old and New Testament are riddled with contradictions, flaws, bad math, and bad advise. It is historically inaccurate, cosmologically inaccurate, and biologically ludicrous (Noah's Arc, Genesis, and Eden) Any claims based on these documents require faith - blind faith to even originate.
So, Bible expert. I want your response to this post to be in fluent Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT). You claim to have the truth about the Bible. You will need to have an incredible understanding of it's original language to make any fair assessment of the information. This is because any translation is an interpretation.
So if you are able to dream in Greek (that would be the fluency required). And if you have read all of the lost and yet unrecovered texts. And if you can show me the original copies of the books before they were reproduced and edited. And if you can actually materially demonstrate the need for a divine plan, design, intervention, or inspiration to write a book. Then I will listen to your claims of the Bible as a quality source. You would need to prove more to make it truth but that would be a nice start.
Yes, belief in a god is blind faith - and an argument from authority does not change this. Romans chapter two has nothing to do with anything unless you already believe in the truth of the Bible. The only credibility that this document has is that people (you) believe in it.
Atheism is a reaction to the belief in a supernatural god.
Your request for the atheist to prove a negative (non-existence) is further evidence of your religious agenda. Any intellectual remotely familiar or experienced in logical thinking knows that the person making the claim has the burden of proof.
All agnostics are atheists but all atheists are not agnostics.
This is a statement of logic demonstrating what was mentioned before. The agnostic is a type of atheist. The agnostic is not the weak pushover that you make him out to be. The agnostic leaves a little room for the possibility of a god, not necessarily your god. This possibility could be as small as less than a billionth of a trillionth of a percent probability and you are an agnostic. However a Christian with a few doubts is not an agnostic.
Your argument assumes that we can absolutely know anything with 100% certainty. Any scientist will tell you that we know nothing with 100% certainty.
Only a theist claims to have a complete knowledge over a claim. This demonstrates the weakness and hubris of theism.
Let's be clear; the belief is the claim. The atheist or agnostic is awaiting proof to believe.
Since you already believe you are having a hard time understanding this perspective because your worldview incorporates the acceptance of supernatural claims as being equal to material claims.
They are not equal.
Questions unanswered are something that you have to be conformable with to be an atheist. So when any rational thinker makes a statement of knowledge they are talking about a probability. If you want to argue this point further it is splitting hairs. I have stated the philosophical stance of agnosticism and atheism in both basic and complex ways. Either you try to understand or you don't.
But please be honest about your religion.
Fractally wrong thinking exposes itself. As you expose yourself the arguments you present become more flawed.
You are a Christian posing as an agnostic. I don't really understand why you are doing this but you are exposed. Be honest. Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bare false witness?
How do I know?
1. Your arguments are all purely from a Christian perspective. I suspect that this is probably the only religion that you have had experience with.
2. You are using typical Christian arguments from the Bible as authority and have a weak understanding of atheism. I suspect that you might know a couple of atheists but thats about it.
3. You accept the Bible as truth. As evidenced in the above quotes.
4. Your claim of eyewitnesses shows a weak theological grasp of the document you chose as evidence.
5. A true agnostic would be willing to explore other theologic positions and would argue from a broader knowledge of religions in general.
The Bible is neither proof or evidence. The Christian New Testament is an ancient document that has been miscopied, edited, changed, and was selected by committee. Both the Old and New Testament are riddled with contradictions, flaws, bad math, and bad advise. It is historically inaccurate, cosmologically inaccurate, and biologically ludicrous (Noah's Arc, Genesis, and Eden) Any claims based on these documents require faith - blind faith to even originate.
So, Bible expert. I want your response to this post to be in fluent Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT). You claim to have the truth about the Bible. You will need to have an incredible understanding of it's original language to make any fair assessment of the information. This is because any translation is an interpretation.
So if you are able to dream in Greek (that would be the fluency required). And if you have read all of the lost and yet unrecovered texts. And if you can show me the original copies of the books before they were reproduced and edited. And if you can actually materially demonstrate the need for a divine plan, design, intervention, or inspiration to write a book. Then I will listen to your claims of the Bible as a quality source. You would need to prove more to make it truth but that would be a nice start.
Yes, belief in a god is blind faith - and an argument from authority does not change this. Romans chapter two has nothing to do with anything unless you already believe in the truth of the Bible. The only credibility that this document has is that people (you) believe in it.
Atheism is a reaction to the belief in a supernatural god.
Your request for the atheist to prove a negative (non-existence) is further evidence of your religious agenda. Any intellectual remotely familiar or experienced in logical thinking knows that the person making the claim has the burden of proof.
All agnostics are atheists but all atheists are not agnostics.
This is a statement of logic demonstrating what was mentioned before. The agnostic is a type of atheist. The agnostic is not the weak pushover that you make him out to be. The agnostic leaves a little room for the possibility of a god, not necessarily your god. This possibility could be as small as less than a billionth of a trillionth of a percent probability and you are an agnostic. However a Christian with a few doubts is not an agnostic.
Your argument assumes that we can absolutely know anything with 100% certainty. Any scientist will tell you that we know nothing with 100% certainty.
Only a theist claims to have a complete knowledge over a claim. This demonstrates the weakness and hubris of theism.
Let's be clear; the belief is the claim. The atheist or agnostic is awaiting proof to believe.
Since you already believe you are having a hard time understanding this perspective because your worldview incorporates the acceptance of supernatural claims as being equal to material claims.
They are not equal.
Questions unanswered are something that you have to be conformable with to be an atheist. So when any rational thinker makes a statement of knowledge they are talking about a probability. If you want to argue this point further it is splitting hairs. I have stated the philosophical stance of agnosticism and atheism in both basic and complex ways. Either you try to understand or you don't.
But please be honest about your religion.
Taking an announced hypothetical stance for the sake of discussion is bearing false witness? That would be true if I had not clearly stated that I am taking that position for the sake of discussion. Since when is taking an announced hypothetical against forum rules? However, if you have a gripe about this, then take it to an administrator. Good luck!
BTW
False witness involves a dishonesty that isn't present inn this situation.
Please pray tell.
An agnostic stance is a Christian one? Since when? Since you became suspicious? Suspicions are worthless unless backed by irrefutable evidence and in this case there is none. Furthermore your implied suggestion that we all must be familiar with a multitude of religions on an intimate basis in order to discuss the subject on this forum is ridiculous.
I haven't cited one single scripture on this thread since I announced my agnostic hypothetical stance nor have I taken the Christian stance since then. I have taken the agnostic stance of not knowing. My defense has been to justify my not knowing viewpoint and therefore to prove that the atheist one is the less reasonable if not totally illogical.
You of course would have me assume another stance-the religious one because you feel I argue from an agnostic stance in order to defend a religious stance. But as the Apostle Paul said, "....be all things to all people." So there is nothing unbiblical or sinful in this hypothetical dialogue approach.
What is sinful, however, is to falsely accuse someone of being hypocritical. Ever consider that?
Also, again your implied requirement of needing to know atheists is irrelevant.
Deleted original comments
About the other accusations, I prefer to skip them and discuss other issues you brought up. Also, I apologize for my former original statements which I consider irrelevant.
Burden of Proof?
The one claiming has the burden of proof. Unfortunately, from my agnostic stance I can legitimately view the atheists as claiming certainty in respect to God's inexistence and can view them as having the burden of proof. If I claim to know that aliens don't exist then the burden of proof is on me to prove they don't since I am the one claiming certainty. so you see, the burden of proof thing cuts both ways.
Unanswered Questions
You speak of questions unanswered as if atheists were in that frame of mind. But questions unanswered isn't the issue. The issue is atheists answering things they aren't qualified to answer via positing probabilities that have no justification given the reality of their very limited and minute position in this universe.
Atheism Defined
As for atheism's definition, the dictionary definition doesn't jive with the one you mention. Atheism is the disbelief that God exists. You want to make it something other. OK. But I don't accept your particular definition. An agnostic does not claim one or the other but admits that he doesn't know. An atheist states that there is no God and isn't waiting for a confirmation of that belief, as you have chosen to represent his, but has assumed that belief. That's why he is called an atheist.
Hubris?
If indeed there is hubris in theism, then atheism is open to the same accusation since it purports to know the sum total of existence and constantly propagates its godless viewpoint at every opportunity it gets while it tolerates no opposing creationist view.
Agnostic Pushovers
Agnostics are what? Pushovers? I never said nor indicated that an agnostic is a pushover unless of course you think I view them that way because I have taken the agnostic stance. Actually, to me an agnostic comes across as far more reasonable than an atheist since at least he is humble enough to admit not being sure. So the pushover, in my view, is an atheist since his viewpoint is based on the limited insights provided by a limited science. Sorry you misunderstood.
Dishonesty
As for dishonesty, sorry but you come across as being exceedingly dishonest in your statements of atheists waiting for a confirmation of God's existence. The raw unadulterated fact is that they have rejected the possibility of God's existence, behave in accordance with that belief, demonstrate that they believe this to be so in all their official statements, express themselves in atheistic terms which leave no loophole for the creationist view as even remotely being possible.
If a creationist view is expressed, then they usually will resort to mockery and accusations of ignorance. Yes, if pressed they will perhaps grudgingly admit that 100% certainty is not possible inn many things. Yet for all practical purposes, in respect to a creator-their actions via formal scientific proclamations indicate a certainty which disproves their former seemingly humble assertion.
Now THAT is the honest reality of the atheistic stand and not the sugarcoated one you describe.
Biblical Contradictions
If I did use Romans as you say, it was a slight deviation from the agnostic stance I was supposed to adhere to and a mistake because of that assumed stance. As for biblical contradictions, and since you are striving might and main to engage me in that subject I would have to say that I haven't come across any that aren't easily explainable or attributable to the reader's general ignorance of context, unfamiliarity cultural or linguistic context.
Also very common is incomprehension due to ulterior motives in reading the text which tends to skew the readers mind so that he sees every little idiomatic expression a possible contradiction and assumes it without the slightest hesitation.
Of course this is irrelevant to the thread theme but since you are hell-bent for leather on bringing it up....
Belief Blind Faith
Not at all. I don't believe in God because of a written text. I believe in God based on inductive reasoning which indicates God's existence. So your conclusion that I am offering up texts as a way to convince you that God exists is a misconception on your part. But of course that too is a deviation from the thread topic.
BTW
Creationists have many logical arguments to offer on behalf of their beliefs and it is a crass misrepresentation to describe them as believing due to blind faith or merely because a text says so.
Lying about things like that isn't nice!
Original Biblical Language Comprehension
There are hundreds of literary works both recent and ancient that have been translated into our language and which are understandable to the literate. Actually, that's why these works are translated-to make them accessible to speakers of other languages. Now, to insist that all these readers learn the original language lest they misunderstand a translation is unrealistic and to be honest rather absurd. It negates all the work done to make the language understandable and casts doubt on content due to variations in translator choices of words.
Translations
Ever hear of Hebrew and Greek Lexicons? They are the essential tools which those who wish to check up on how a translator translated uses to verify the translation's accuracy. So there really isn't a need for learning the original languages to confirm the original biblical message. In short, your demands are unrealistic, unnecessary, and unreasonable and display lack of familiarity with biblical research exigencies.
BTW
I wasn't offering up Romans as text proof. I was offering up Romans as a text which provides logical reason for believing in a creator. I should have been more specific. Sorry.
As for eyewitnesses, yes, there are texts which refer to eye
witness accounts which you do reject as eyewitness accounts
while Christians don't.
Last edited:
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
Nope. We can look at Radrook's scriptural citations and knee-jerk parroting and defense of fundamentalist Christian apologetics in other threads to judge where he really stands. These aren't particularly novel arguments, and many skeptics have heard them dozens of times before, so it's pointless to lie and try to hide where these arguments are really coming from. The complete lack of understanding of atheism that he's demonstrated in this thread, despite 6 pages worth of atheists' patiently trying to explain it to him, also destroys any credibility he has regarding the definition of atheism. In fact, a lot of it sounds exactly like what a fundamentalist Christian would say. The agnostic stance of "not knowing" does not involve telling other people what to think, last time I checked.
The problem of posing a hypothetical claim in an intellectual debate is that you have to understand the thinking that you are supporting. Agnosticism is not a doubting Christian. It is an atheist leaving some amount of room for the possibility of a god. Radrook claims to be arguing agnosticism I really think that his faith keeps him from understanding the real meaning of the word. I had no idea of his other posts I just know a Christian when I hear one. Even in his response to my post he was unable to argue specifics and instead argues from a position of faith.
I guess I pressed some buttons.
paul
I guess I pressed some buttons.
paul
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
They aren't really different types of questions. For almost every definition of god you'd care to state, I'd probably answer that I don't believe that one's real. The problem is that, just as there is an infinite set of times when I might have removed my socks, there is an infinite set of possible "god" definitions. Given an infinite number of possible definitions, the probability that one of them is an idea to which I could subscribe also tends to one, as my "god is all that is, or was, or ever will be" definition was designed to show. You reject that one, and that's fine, but I don't see how the definition itself is any less valid than "the creator of the universe who sent his son to die for the sins of mankind and a holy spirit to comfort people when they're all alone." We have another perfectly good word ("trinity") for that one too.
My most honest answer to the question "Do you believe God exists?" is still "I don't know," because the term is not well defined, and means many different things to different people. Just as you believe I've probably worn socks at some point, but can't say when, I believe there's a definition of god I could endorse, but can't say what it is. If I had a definition I could simply endorse, I'd be some flavor of theist. If I thought no such definition was possible, I'd be a flat-out atheist. Since neither is the case, I'm a "practically atheist" agnostic. My credo - Idunno.
I seriously considered not posting this, because I don't expect to convince you, I think the issue is insignificant, and I'm kind of tired of talking about it. While I can't guarantee that this is my last word on the subject, I am leaning in that direction.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Claiming to prove that god does not exist is not identical to believing that god does not exist. for god's 
sake!
Believing that god does not exist is identical to not believing that god exists.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
It's the old "teapot in orbit" situation. Trying to prove that god does not exist is every bit as futile as trying to prove that he does exist. God is a delusion, (hey, sounds like a book title) albeit a persistent one. Mass madness, that's all it is. Just a bunch of folks in myriad cultures and languages shouting Heil something to be feeling good about themselves.
I know it's been said, many times, many ways, ...but it's that simple. FSM exists? Don't know, but I certainly don't believe in it. Can't prove it though.
We don't often see outraged "agnostics" arguing their .1%doubt with atheists who are not agnostic...except in this case.
All I can say is, if any sort of a god really does exist, he'd better have a keen sense of humor when reading Randi's forum.
sake!Believing that god does not exist is identical to not believing that god exists.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
It's the old "teapot in orbit" situation. Trying to prove that god does not exist is every bit as futile as trying to prove that he does exist. God is a delusion, (hey, sounds like a book title) albeit a persistent one. Mass madness, that's all it is. Just a bunch of folks in myriad cultures and languages shouting Heil something to be feeling good about themselves.
I know it's been said, many times, many ways, ...but it's that simple. FSM exists? Don't know, but I certainly don't believe in it. Can't prove it though.
We don't often see outraged "agnostics" arguing their .1%doubt with atheists who are not agnostic...except in this case.
All I can say is, if any sort of a god really does exist, he'd better have a keen sense of humor when reading Randi's forum.
Except atheism isn't the denial of the possibility of any god of any definition existing. It just means that a person doesn't believe in god. It's nonsense to believe in something that is undefined. If someone wants to provide an definition and argument for the existence of god, then I might change my mind. Believing that there could be a god and you just don't know what it is doesn't is very different from believing that god exists.
Again - the problem is not with the definition of 'atheist' or 'theist', the problem is with the definition of 'god'.
That's exactly what everyone here does, evade the specifics whenever I post specific issues concerning the justification for a total denial of the possibility of the existence of God. The reason for evasion seems to be that there is no logical or scientific justification for that stance and an admission that such is the case would be extremely unpalatable.
Am I being false to the agnostic stance? Not at all. If indeed there are degrees of agnosticism as there are degrees of atheism as is constantly being brought out, then I would simply have to be niched into one of those gradients, Instead, suddenly and illogically, there cannot be an agnostic of the ""I don't know if God exists or not" variety and if one tries to assume that perspective-then one is not assuming the agnostic viewpoint. Which of course is absurd since the very definition of agnosticism is the uncertainty factor in relation to belief in God.
Now, since there seems to be confusion here, then the only way I can explain it is that a misperception of the agnostic stance is being perceived as defense of theism. However, an objective examination of my statements and arguments previous to my last post will reveal that my statements were in the defense of the agnostic position of uncertainty and not in defense of theism.
So the only explanation for this persistent confusion is reflex. Or better yet, the false perception of an attack. Or perhaps the unsettling suspicion that I am trying to hoodwink via cunning camouflage.
Excerpt
In accordance with the above definition, I am claiming that a total denial of the existence of God is unreasonable and that the agnostic positiion of uncertainty is the preferable one. Hope that clears it up though I doubt it.
Am I being false to the agnostic stance? Not at all. If indeed there are degrees of agnosticism as there are degrees of atheism as is constantly being brought out, then I would simply have to be niched into one of those gradients, Instead, suddenly and illogically, there cannot be an agnostic of the ""I don't know if God exists or not" variety and if one tries to assume that perspective-then one is not assuming the agnostic viewpoint. Which of course is absurd since the very definition of agnosticism is the uncertainty factor in relation to belief in God.
Now, since there seems to be confusion here, then the only way I can explain it is that a misperception of the agnostic stance is being perceived as defense of theism. However, an objective examination of my statements and arguments previous to my last post will reveal that my statements were in the defense of the agnostic position of uncertainty and not in defense of theism.
So the only explanation for this persistent confusion is reflex. Or better yet, the false perception of an attack. Or perhaps the unsettling suspicion that I am trying to hoodwink via cunning camouflage.
Excerpt
In accordance with the above definition, I am claiming that a total denial of the existence of God is unreasonable and that the agnostic positiion of uncertainty is the preferable one. Hope that clears it up though I doubt it.
Last edited:
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
Speaking of evasion:
Would you take a sword and hack open a child if you were sure that your god had commanded it?
Why did you lie about the reason for those names appearing on that list?
You may as well be wearing a pink tutu and shooting off fireworks.
You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge what others have told you. I cannot prove that gods do not exist any more than you can prove that Wotan and Ganesh do not exist. I cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. I cannot prove that Bertrand Russell's teapot isn't orbiting the sun within the Oort cloud. Not being able to disprove an absurdity is not the same as being agnostic about it.
Last edited:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
And you are certainly entitled to this opinion. I for one just disagree.
So, what happens to the above bolded statement when "total denial of the existence of Zeus" is substituted? Is it still "unreasonable" to the point of prefering the "agnostic position" with regard to Zeus as well? What posters above are trying to say is that the only reason that "God" fits in this statement is because of the presuppositions concerning God (with a capital G") pertaining to the individual making the statement.
It goes without saying that if one believes in something, he may feel that it is unreasonable for others not to believe similarly.
I still think the term "agnostic" is often hijacked to impose a notion of doubt where doubt may or may not exist. Whether they state the position or not, atheists generally seem to be willing to believe in a god, in principle, if they have evidence. Some further state that they are not willing to "worship" a god of the Christian sort, though, because of its "jealous, unforgiving, self centered and petty" nature and human attributes.
Debating definitions is a great debate technique....... if you are in High School. It is an easy way to tie up the debate semantically and divert the attention away from the actual question.
If we need to argue over definitions then you obviously are conceding that you are a Christian with a clear misunderstanding of the epistemology of this question.
Dictionary definitions will get us a general idea of the meanings of words but the philosophical and root meanings are much more useful in this case.
Roots:
(a) to be without
(theism) a belief in a god or a supreme creator of the universe.
Yes, online dictionaries are very convenient to cut and paste from. What might prove more useful is to dig deeper.
Radrook is an ateist by either definition. He denies the existence of Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Akua, Chungli Ch'uan, The Buddhidharma, and multitudes of other gods, and demigods. He (as would many other Christians) dismiss these other belief systems as myth. This is becouse Radrook was born in a predominantly Christian culture and I would guess (I can't know for sure (agnostic)) he was probably born in a Christian family. The belief is cultural and apologetically justified by using arguments from within the belief to justify faith. He does not consider himself an Akua atheist or a Shiva atheist. According to his definition in post #213 he would have to consider this.
Let us view this from atheism as a reaction to theism. If he approaches this from a treatment of atheism as a lack of belief in a god. He is still an Akua atheist, however his atheism is not built on a denial (denial actually kind of acknowledges existence)
i.e. Protestant 10 commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," acknowledges the existence of other gods. (your just not allowed to worship them)
However, atheism as a lack of belief removes this problem for Radrook. He does not have to deny these gods.
He just does not find the case for their existence compelling.
Either way the epistemology is important. I would argue more important than dictionary definitions (which are just a starting point, not the "final word.")
Neither case is agnostic, both are technically atheistic. However "hard" atheists (denial of god) are fairly uncommon. Most atheists are the soft type. That is they have a lack of belief pending scientific evidence. Granted they give a very, very, very low probability to the argument for existence.
The reason that do not accept Radrook's plea from authority (bible) as evidence is because it is not.
The other "logical" arguments that Radrook alludes to (without stating) are also based on a presupposition of faith.
So how doe agnosticism fit with this?
Agnosticism, Radrook starts with an atheistic presupposition.
Agnosticism cannot start within a theistic presupposition.
The lack of belief pending further evidence.
So the epistemic summary,
Agnosticism is a statement about what we can know.
Atheism is a statement about what evidence we accept.
So in a sense, unless you are one of the handful of hard atheists. This thread is really kind of pointless unless Radrook learns something. The fact is that the vast majority of atheists leave some room for the possibility of the existence of a god. Granted it would be the same probability as that of monkeys flying out of my butt.
We happen think that the case for Zues is equal to the case for Kokopelli, and Jahve.
Now, Radrook if you still don't understand. Then you just want to classify atheists according to what your particular Christian world view dictates. You aren't genuinely interested in dialog or an answer to the question in this thread. I know that the world should fit neatly in to boxes and that you need it to. But every idea is relative to another. When talking philosophically it helps to understand this.
paul
If we need to argue over definitions then you obviously are conceding that you are a Christian with a clear misunderstanding of the epistemology of this question.
Dictionary definitions will get us a general idea of the meanings of words but the philosophical and root meanings are much more useful in this case.
Roots:
(a) to be without
(theism) a belief in a god or a supreme creator of the universe.
Yes, online dictionaries are very convenient to cut and paste from. What might prove more useful is to dig deeper.
Radrook is an ateist by either definition. He denies the existence of Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Akua, Chungli Ch'uan, The Buddhidharma, and multitudes of other gods, and demigods. He (as would many other Christians) dismiss these other belief systems as myth. This is becouse Radrook was born in a predominantly Christian culture and I would guess (I can't know for sure (agnostic)) he was probably born in a Christian family. The belief is cultural and apologetically justified by using arguments from within the belief to justify faith. He does not consider himself an Akua atheist or a Shiva atheist. According to his definition in post #213 he would have to consider this.
Let us view this from atheism as a reaction to theism. If he approaches this from a treatment of atheism as a lack of belief in a god. He is still an Akua atheist, however his atheism is not built on a denial (denial actually kind of acknowledges existence)
i.e. Protestant 10 commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," acknowledges the existence of other gods. (your just not allowed to worship them)
However, atheism as a lack of belief removes this problem for Radrook. He does not have to deny these gods.
He just does not find the case for their existence compelling.
Either way the epistemology is important. I would argue more important than dictionary definitions (which are just a starting point, not the "final word.")
Neither case is agnostic, both are technically atheistic. However "hard" atheists (denial of god) are fairly uncommon. Most atheists are the soft type. That is they have a lack of belief pending scientific evidence. Granted they give a very, very, very low probability to the argument for existence.
The reason that do not accept Radrook's plea from authority (bible) as evidence is because it is not.
The other "logical" arguments that Radrook alludes to (without stating) are also based on a presupposition of faith.
So how doe agnosticism fit with this?
Agnosticism, Radrook starts with an atheistic presupposition.
Agnosticism cannot start within a theistic presupposition.
The lack of belief pending further evidence.
So the epistemic summary,
Agnosticism is a statement about what we can know.
Atheism is a statement about what evidence we accept.
So in a sense, unless you are one of the handful of hard atheists. This thread is really kind of pointless unless Radrook learns something. The fact is that the vast majority of atheists leave some room for the possibility of the existence of a god. Granted it would be the same probability as that of monkeys flying out of my butt.
We happen think that the case for Zues is equal to the case for Kokopelli, and Jahve.
Now, Radrook if you still don't understand. Then you just want to classify atheists according to what your particular Christian world view dictates. You aren't genuinely interested in dialog or an answer to the question in this thread. I know that the world should fit neatly in to boxes and that you need it to. But every idea is relative to another. When talking philosophically it helps to understand this.
paul
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
No, it was a strawman that didn't apply to anyone, yet you continued to spew this nonsense as if it were true. People eventually ignored it because you failed to get the point that you weren't talking about their stance at all.
You were false to the agnostic stance the moment you began parroting Christian apologetics as absolute fact. No agnostic would ever do that. No agnostic would ever declare certainty about what all atheists believe either, let alone miss the mark over and over again.
It's not a misperception about agnosticism, it's an observation of the kinds of arguments you've put forth. You can claim that your statements in defense of theism were agnostic as much as you want, but that doesn't change what you've said. Besides, the problem people have with your arguments is that you hypocritically forced your personal definition of atheism on others, demonstrated the same lack of understanding of atheism as most theists have, and then whined about being persecuted when your claims were shot down.
Cunning? It's not that hard to see through to a person's real agenda, especially when the same thing has been attempted many times.
For the sake of dialogue-let's say God as generally described by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
I'm 100% certain that god does not exist.