| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2010 04:22:34 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
You are, of course, completely incorrect if you are implying that the route to atheism does not rely on rational inferences. There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods". The central tenet of atheism is an inference, not a direct deduction from verifiable fact. In other words, atheists use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 16:22:55. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 04:49:08 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
You are, of course, completely incorrect if you are implying that the route to atheism does not rely on rational inferences. There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods". The central tenet of atheism is an inference, not a direct deduction from verifiable fact. In other words, atheists use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. |
What do religionists use to come to the conclusion that a God exists? How to they deduce that a God must exist?
There is no verifiable fact that a God does exist. You can say that a God is inferred, and not the product of deduction, just as you have in your post.
Did that make sense? |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 04:50:28 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods." |
Jason trots out the "demanding negative proof fallacy" (argument from ignorance), and accuses Yanko of playing word games. If you note that atheists generally accept things for which there IS actual evidence, then this attempted rationalization doesn't work and religion is still left hanging.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 16:51:13. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 04:58:49 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
You are, of course, completely incorrect if you are implying that the route to atheism does not rely on rational inferences. There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods". The central tenet of atheism is an inference, not a direct deduction from verifiable fact. In other words, atheists use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. |
What do religionists use to come to the conclusion that a God exists? How to they deduce that a God must exist?
There is no verifiable fact that a God does exist. You can say that a God is inferred, and not the product of deduction, just as you have in your post.
Did that make sense? |
Of course. I never said theism uses deduction. It uses induction as well. And that is why smart people fall on different sides of the coin. Inductions are rational conclusions that may still be false despite their rationality. To quote wiki, "The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth."
Listen, if there were an obvious deductive argument for either side, then all the smart people would be on the same side of the room. There isn't so they aren't.
Did that make sense?
So Shannon is quite correct. You can't prove a negative and that's the whole point. Atheists love to claim they only believe what is supported by "verifiable evidence", but the reality is this is never true. They go way beyond such and into inductive reasoning. Dawkins. Hitchins. Shannon. Louis. They all do it. I don't blame them either and I don't even resent it. But I detest the claims of intellectual purity when they are just as muddied by induction as the rest of us.
The most intellectually pure position is the strong agnostic. Nobody participating in this conversation is one of those, and if someone claims as such, I do not believe them.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 17:02:25. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:05:52 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is the conspiracist would deny all that. |
I get it. My return point was to demonstrate that you can't conflate conclusions deduced on the one hand from irrational fantasy and on the other from reasoning (or, as yanko correctly points out, a demand for evidence).
You've committed once again, as Shannon pointed out, the negative fallacy. You can't disprove a negative, nor are you required to. "Prove to me that the teapot doesn't fly around the earth."
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 17:06:37. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:08:03 PM · #231 |
I'll back up my claim by asking this. When nullix and Shannon had this exchange:
Nullix: In reality, people have faith because they have an encounter with the living God.
Shannon: Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Norse, Inca, Mayans, Apache... ?
Was Shannon's argument deductive or inductive? I'll answer for you. It was inductive. Because we understand all these other religions to be incorrect we assume Christianity is incorrect as well.
I replied:
Jason: You are basically stating that since Belief A is held to be incorrect then Belief B must also be incorrect. This is by no means a logical necessity and you know it.
To which Shannon changed his argument. He knows it's inductive as well as I do. He's a smart guy.
Boom. Inductive arguments get thrown around her ALL THE TIME. But as soon as we start asking to prove negatives or ask people to clearly delineate where they stand, they head for the Ivory Tower and say "I only stand on what is verifiable by evidence."
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 17:11:17. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:21:16 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The most intellectually pure position is the strong agnostic. Nobody participating in this conversation is one of those, and if someone claims as such, I do not believe them. |
Per wiki...
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[15]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[16]
I haven't been in this conversation because I'm not smart enough to keep up with you guys, and believe me or not, this is exactly where I fall out of all those definitions. It's my choice not to believe though I can't prove it one way or the other. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:25:43 PM · #233 |
| Hey Kelli! Thanks for the post. I do forget that there may be others reading and I didn't mean to infer that nobody is a strong agnostic, but the usual suspects on these threads are not (myself included). |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:26:29 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The most intellectually pure position is the strong agnostic. Nobody participating in this conversation is one of those, and if someone claims as such, I do not believe them. |
I don't get your comment that people might think that multiple religions could be precisely accurate: how can the Greek pantheon be reconciled with the Akhenaton sun god and the Scientologist thetan principles? Surely at the very least two of the three must be wrong in the vast majority of aspects? Also, if one Christian believes that the communion bread is god, and the other believes that it is merely symbolic, then surely one of them must be wrong?
The only way to overcome the conflicts and discrepancies between specific religious claims and personal beliefs would be to resort to some kind of very basic deism.
And how can anyone claim that any god is demonstrably present, when pretty much every god claim is grounded in a faith requirement (rather than objective or presentable evidence)? If God was demonstrably present, we would not have these debates.
So basic deism with a non-interventionist deity: I can't deny that it could exist - though it is overwhelmingly unlikely/unnecessary. Accordingly, while I call myself atheist, technically I think that I might be a very strong agnostic: we can't know for sure, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely that there is no god.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:40:46 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
...technically I think that I might be a very strong agnostic: we can't know for sure, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely that there is no god. |
You got hung up in a double negative here; you mean "overwhelmingly unlikely that there is a God", surely?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:42:00 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
So basic deism with a non-interventionist deity: I can't deny that it could exist - though it is overwhelmingly unlikely/unnecessary. Accordingly, while I call myself atheist, technically I think that I might be a very strong agnostic: we can't know for sure, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely that there is no god. |
As I understand it Matthew (and I could be wrong), this is not strong agnosticism. The truly strong agnostic would basically say that making a claim one way or the other is futile and either claim would be on an equally shaky foundation. I do not see you doing this. You are an atheist who allows at least the smallest possibility that he is wrong.
As far as the rest. I agree with you. I think most religions are mutually exclusive at least at some level. But we have witnessed people who would strongly disagree. They tend to believe in a subjective truth rather than an objective one.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 17:42:47. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:45:27 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Matthew:
...technically I think that I might be a very strong agnostic: we can't know for sure, but it is overwhelmingly unlikely that there is no god. |
You got hung up in a double negative here; you mean "overwhelmingly unlikely that there is a God", surely?
R. |
I understand that in some street parlance the double negative can be used to re-emphasise a negative: "there was never no god".
But you are quite right; in my case I mis-re-edited my sentence...!
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 05:49:50 PM · #238 |
| I think it was a Feudian slip and I declare it PROOF that God exists! |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 06:02:48 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As I understand it Matthew (and I could be wrong), this is not strong agnosticism. |
That's why I said "very strong" agnostic :-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as the rest. I agree with you. I think most religions are mutually exclusive at least at some level. But we have witnessed people who would strongly disagree. They tend to believe in a subjective truth rather than an objective one. |
I think that most religious people would therefore agree with me that the vast majority of religious believers are wrong - but the difference is that they would say that every other religion in the history of humanity is wrong, and every person with a different interpretation of their religion is wrong.
On that level, it is probably safe to say that the statistical odds of being right in any particular case are pretty low. An atheist acknowledges and a believer disregards this statistical fact.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 06:06:32 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it was a Feudian slip and I declare it PROOF that God exists! |
Feudian - is that Freudian but as it applies to a bitter argument (feud-ian)?
If you didn't intend it, then your typo in the word "Freudian" was itself a Freudian slip. And that would be a Freudian Slip squared, which is something we should all agree is quite special.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 06:07:33 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As I understand it Matthew (and I could be wrong), this is not strong agnosticism. |
That's why I said "very strong" agnostic :-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as the rest. I agree with you. I think most religions are mutually exclusive at least at some level. But we have witnessed people who would strongly disagree. They tend to believe in a subjective truth rather than an objective one. |
I think that most religious people would therefore agree with me that the vast majority of religious believers are wrong - but the difference is that they would say that every other religion in the history of humanity is wrong, and every person with a different interpretation of their religion is wrong.
On that level, it is probably safe to say that the statistical odds of being right in any particular case are pretty low. An atheist acknowledges and a believer disregards this statistical fact. |
Well, that would be one inductive argument. BUT, I would counter that if you believe in objective truth then there will ALWAYS be a body of untruths which surround the truth. Some are closer to it and some are further. I just don't buy the "atheists just believe in one less god" bumper sticker. Add on top of that that a deistic god is enough to render atheism incorrect, and I just don't see it as a reason to be an atheist. (Your mileage may vary though). |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 06:37:46 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
You are, of course, completely incorrect if you are implying that the route to atheism does not rely on rational inferences. There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods". The central tenet of atheism is an inference, not a direct deduction from verifiable fact. In other words, atheists use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. |
I implied nothing more than what I wrote so just take it literally. Now as crazy as this might sound, for some people god is simply a non-issue much like how unicorns are a non-issue to you. Now do you sit around contemplating inductive/deductive arguments against the unicorn's existence and why they aren't purple? I'm guessing not. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 06:39:11 PM · #243 |
oops - original post deleted by accident
Message edited by author 2010-06-22 05:56:20.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 07:10:33 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
You are, of course, completely incorrect if you are implying that the route to atheism does not rely on rational inferences. There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods". The central tenet of atheism is an inference, not a direct deduction from verifiable fact. In other words, atheists use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. |
I implied nothing more than what I wrote so just take it literally. Now as crazy as this might sound, for some people god is simply a non-issue much like how unicorns are a non-issue to you. Now do you sit around contemplating inductive/deductive arguments against the unicorn's existence and why they aren't purple? I'm guessing not. |
No, I don't. Because I don't see much utility in a unicorn. It doesn't change my life. God, on the other hand, is different so I do pay attention. I understand you put God and unicorns in the same group. I don't. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 07:37:27 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Rationality? Atheists are concern with verifiable facts. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Anything can be explained through rationalization but that doesn't make it true. Just because a theist is intelligent doesn't make their rationalizations any truer. |
You are, of course, completely incorrect if you are implying that the route to atheism does not rely on rational inferences. There is no "verifiable fact" that "there are no gods". The central tenet of atheism is an inference, not a direct deduction from verifiable fact. In other words, atheists use inductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. |
I implied nothing more than what I wrote so just take it literally. Now as crazy as this might sound, for some people god is simply a non-issue much like how unicorns are a non-issue to you. Now do you sit around contemplating inductive/deductive arguments against the unicorn's existence and why they aren't purple? I'm guessing not. |
No, I don't. Because I don't see much utility in a unicorn. It doesn't change my life. God, on the other hand, is different so I do pay attention. I understand you put God and unicorns in the same group. I don't. |
Agreed. I personally don't see much utility in a god (like unicorns) and since there's no evidence for one I don't believe in it. There's no arguments being made to support this non-belief nor is there a need to run back to ivory towers like you suggested before. It's simply a non-issue, turn the page.
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 19:39:29. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 07:52:53 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Agreed. I personally don't see much utility in a god (like unicorns) and since there's no evidence for one I don't believe in it. There's no arguments being made to support this non-belief nor is there a need to run back to ivory towers like you suggested before. It's simply a non-issue, turn the page. |
Can I then, once again, bust on Jac for dredging the thread up? :) It's just such a golden moment...
I can see you now Richard in semi-mediation. "It's a non-issue...it's a non-issue...(facial twitch)...it's a non-issue...dammit, what is that Achoo saying now?!?"
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 19:53:07. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 08:05:05 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Agreed. I personally don't see much utility in a god (like unicorns) and since there's no evidence for one I don't believe in it. There's no arguments being made to support this non-belief nor is there a need to run back to ivory towers like you suggested before. It's simply a non-issue, turn the page. |
Can I then, once again, bust on Jac for dredging the thread up? :) It's just such a golden moment...
I can see you now Richard in semi-mediation. "It's a non-issue...it's a non-issue...(facial twitch)...it's a non-issue...dammit, what is that Achoo saying now?!?" |
It's more like there's that damn thread on the home page again. I wonder which fallacy Achoo is using now to fend off the horde of heathens from middle earth. And yes I picture you as a hobbit. :P |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 08:06:55 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by yanko:
And yes I picture you as a hobbit. :P |
He's MUCH more of an elf than a hobbit. Now *me*, I'm more hobbit-like.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2010 08:26:08 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I then, once again, bust on Jac for dredging the thread up? :) It's just such a golden moment...
|
lol oh be quiet. :)
I never noticed the date of the OP or the last reply until you pointed it out. I have Rant omitted from my selection of forum sections I view on the homepage. I do sometimes get the urge to read from it and I end up spouting my unintelligible thoughts and piss someone off. I apologize if it aggravated you. I have to say though that I enjoyed reading everyone's input once again. You guys know how to discuss this subject and that makes it fun to read. Let's do it again sometime. :) For now I'm going to ignore the rest of this section and go press my shutter button a few dozen times instead.
ciao
Message edited by author 2010-06-17 20:26:43. |
|
|
|
06/17/2010 08:49:18 PM · #250 |
| Dang.. I guess I missed this thread the first time around. I guess I'll bump it again =) I'm suprised at how many people here don't beleive in this "hoo-ha" I thought I was the only one. The whole situation of religion has done nothing but create wars and death since it came around. Every war that ever happened had something to do with religion. Maybe religion is the true evil! Maybe all you believers are the true cause for our world problems! We all need to get on the same page.. |
|
