Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 165 (616494)
05-22-2011 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by anglagard
05-22-2011 7:20 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
So we agree in disagreeing.
No we don't.
Some would argue that mathematics is so pure and so beautiful, it must come from a 'higher being.'
And as a mathematician I am flattered by their adulation.
When do I get my burnt offerings?
As to science and indeed logic itself, it seems to me we have two propositions:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist
Are they not equal propositions?
I sort of understand your point, however I do consider agnosticism to be the inherent default position until shown to be otherwise by either the concept of beauty or science.
Well, no. In science, the non-existence of a class of things is always the default position. But I have said that already, so let me illustrate it.
A zoologist, compiling a list of mammals, would include only those which have been shown to exist. He would not make a list in which he also threw in those that have not been shown not to exist. An anatomist enumerating the features common to mammals would then work from the former and not the latter list; as would a taxonomist trying to figure out their relationship. And Darwin, looking for a theory to account for their origin, only tried to account for those organisms known to exist; it would not be possible to produce a theory that would adequately account for everything which is not known not to exist. How would he explain the Samaritan Wombat, which habitually out of the purest altruism lays down its life for members of another species? He couldn't; he said that he couldn't. But he didn't have to.
Nonexistence is therefore the default assumption; and this is not arbitrary, since it would be impossible to practice science on any other basis.
Now, if we grant your premise that there is no evidence for gods one way or the other, then someone compiling a list of all deities, and working by the exact same principle, would end up with a blank sheet of paper.
Obviously wrong, blatantly wrong.
Perhaps you could expand on that.
By which statement you yourself have argued against strong atheism, there is a difference between plausible and impossible.
Well, have I argued against strong atheism? As I say, it depends on what you mean by "God" in the first place. Now if you are prepared to have "God" include a being who sets off the universe and then ignores it, then I grant you it would be difficult to be a strong atheist with respect to such a God. But I think if you ask a strong atheist what it is he's being a strong atheist about, he takes "God" to mean something else.
My argument in this thread is not necessarily for any belief, my argument is against the absolute certainty of strong atheism, which to me states the evidence rules out any possibility of anything remotely what anyone may have referred to as 'God.'
Well, I don't think it does. As I say, I think the "strong atheist" usually has some specific kind of deity in mind. He does not, for example, mean to deny the existence of the sun, although some have worshiped the sun as a god.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 7:20 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2011 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 165 (616495)
05-22-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2011 9:57 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
And as a mathematician I am flattered by their adulation.
When do I get my burnt offerings?
Traditionally, they're delivered to the giant stone head:
Zardoz!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 18 of 165 (616505)
05-22-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
05-22-2011 10:07 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Are you accusing me of worshiping a stone head simply for the crime of not being your intellectual slave?
Please let us know when you are ready for adult conversation.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2011 10:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:00 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 19 of 165 (616506)
05-22-2011 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2011 9:57 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
dr adequate writes:
Well, no. In science, the non-existence of a class of things is always the default position. But I have said that already, so let me illustrate it.
It is very kind of you to post that which I already know for a second time, however, repetition does not equal truth.
The deal is:
1. Does God exist
2. Does God not exist
I say indeterminate, deal with it as an adult as the good dr would do or deal with it like some ignorant HS jock as crashfrog would do.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2011 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 05-22-2011 11:45 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:02 AM anglagard has replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2011 12:24 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 28 by AZPaul3, posted 05-23-2011 1:08 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 05-23-2011 6:22 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 91 by ScientificBob, posted 05-24-2011 11:18 AM anglagard has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 20 of 165 (616508)
05-22-2011 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by anglagard
05-22-2011 11:33 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
anglagard writes:
The deal is:
1. Does God exist
2. Does God not exist
I say indeterminate, deal with it as an adult as the good dr would do or deal with it like some ignorant HS jock as crashfrog would do.
But the evidence for each proposition is not the same.
There is a predominance of evidence on one side of this issue, and a lack of evidence on the other side.
There may be no conclusive proof on either side, but the issue is not totally without applicable evidence.
At this point, the existence of supernatural deities is unsupported by empirical evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:33 PM anglagard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 165 (616511)
05-23-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by anglagard
05-22-2011 11:17 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Are you accusing me of worshiping a stone head simply for the crime of not being your intellectual slave?
In a post that wasn't a reply to you, didn't contain any reference to you, and in which the words "crime", "intellectual", or "slave" do not appear? Um, no, I'm not.
Is it possible that English is not your first language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:17 PM anglagard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 165 (616512)
05-23-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by anglagard
05-22-2011 11:33 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
deal with it like some ignorant HS jock as crashfrog would do.
I don't understand what I possibly could have done to merit this invective.
Can you elaborate on how I've managed to cause you such apparently tremendous offense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:33 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 05-23-2011 12:10 AM crashfrog has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 23 of 165 (616513)
05-23-2011 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
05-23-2011 12:02 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
crashfrog writes:
I don't understand what I possibly could have done to merit this invective.
Can you elaborate on how I've managed to cause you such apparently tremendous offense?
I'm still pissed off about you saying economics is bullshit. Other than that, I think you are a reasonable guy.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:15 AM anglagard has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 165 (616514)
05-23-2011 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
05-23-2011 12:10 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
I'm still pissed off about you saying economics is bullshit.
I've since come around to a more nuanced view, based on what I've learned from Jim Manzi and Matthew Yglesias: it's only mostly bullshit. There really is a genuine science of economics; it's just that economists are fundamentally in the business of dissembling for money, in order to provide academic cover for political ideologies. Not in the business of evidence-based inquiry into reality, like real scientists.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 05-23-2011 12:10 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anglagard, posted 05-23-2011 12:20 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 25 of 165 (616515)
05-23-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
05-23-2011 12:15 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
OK Manzi, I actually think we are both pretty much on the same side, but we should both be careful.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 12:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 165 (616516)
05-23-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by anglagard
05-22-2011 11:33 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
It is very kind of you to post that which I already know for a second time, however, repetition does not equal truth.
Which is why after recapitulating my statement I went on to give you an illustration and justification of it, which you did not quote and to which you have not replied.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:33 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 27 of 165 (616517)
05-23-2011 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-19-2011 6:39 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
Just for grins, here's a video by "patcondell" that I think makes a positive contribution to understanding the "closed-minded anti-theist":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM
The point of interest to be drawn from his perspective on this topic is this: if you're trying to equate the dogmatic, ears-plugged theist to the dogmatic, ears-plugged anti-theist, there is still a qualitative difference between the two that cannot be ignored. Theistic pig-headedness is founded on myths having no evidential basis and no chance whatsoever of objective confirmation, whereas anti-theistic pig-headedness is based on rejecting mythology in favor of assertions that at least offer some chance of being verifiable or falsifiable.
As a result, when faced with actual evidence that would contradict a given belief, the theist is more likely to deny, ignore or misrepresent the evidence in order to keep the belief and circumvent the cognitive dissonance. Meanwhile the anti-theist is more likely to adjust his belief (or at least his statement of it) to accommodate the evidence -- but it has to be "real" evidence, with the power of accurate prediction or solid entailment, to make this happen.
Of course, if you point to pig-headed anti-theists who also happen to be "9-11 truthers", "Obama birthers", "Climate change skeptics" or "Holocaust deniers" (and I think you may encounter such people on the eSkeptic web site), then this is a conversation about fanaticism in general, regardless of the particular position(s) that a given fanatic chooses as the focus of his derangement. Fanaticism is a state (or dysfunction) of mind that, like rain, falls on the religious and the non-religious alike.
For sure, some fanatics, as a result of their peculiar mental state, end up saying and/or doing good things (that is, things that a much wider circle of people consider to be generally helpful). It's in the nature of a successful human society that the majority of individuals will tend to be rational and open-minded, allowing for the acceptance of valuable contributions regardless of who contributes.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-19-2011 6:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 05-23-2011 3:18 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 28 of 165 (616518)
05-23-2011 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by anglagard
05-22-2011 11:33 PM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
I say indeterminate, deal with it as an adult as the good dr would do or deal with it like some ignorant HS jock as crashfrog would do.
A bit testy, anglegard? Misplace your sense of humor I see.
I found the Frog's post to be quite funny. Good show, Crash.
The deal is:
1. Does God exist
2. Does God not exist
I say indeterminate ...
Based on what? Certainly not the evidence.
We have a very good idea where god concepts came from. We have the area of the brain, the stimulation protocol, we have the psychological triggers that produce the delusions and even an evolutionary explanation for their existence. We have the history and the vast array of different and competing conceptions of thousands of such godz all attesting to the variety of human cultural imagination. There is just a boatload of evidence from physiology, chemistry, psychology, paleontology (and the list goes on) affirming spirits, ghosts, devils and godz from human psychological and political origins.
On the other side we have ... nothing.
So why do we even consider the possibility of some god(z) existence? Out of some misguided attempt to follow the letter of the philosophy of Science? Do we really need to entertain as possible every figment that bubbles up from human imagination lacking any evidence at all for efficacy?
Indeterminate? No. The question does not even arise.
All the evidence (indeed the only evidence) shows that god(z) exist only as products of human imagination. Until there is anything viable to show otherwise there is no opposite position in existence. There is nothing about which to contemplate let alone to be agnostic.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 05-22-2011 11:33 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 165 (616524)
05-23-2011 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
05-22-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Mythology and Belief of "Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism"
The most amazing part about your OP is how reasonable your interlocutors are, and how your supposed "evidence" is just you quoting some portion of their entirely reasonable remarks,
Reasonable? Reasonable to claim that a logical fallacy supports your argument?
quote:
TheJackel in An interesting questions for Christians at Friendly Atheist:
1) Your very reply, or post here is direct evidence that supports my position.
2) Things like G-lock, deep water blackouts, and sedation also support many key points of my position
3) Information theory is evidence for my position, digital physics is evidence of my position ect ect.
4) Total lack of ANY evidence on your part is evidence for my position..
5) Your inability to reply without using information/energy is evidence, and proof of my position.
6) My correct use of the terms use such as "Omniscience", 'Omnipresence", ect are evidence for my position.
making a reply that doesn't substantively address their concerns, and then calling them names.
Not sure where I called anyone names. I might have, but I can't find it. Oh wait... calling you a 'loonie' later onread furtherreminded me that I did call them 'loons'.
Well, I'm one such individual, and there's nothing religious about it
Which is why you're entirely not fit for having a rational discussion on this matter. As I said in the OP, fundamental atheists are convinced of the rationality of their irrational positions. A rational discussion with such folk is out of the question.
If the matter up for discussion was why fundamentalist Christians are deluded into thinking the Genesis account is entirely accurate, and Buz pops in claiming that it's not a delusion, his testimony carries no weight.
The same goes for you in this thread if you are going to admit, by way of behavior, to being one of those fundamental atheist loonies. If you want to argue that your irrational positions are actually rational, start a thread for them.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-22-2011 9:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 10:33 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 165 (616526)
05-23-2011 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Otto Tellick
05-23-2011 1:01 AM


Re: The Unreasonable Reasoning of the Anti-Religious
anti-theistic pig-headedness is based on rejecting mythology in favor of assertions that at least offer some chance of being verifiable or falsifiable.
Absolutely bullshit. The 'anti-theistic pig-headedness' folk don't replace the rejected mythology with anythingmost people who reject the mythology rarely replace it with anything. They aren't choosing something in favor of something else; they're just rejecting the something else outright.
But those are not the kind of people I want to look at. Rejecting myth is one thing; rejecting conclusions based on critical, historical research is something else.
Meanwhile the anti-theist is more likely to adjust his belief (or at least his statement of it) to accommodate the evidence
Most atheists are willing to do this. This thread isn't about them.
Of course, if you point to pig-headed anti-theists who also happen to be "9-11 truthers", "Obama birthers", "Climate change skeptics" or "Holocaust deniers" (and I think you may encounter such people on the eSkeptic web site), then this is a conversation about fanaticism in general, regardless of the particular position(s) that a given fanatic chooses as the focus of his derangement.
Like I said, we can go on talking about C2, D2, etc. But there are a lot of threads here talking about theistic 'fanatics' (as you call it); I've decided to start one about atheistic 'fanatics', mostly because I don't think the topic gets nearly enough attention, and also because I think there are a good deal of atheists who do fall into this categorymore than most atheists would like to admit. People in general tend to be easily swayed into 'fanaticism', and their religious, or non-religious, views seem to rarely get in the way of that. However, their religious, or non-religious, views do impact the type of fanaticism that folk fall victim to.
For example, I find that many Christian 'fanatics' tend to believe they are right because they think evidence supports their position; they think that their holy books are accurate reflections of reality; they think that reading those books and examining the evidence with a 'real' open mind are the only things needed to realize they are right: The earth was created 6000 years ago.
Atheist 'fanatics', on the other hand, tend to be of the opinion that by being an atheist they are automatically tuned in to all matters of reality, reasoning, and science; by rejecting the notion of any gods, they've 'magically' thrown off the shackles of irrationality and ignorance in all matters of truth; if you just open up your mind and accept their position that there aren't any gods, then you'll realize them to be right on everything else.
Not surprisingly, I think such behavior in these atheist 'fanatics' to be as ridiculous as bygone Christians thinking they could eat deadly poison and not be harmed.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-23-2011 1:01 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2011 10:35 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024