Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 166 of 562 (526197)
09-26-2009 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
09-25-2009 8:21 PM


Re: Topic Please?
quote:
I guess you'll have to take that up with Dawkins, possibly due to the fact that he doesn't claim to be an agnostic ...
I wasn't criticising the scale, only your use of it. Which is your problem, not Dawkins'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2009 8:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 10:12 PM PaulK has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 167 of 562 (526203)
09-26-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Straggler
09-25-2009 5:53 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Straggler wrote,
quote:
You constantly accuse me of not paying attention or listening to your points. And yet you persistently and relentlessly refuse to anwer my explicit questions regarding your position.
It just helps, when we talk with each other, if you have an understanding of what I actually believe. You seem to classify me as a theist and you think that I would write off the IPU as nonsense, both of which are not true. I don't think my beliefs can correctly be classified as theism. Maybe you could go back to the "Immaterial Evidence" thread and read my post Message 137 and the link from there to Message 51. It might also be helpful if you read my last few posts in that thread. I don't believe that I've got any insights that are superior to anyone else's, but if you want a dialogue with me at any point I would appreciate it if you didn't repeatedly mischaracterise what I've been saying.
quote:
On the basis of the objective evidence alone is "probably human invention" atheism a justifiable rational conclusion? If not whay not. Be specific.
No, for the reasons given in my recent post to RAZD here. I agree with him that the logical position is agnosticism and that if you decide to lean toward a negative or a positive, you should be able to provide evidence to justify your stance. See my link above to what I'd say about an IPU claim. I think RAZD has shown here that science and many other things would be impossible if people made things up all the time, so to consistently claim that "people make stuff up" in order to justify a negative belief is illogical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2009 5:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:29 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 222 by Straggler, posted 09-28-2009 6:55 PM Kitsune has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 168 of 562 (526206)
09-26-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by RAZD
09-24-2009 8:53 PM


Re: Is RAZD pseudo-skeptical on creationism?
Hi RAZD
Curiously you don't know my position on omphalism,
I'm complimenting you in suggesting it's a six.
but even more fascinating, this topic is not about me.
What this topic is about is defending a negative position with evidence that substantiates that position.
It isn't necessary to defend a negative position when there's no evidence for the positive, as my omphalism example should illustrate.
Let's deal with the message and not attack the messenger eh? I thought the ad hominem attack was a sign of having a position that you can't defend with logic or evidence.
There's no ad hominem in my post (do quote). Pointing out your contradictions in relation to this topic isn't ad hom. Ironically, your last sentence actually is an ad hominem of sorts, and one of the most common and funniest that occurs on internet discussion boards. Figure it out.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
My reasoning is that there's no evidence for the proposition, and overwhelming evidence of the human tendency to invent such things. The same goes for gods.
Or so you assume. Any empirical data? Do you realize that the complete application of this "evidence" to all perception would leave us with very little to say about anything?
Empirical evidence for the invention of things like omphalism, you mean? Sure. Last Thursdayism and YEC omphalism are mutually exclusive, so one or both must be invented.
Or gods, did you mean? Sure. A "one true god" who gave his final word to Mohammed, and a "one true god" who did not give his final word to Mohammed are mutually exclusive, so one or both must be invented.
Within one religion, people believe in many different mutually exclusive gods. For example, the one true Christian god who condemns homosexuals to hell is a different god from the one true Christian who loves homosexuals and welcomes them to his church. One or both must be human inventions.
But let's get on to another way of illustrating to you that your claims about what is and isn't pseudo skepticism have obvious problems. Here are some god proposals which we cannot know to be true or false (meaning you think that they start at around the "4" position on the Dawkins scale).
1) The universe was created by one god.
2) The universe was created by two gods.
3) The universe was created by three gods.
and so on until:
1001) The universe was created by 1001 gods.
I'm a 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale for all of these, because I cannot know that any of them is false. I'm an agnostic atheist on all of them.
Try and apply your view of agnosticism, and you'll find that you can only be 50/50 on two of the propositions before you start using 7 for the rest. You should be able to see that you have to use a 6 for nearly all of the propositions.
So, you explain to me why someone should have to justify a "6" position, a "negative", on the proposition that the universe was created by 743 gods, 19 gods, or one god.
RAZD writes:
Everything is just made up in our minds, solipsism eh? Yet you say you are a 6 on omphalism (last-thursdayism), which logically amounts to the same thing.
How my point about people making up evidence-less things like omphalism and gods equates to "everything is just made up in our minds" in your mind I don't know, RAZD. I'm not questioning the squirrels that I can see in my garden, I'm pointing out how reasonable it is to be a 6 on the Dawkins scale about garden fairies.
Amusingly, I had a teacher in high school that told me that if I need to state that something is obvious, that then it isn't, while if it is obvious, then you should be able to just demonstrate it.
Amusingly (and obviously) I didn't need to state that what I was saying was obvious, did I?
RAZD writes:
Agnostic is where you don't have enough evidence pro or con to make a valid conclusion pro or con based on evidence and admit it.
Technically wrong. See your own definitions below.
RAZD writes:
quote:
Agnostic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
agnostic
 -noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Here we should be using definition 2, seeing as the discussion covers all negative hypothesis, not just ones about god/s.
2 to 6 on the Dawkins scale fit both definitions. You certainly can make conclusions pro or con, but you cannot know for sure.
An example is: "I cannot be sure that Bigfoot does not exist, but I think it extremely unlikely because we should have conclusive evidence for such a large extant mammal by now."
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
It is not a measure of likelihood, so that someone who is a 6 out of 7 on the question of the existence of 7 inch high piebald gnomes who shit gold is agnostic and isn't a "pseudo-skeptic".
So when a 6 or a 7 states that they are so, because x is unlikely, or very improbable, then we can take this as evidence that they are not being agnostic eh?
Please look at the dictionary definitions you've provided, and make an attempt to understand them. Read this again, as well.
Agnosticism - Wikipedia
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
My reasoning is that there's no evidence for the proposition,
And again I ask you, if there is no evidence against the proposition, then why isn't your position equally skeptical of that hypothesis? Why 6 over 5 or 4?
For the same reason that I'm a 6 on the omphalist god, the proposition that 7 godesses created the universe, and the proposition that 743 gods created the universe. RAZD, when you get into the realm of evidenceless supernatural propositions, there are so many mutually exclusive possibilities that they all work out to sixes. Privilege one of them with a 5 (47 gods for example) and you need evidence to support it.
Six is the reasonable default for all evidence-less supernatural propositions.
I'm a "6" for Santa Claus. How about you? 50/50?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2009 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 10:46 PM bluegenes has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 169 of 562 (526224)
09-26-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by onifre
09-25-2009 10:40 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Onfire, nice to talk with you too
quote:
I am simply asking for a better definition of what he believes in to know if I actually dismiss it. I honestly have no idea what he's talking about when he uses the word "God." If it's not religious, cultic, tribal, etc., then what is it?
While I don't think this is necessary in order for a discussion of the OP to happen, I agree that it helps if everyone in a discussion like this can clarify their position.
quote:
I am not an atheist in regards to some indescribable force that exists in the universe; I would not define that as a "God," so I hold no opinion of it. I don't have a negative position/hypothesis towards that; I'm not skeptical of something like that; frankly, I don't know what "that" even is. All I seek is a clear explanation of "that."
So what makes you open to this, while you are more doubtful of a god? You are presumably aware that others here would also say that there is no evidence that such a force exists either and so they'd conclude it probably doesn't?
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by onifre, posted 09-25-2009 10:40 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by onifre, posted 09-26-2009 6:38 PM Kitsune has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 170 of 562 (526318)
09-26-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Straggler
09-25-2009 9:58 AM


Special Pleading for the atheist position to excuse the absence of evidence?
Hi Straggler, still struggling with the concept of this thread I see.
But that isn't what I said. I have never once denied that gods are possibly real. Stop lying about me.
Curiously you are the one that claims to have objective evidence to support atheism. Now if you agree that there is absolutely no empirical objective evidence that no god/s is\are real, then one wonders why you keep saying you have objective evidence to support being an atheist.
If you claim that your objective evidence applies to something else, and not to the existence of god/s, then you are guilty of misrepresentation, red-herring, non-sequitur, straw-man, part-for-whole, etc, etc, false logic, ... just as I have noted before on several threads.
If you say you are agnostic on the position of gods, and atheist on concepts of fantasy novels, for example, that does not logically add up to being atheistic about god/s.
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/compos.htm
quote:
Composition
Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of individual members.
Examples:
1. The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are six feet tall. (etc)
Amusingly, this describes both your "people make things up" argument and your argument that you can be an atheist because you don't believe fantasy novels.
The possibility that humans have invented the very concept of supernatural gods, the capacity for human invention itself, is an objectively evidenced fact. You are unable to deny this.
I don't need to, because this argument is falsified by it's own argument. If ALL concepts are purely human invention then nothing is known about the universe, everything is made up. If SOME concepts are purely human inventions, and all the rest have some kernel of truth, then ANY concept can have varying degrees of validity in them, and YOU will not be able to ascertain whether this applies or not - unless you have empirical objective evidence.
We've been down this very same road on subjective evidence, where the example of a single aware and conscious observer forced you to concede that it was possible there could be some validity to the observation of such a situation.
Your "people-make-things-up" argument, that all concepts are necessarily made up, is not objective empirical evidence, it is your opinion based on your world view - your subjective conclusion about reality.
Based on the objective subjective evidence alone a degree of atheistic doubt is thus inevitable.
Which explains an agnostic atheist position, based on your world view, but not anything beyond that. You can be a 5 with this argument, not a 6 or a 7.
To do otherwise, to adopt a "It's 50-50 I just don't know" agnostic position, is a denial of the objective evidence available.
There you go again. WHAT evidence? Where is the empirical data that makes the agnostic position logically irrational? You are claiming that a purely agnostic position is irrational yes?
Thus a degree of atheism is justified on the objective evidence alone ...
A degree of atheism means being an agnostic atheist, predominantly agnostic but leaning to atheist: a 5 and not a 6.
... and thus I am not a pseudoskeptic. Case closed.
Oh boooo hoo hooey. Sorry, but you still fit the definition, you keep claiming to have some kind of evidence but can't seem to connect that to the reality of your negative hypothesis position. You still claim to be a 6, and without evidence that makes you a pseudoskeptic, whether YOU think so or not. It's in the contradictions in your posts.
And of course I don't expect any pseudoskeptics to recognize\admit this reality - cognitive dissonance acts to prevent it.
Stop being a prick RAZ.
Curiously, one of the signs of cognitive dissonance is resorting to the ad hominem fallacy.
My position is that gods are more likely human inventions than real entities NOT that they could not possibly exist.
Again, the OP says:
quote:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved ... Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
You have asserted a claim, that your position is more likely than agnosticism, that agnosticism is irrational by comparison, rather than take an agnostic position. You only avoid the burden if your position is predominantly agnostic.
Nuff said. Q.E.D. and the like.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2009 9:58 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Straggler, posted 09-28-2009 6:59 PM RAZD has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 171 of 562 (526321)
09-26-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Kitsune
09-26-2009 9:29 AM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
While I don't think this is necessary in order for a discussion of the OP to happen, I agree that it helps if everyone in a discussion like this can clarify their position.
Perhaps RAZD will find that no one holds any negative position at all in regards to his version of god.
So what makes you open to this, while you are more doubtful of a god?
I'm not doubtful of a god, I'm doubtful of every single description of god that I've heard explained.
Is there a god? Well, what do you mean by god?
You are presumably aware that others here would also say that there is no evidence that such a force exists either and so they'd conclude it probably doesn't?
Fine. But would you call them "atheist" toward some indescribable force?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2009 9:29 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 7:40 PM onifre has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 172 of 562 (526332)
09-26-2009 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Kitsune
09-26-2009 3:06 AM


Zen Deism == agnostic theism
Hi LindaLou, nice to see you again.
I can see you're busy here but I have a question for you.
This has perhaps been the most fascinating thread of all, IMO, in the recent faith-evidence debate.
Perhaps the most productive too, we'll see.
Message 151
Straggler, I've discussed this with you directly and I've also addressed these points in other threads in which you participated. You still don't seem to understand what my own position is, which strongly implies that you weren't paying much attention.
This seems to be a common problem (not just Straggler), some people make up their minds on little evidence, and then are extremely reluctant to change their opinion no matter how much evidence exists that their first impression was wrong. It's a facet of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can also interfere with understanding an argument that is different from your world view beliefs at first, causing the effect above. Consider this simple example: when you hear the name of a person you just met, and if it is an already familiar name you have no problem understanding it, but if it is foreign to you it is difficult to remember, and you may have to take several attempts to get it right.
I'm curious about how Zen fits into it.
To me zen is a way of approaching reality, trying to break down the walls of preconceptions. Consider the first time you heard the "sound of one hand clapping" koan.
quote:
Kōans are said to reflect the enlightened or awakened state of such persons, and sometimes said to confound the habit of discursive thought or shock the mind into awareness.
...
One of the most common recorded comments by a teacher on a disciple's answer is: "Even though that is true, if you do not know it yourself it does you no good." The master is looking not for an answer in a specific form, but for evidence that the disciple has actually grasped the state of mind expressed by the kōan itself.
Think of it as intentionally confronting cognitive dissonance to rid oneself of preconceptions.
I've been reading this thread and I think it would be helpful, as has been suggested, if RAZD could define what he has in mind when he talks about God.
I don't really think this will help keep focus on the need to provide evidence for a negative position\hypothesis, and will probably result in people making comments about me rather than discuss the topic.
Look at the definition of deism for a fair start. If I ever become more sure of my belief, then I may see a reason to discuss it further, but until then I see no reason to discuss it.
At least one person who's been debating against you here has admitted that they could believe in something more impersonal, such as a "force." (not THE force of course.)
Why not? Could there not be a kernel of truth in that concept? I also noticed that you had an interesting discussion with Modulus about chi.
But you are making a consistently strong argument for the purely skeptical position of being an agnostic until evidence gives a reason to change a belief one way or the other. I'm learning a lot from this.
Thank you. I'll admit to having something of an "lighbulb" moment when I read the article in the OP, so I learned something too. I'm glad this knowledge is useful to others.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2009 3:06 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2009 10:39 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 173 of 562 (526339)
09-26-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by onifre
09-26-2009 6:38 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Onifre,
Perhaps RAZD will find that no one holds any negative position at all in regards to his version of god.
Which is not a get-out-of-burden-free card.
The need to support a negative hypothesis is independent of any positive hypothesis.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by onifre, posted 09-26-2009 6:38 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by onifre, posted 09-27-2009 1:10 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 190 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:38 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 174 of 562 (526361)
09-26-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
09-25-2009 1:55 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Onifre,
Right, evidence for the fact that people make things up should be presented. But I don't [think] you're arguing that it hasn't been presented? Surely we can all agree, even in our own day-to-day lives, that people make things up; this isn't being questioned, right?
What is needed for the hypothesis that all human concepts of god are made up is evidence that indeed all the concepts are made up.
Without that specific, empirical and objective evidence the claim that "people make things up" is not evidence of anything.
But my point isn't so much to point out that the concepts of God(s) are made-up, my point is that the premise "there could be a God) is made-up. This is where the onus false on the person making the claim, rather than on the skeptic rejecting it.
Yes making a positive claim means having a burden of evidence for the positive hypothesis.
One can equally claim that "there could NOT be a god" is also made up, so that anyone asserting this position bears a burden of evidence for the negative hypothesis.
The agnostic can say "there could be gods" could be made up OR they could be real AND "there could NOT be gods" could be made up OR it could be true, however we just don't have enough information to say one way or the other.
So I would change your statement to say, "we have the objective empirical evidence from science and from everyday life that there is often an element of truth in any subjective conclusion."
If you can agree with my change, then the following applies...
Fair enough, that processing are virtually contemporary with the observations
At best, all I can say for sure is that there is an element of truth to you having an expereince, but that's about it.
Right, and neither of us can judge the validity of that experience with just a singular experience.
No. What I'm saying is that no position/hypothesis (negative or otherwise) is needed when the premise fails to be established.
Which is agnostic, by default, yes?
Without getting into what that kernel of truth is, because honestly I find none, lets say there was. But you fail to establish why one of those kernels is the actual god itself? That seem like one big f'n kernel, in fact, that's the entire cob-o-corn, right?
You've allowed for the premise to be possible when no shred of evidence supports that. After we allow the premise to be possible, then yea, I can agree that some kernel of truth may exist within the whole story. But before we can do that, we have to establish that the premise is true to some degree.
The whole purpose of that argument was not to assert that it is true, but to show that the negative hypothesis is necessarily asserting that it is false. The hypothesis that "there are no gods" needs to include any and all possible gods, or it fails to be a valid concept.
The claim that "some gods do not exist" will likely not surprise or offend many theists, right?
You've allowed for the premise to be possible when no shred of evidence supports that. After we allow the premise to be possible, then yea, I can agree that some kernel of truth may exist within the whole story. But before we can do that, we have to establish that the premise is true to some degree.
Which brings me back to objectivity:
Which brings me back to agnostic as the default.
Can you define/describe/explain what you mean by "god"? I need to know what you're talking about before I can follow the rest of your claims.
But the point of this thread is that people assert they are atheists without having to know my definition - why and how is that?
Or do we find that the logical conclusion is agnostic?
If there is no reason to be theistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
AND
if there is no reason to be atheistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
THEN
there is no reason to believe either hypothesis has sufficient evidence to reach a logical conclusion.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 09-25-2009 1:55 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Bailey, posted 09-26-2009 9:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 09-27-2009 2:04 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 191 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 193 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-27-2009 6:27 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 175 of 562 (526365)
09-26-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Phage0070
09-25-2009 10:57 PM


Re: wonderful
Hi Phage0070
Nope, as I said that is not required for my position of non-belief. *You* are the person that keeps asking for my evidence of its improbability, I still consistently maintain that it is not required for my position.
But why not non-belief for the negative hypothesis? Why is this so difficult to answer?
Of course, my claim is based on "subjective evidence" that requires some sort of sixth sense I am unable to explain. Seem familiar?
Certainly - which is why this argument is valid for agnostic atheism, that is predominantly uncertain, and not for atheism (with a touch of agnosticism added just to barely avoid unseemly certainty).
So why a 6 then? What takes you out of agnostic atheist to atheist.
Not so, you simply have evidence that you are unable to detect some pits.
So falling in would prove that the appearance of solid ground is an illusion. Exactly my point.
You also would need to revise your understanding of how pits operate.
Which would ALSO be evidence that my current understanding is based on illusion. Exactly my point.
Right! That is the point of the example; you are unable to prove the non-existence of the pit, so by your logic you would need to remain in fear of it constantly.
I don't think you understand your own concept fully: if this world is illusion, not the way it appears to be, then why should I fear being disabused of that fact?
You are aware, aren't you, that one of the tenets of Buddhism is that all life is illusion, and enlightenment is achieved when you learn that truth.
Would you choose to stay in a world of illusion or embrace reality?
On the contrary, I am delighted. The concept that you claim to be sitting next to your computer waiting for evidence that will never come, halfway open to the concept that a trip to the bathroom would kill you, is fulfilling in and of itself. That you will forever consider traversing that room a game of Russian Roulette tickles me to no end.
Curiously, it appears you did not comprehend my response. I went for a long walk around the neighborhood this afternoon - and totally without any fear. Instead it was almost exciting to think that I could discover a new level of reality by such a simple process. Unfortunately nothing occurred, so I still have no evidence that your concept is true or false and no need to consider either option worthy of worry.
Better luck next time.
Message 163
Good grief, you cannot be this dense. Look; if the evidence is made up then that, in and of itself, qualifies as evidence that people make things up!
Including the assertion that the *other* evidence is made up, which means it is not made up, which means that this assertion is false, which means ...
Let me know when you've figured it out.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Phage0070, posted 09-25-2009 10:57 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Phage0070, posted 09-26-2009 10:04 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 176 of 562 (526366)
09-26-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
09-26-2009 8:57 PM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi fellas - hope things are well ...
RAZ writes:
oni writes:
Can you define/describe/explain what you mean by "god"? I need to know what you're talking about before I can follow the rest of your claims.
But the point of this thread is that people assert they are atheists without having to know my definition - why and how is that?
Why - sensations of bitterness, hope, prejudice, resentment, etc. ?
Perhaps these emotions may transfer to the converse position(s) as well at times ...
How - pure ignorance and naivety.
Perhaps this dynamic transfers to the converse position(s) as well.
Then again, I may have had too many tacos this evening ...
Or do we find that the logical conclusion is agnostic?
It seems that oni is suggesting that, without the basic premise as to what defines an individual's perception of a god, the logical conclusion is unknowable whether theistic, agnostic or atheistic, etc.. For instance, perhaps - may one claim their car is red, without first laying out the premise of what color defines?
In this light, there is the sense that - without at least a general concept of what a particular god may be, a god maybe nothing, everything and anything.
With this definition - god is nothing, everything and anything, can one find a logical conclusion in agnosticism?
Again, I'm not sure, as I am really into my tacos this evening (chalupas actually) ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 8:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by onifre, posted 09-27-2009 1:42 AM Bailey has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 562 (526367)
09-26-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by RAZD
09-26-2009 9:39 PM


Re: wonderful
RAZD writes:
But why not non-belief for the negative hypothesis? Why is this so difficult to answer?
I, along with many others, *have* answered. Occam's Razor; it is not required to explain the evidence.
RAZD writes:
So why a 6 then? What takes you out of agnostic atheist to atheist.
Behavior. I behave as though god does not exist.
RAZD writes:
So falling in would prove that the appearance of solid ground is an illusion. Exactly my point.
Right, and dying may prove the afterlife. Now why don't theists just use that strategy, ehh?
RAZD writes:
I don't think you understand your own concept fully: if this world is illusion, not the way it appears to be, then why should I fear being disabused of that fact?
I didn't say the world was an illusion, I just posited something that you cannot detect. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you are omniscient? It seems you are equating camouflage with a "Matrix" world.
RAZD writes:
You are aware, aren't you, that one of the tenets of Buddhism is that all life is illusion, and enlightenment is achieved when you learn that truth.
Would you choose to stay in a world of illusion or embrace reality?
You are going rather far afield with this tangent, I don't see how it is relevant at all. You seem to be advocating giving your life for the cause of finding a hidden pit...
RAZD writes:
Unfortunately nothing occurred, so I still have no evidence that your concept is true or false and no need to consider either option worthy of worry.
So you would say you are treating it as though there was no pit right now?
RAZD writes:
Let me know when you've figured it out.
I have figured it out: You are purposefully debating dishonestly, feigning ignorance and idiocy when it suits to muddy the failures of your claims. This is unfortunately par for the course.
Edited by Phage0070, : responding to "added"

mike the wiz writes:
Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.
ICANT writes:
If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 9:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2009 11:36 PM Phage0070 has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 178 of 562 (526369)
09-26-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by PaulK
09-26-2009 4:12 AM


Re: Topic Please?
Hi PaulK,
I wasn't criticising the scale, only your use of it. Which is your problem, not Dawkins'
Which is just becoming another excuse to avoid the issue of showing evidence or logical proof for being predominantly atheistic rather that predominantly agnostic.
Message 157 to Modulus:
quote:
So we have ...
  • (strong) atheists - predomonantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
  • agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
  • agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
  • agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
  • (strong) theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)

So what makes you a predominantly atheist rather than predominantly agnostic? Do you have evidence or only a subjective assertion?
Message 1
quote:
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; ... The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. ... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis ... he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
What makes you think you get a free ride? Special Pleading?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : (strong) added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2009 4:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2009 3:38 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 179 of 562 (526371)
09-26-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by bluegenes
09-26-2009 6:40 AM


Re: Is RAZD pseudo-skeptical on creationism?
Hi bluegenes, it seems we have a comprehension problem here.
I'm complimenting you in suggesting it's a six.
Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Why? because I'm a 4 -- agnostic. I'm curious to why you think anyone has to be a 6.
It isn't necessary to defend a negative position when there's no evidence for the positive, as my omphalism example should illustrate.
Then it isn't necessary to defend a positive position when there's no evidence for the negative, and we can make up all kinds of positive assertions that don't need to be defended.
Creationists that assert that life could not have evolved from chemicals don't have to show how they come to that conclusion.
There's no ad hominem in my post (do quote).
There was no disparaging comment, but you felt you needed to attack me rather than the issue, and that is still an ad hominem by definition.
You should be able to defend atheism on it's own merits.
Empirical evidence for the invention of things like omphalism, you mean? Sure. Last Thursdayism and YEC omphalism are mutually exclusive, so one or both must be invented.
...
So, you explain to me why someone should have to justify a "6" position, a "negative", on the proposition that the universe was created by 743 gods, 19 gods, or one god.
Because you assert that they are not true. You've made a claim: that claim requires evidence to support it or you are just making an assumption based on faith in your personal opinion.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
2 to 6 on the Dawkins scale fit both definitions. You certainly can make conclusions pro or con, but you cannot know for sure.
Nope, because the defining part of agnostic is not a person who adds "but I'm fairly sure that X is the truth" at the end - which is what 2 or 6 are saying.
Please look at the dictionary definitions you've provided, and make an attempt to understand them. Read this again, as well.
Agnosticism - Wikipedia
quote:
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]
So you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, the 3 & 5 positions under agnostic.
quote:
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using agnostic in the sense of noncommittal
Where the defining element is being noncommittal.
quote:
Definition of the term according to Thomas Henry Huxley
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." [6]
"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." [7]
So you should be agnostic by default if you have no conclusive evidence pro or con, and if you ARE claiming that concepts are false that you should be able to demonstrate it with evidence or logical proofs.
Which is my point rather well reinforced, thank you.
What's your evidence for being committed to a position that is not noncommittal?
Can we address the issue?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : =gold

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by bluegenes, posted 09-26-2009 6:40 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2009 3:21 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 180 of 562 (526375)
09-26-2009 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phage0070
09-26-2009 10:04 PM


Re: wonderful - now let's revisit the topic
Hi Phage0070, begining to go with the ad hominems?
I have figured it out: You are purposefully debating dishonestly, feigning ignorance and idiocy when it suits to muddy the failures of your claims. This is unfortunately par for the course.
Curiously this also characterizes the responses I have had so far from atheists on this thread: not one has tried to provide evidence to justify their predominantly negative position.
So you would say you are treating it as though there was no pit right now?
No, I am "treating it" as if it just doesn't matter right now, or at any point in the future until more information is available. Is it really that hard to understand this position?
Your argument is just the argument from incredulity that I can be agnostic on this issue, and this has added nothing to the issue of supporting claims where you say something cannot be so.
Right, and dying may prove the afterlife. Now why don't theists just use that strategy, ehh?
Have you asked?
I, along with many others, *have* answered. Occam's Razor; it is not required to explain the evidence.
?
There's evidence?
Occam's razor is not evidence. Occam's razor is not a logical proof.
And, curiously, YEC's don't get to use that assertion for the origins of life to get out of the burden to demonstrate their assertion. Why do you get a free pass? Special pleading?
  • (strong) atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
  • agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
  • agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
  • agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
  • (strong) theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)
So what makes you a predominantly atheist rather than predominantly agnostic? Do you have evidence or only a subjective assertion?
Message 1
quote:
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; ... The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. ... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis ... he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
Do we find that indeed the logical conclusion is agnostic?
If there is no reason to be theistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
AND
If there is no reason to be atheistic on it's own merits and the available evidence
THEN
There is no reason to believe either hypothesis has sufficient evidence to reach a logical conclusion.
It's pretty simple: Huxley figured it out some time ago.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : (strong) added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phage0070, posted 09-26-2009 10:04 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Phage0070, posted 09-27-2009 12:46 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024