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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 346 of 375 (504162)
03-24-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Straggler
03-24-2009 8:25 PM


Letting it go.
A fanatic is someone who won't change their mind, and cannot get off their subject.
Apparently all you can do is assert that I am wrong.
Curiously that is what you seem to be obsessed with doing.
No Straggler, I have demonstrated why I think you are wrong, you just don't accept it. I can't make you see my point of view, nor can you make me see yours, and I see absolutely no purpose served in re-hashing and re-hashing what our positions are until this forum is dust.
I suspect that the reason you can't let this go is because you just plain cannot understand why I am a deist, and not an atheist. It seems you keep making up reasons for this, in order to satisfy your frustration with your inability to make me think like you do.
In the end, concepts are tested for validity by whether they are contradicted by evidence of reality, and it does not matter where those concepts come from, for them to be so tested.
In the end, the rationality of a concept depends on subjective comparison to whether or not it is contradicted by evidence of reality, and whether or not there are others that believe the same things, and it does not matter what those concepts are.
In the end, people make subjective evaluations of all information entering their world view, and either fit it in with previous concepts, or reject it as irrelevant\wrong.
As long as such world views are not contradicted by any evidence of reality, and are consistent with the world views of others, then who are you to judge the value or validity of other world views.
That is about as generic as I can make it.
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 345 by Straggler, posted 03-24-2009 8:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Straggler, posted 03-24-2009 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 347 of 375 (504165)
03-24-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by RAZD
03-24-2009 9:00 PM


Re: Letting it go.
No Straggler, I have demonstrated why I think you are wrong, you just don't accept it.
By conflating the subjective interpretation of objective evidence with your flawed concept of "subjective evidence" you have done nothing but relentlessly rail against a monumental straw man of your own creation.
Need I remind you that you equated courtroom testimonial and applied mathematics with spiritual experience.......?
That is about as generic as I can make it.
And yet the specific foundation that you have stated as being at the root of your beliefs, namely "subjective evidence", amounts to no more than a biased guess. You are simply unable to address this.
See Message 329 for details. Thus your position is refuted.
If nobody can show that "subjective evidence" is any more reliable than astrology or even just guessing then on what basis do you conclude that it is?
Your inability to accept this refutation whilst simultaneaously being unable to demonstrate why it is wrong is a fine example of why some "world views" are inferior to others.
Not all "world views" are evidentially or intellectually consistent. Yours is a case in point.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2009 9:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2009 10:47 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 348 of 375 (504174)
03-24-2009 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Straggler
03-24-2009 9:17 PM


Re: Letting it go.
And yet the specific foundation that you have stated as being at the root of your beliefs, namely "subjective evidence", amounts to no more than a biased guess. You are simply unable to address this.
And yet I have never actually talked about my beliefs, or what is the root. You have made up something, and I've told you that your concept of my beliefs is totally false.
Gosh Straggler, why is this such a problem for you? The basic difference is that I allow subjective evidence to be an indication of possible truth in my search for answers and you do not, but it is NOT why I believe what I believe, rather it is the way I test the validity of (several different) beliefs where you have no objective evidence pro or con. My personal belief is irrelevant to this process, and the only bias involved seems to be that I allow subjective evidence to be an indication of possible truth in my search for answers and you do not.
Are UFO's possible evidence of alien visitations? I say yes, you say no, and the difference is purely due to the different relevant value given to subjective evidence.
If you want to call that "biased guessing" then go ahead. You will excuse me if I don't find this argument any more compelling than all your other arguments.
(*) What it comes down to is the basis for making hypothesis which are then tested against reality. The validity of astrology, etc, can be tested against reality, whether you think the conclusions are valid or not.
If you conclude - based on life on earth and the known number of planets - that life on alien planets is highly likely, and somebody else concludes - from the same evidence - that it is highly unlikely, then what is the difference between the two other than subjective opinion and thus biased guessing?
If you conclude from the same evidence that there is a possibility of alien visitations, but then conclude that claims of seeing alien visitations are false then that is biased guessing as well.
Eliminating concepts that are falsified by objective evidence of reality then can also be considered "biased guessing" and it essentially becomes pointless what the discarded concept involves.
The reason astrology is generally discarded is not because it is biased guessing based on a system of interpreting planetary influences on people, but because it has generally been falsified: predictions fail to produce significant results.(/*)
By conflating the subjective interpretation of objective evidence with your flawed concept of "subjective evidence" you have done nothing but relentlessly rail against a monumental straw man of your own creation.
Are you saying there is objective evidence of alien visitations?
What more is needed to distinguish your viewpoint from mine? I cannot see any way to determine which of us is ultimately right, and I find trying to bully someone into your position to be rather pointless and intellectually vapid. We disagree. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added {*)to(/*)

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 347 by Straggler, posted 03-24-2009 9:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Phage0070, posted 03-25-2009 2:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 350 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2009 1:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 375 (504185)
03-25-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by RAZD
03-24-2009 10:47 PM


RAZD writes:
And yet I have never actually talked about my beliefs, or what is the root.
And yet you *also* complain at incredibly long threads that don't lead anywhere. Perhaps if you TOLD US about your beliefs and their root we could understand your position better.
RAZD writes:
What more is needed to distinguish your viewpoint from mine?
...
We disagree. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
I believe that Straggler has already indicated in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with you. The second part, where you seem to suggest you simply acknowledge a difference of opinion and part ways amicably, I take issue with. In other circumstances such action would be appropriate but in this case, not so much. This is a discussion forum. It is not a poll, or show and tell. People come here to discuss their views and if you are unwilling or unable to discuss them then you have no reason to post.
Straggler has attempted to discuss the differences between your viewpoints and in doing so talked about his beliefs and their roots, in great detail. You have apparently not done so, and when you ask what more is needed to distinguish your viewpoints it is exactly that. Explain the root of your beliefs and perhaps we will get somewhere rather than dancing around the issue. I won't even bother getting annoyed that it has taken this long for you to get around to it.
You say that you use "subjective evidence" as an indicator of possible truth but you do not explain how you evaluate subjective evidence. Some have assumed that because you do not explain your process that you have none, but since we already have established that you are holding things back I will ask you directly. You say you use subjective evidence as an indicator of possible truth, but I trust you do not believe all subjective evidence in equal strength. For instance, if you believe in a single religion due to subjective evidence then you must necessarily have rejected subjective evidence for all other religions. Kindly explain to us in what manner you decided to accept some subjective evidence and reject others, in the absence of any objective evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2009 10:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 350 of 375 (504237)
03-25-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by RAZD
03-24-2009 10:47 PM


Belief As Evidence For Belief
You are quite evidently just unable to demonstrate that conclusions borne from "subjective evidence" alone are any more reliable than guessing. See here for details Message 329. If you are simply unable to demonstrate that "subjective evidence", as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, is any more reliable than just guessing then why not just concede the point and move on?
Straggler writes:
You have just stopped responding to anyone who points out that the IPU has been fully validated as a means of demonstrating that the logical fallacy of special pleading is required to differentiate one wholly unevidenced entity from another. But you have never once acknowledged that this has now been validated.
RAZD writes:
It is only valid if you exclude a class of evidence that I do not exclude. That such evidence also provides a causal difference for one belief over another also excludes the special pleading claimed. Your statement is true only if you exclude subjective evidence, and I don't.
Message 334
RAZD writes:
The basic difference is that I allow subjective evidence to be an indication of possible truth in my search for answers and you do not, but it is NOT why I believe what I believe, rather it is the way I test the validity of (several different) beliefs where you have no objective evidence pro or con.
You have repeatedly stated that THE difference between the IPU and any other "subjectively evidenced" god is that at one time or another people have actually believed in these other gods but not the IPU. Belief itself is the "subjective evidence" by which you distinguish between these otherwise equally unevidenced entities.
If belief in gods is itself considered to be evidence in support of believing in gods then you are engaging a degree of self amplifying circular logic that amounts to confirmation bias gone absolutely mad.
See here for details - Message 5
I cannot see any way to determine which of us is ultimately right, and I find trying to bully someone into your position to be rather pointless and intellectually vapid. We disagree. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
If your faith based "world view" means that you are simply unable to see the inherent circularity in your thinking then there is nothing I or anybody else can ever say that will demonstrate this to you.
However it is irrefutable and your position regarding "subjective evidence" is entirely untenable.
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Attribute quotes correctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2009 10:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 9:27 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 351 of 375 (504258)
03-25-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Straggler
03-25-2009 1:03 PM


Re: Belief Experience As Evidence For Belief
Rehash 4003
You have repeatedly stated that THE difference between the IPU and any other "subjectively evidenced" god is that at one time or another people have actually believed in these other gods but not the IPU.
No, Straggler. That's still not it. Belief is not evidence. Experience is evidence, whether the experience can be confirmed by others and whether the experience can be explained in terms of known reality within a persons world view (people having different ability to explain experiences in scientific terms) or not.
If belief in gods is itself considered to be evidence in support of believing in gods then you are engaging a degree of self amplifying circular logic that amounts to confirmation bias gone absolutely mad.
Then you will be glad to know that this is not the case either.
If taking someone else's experience as a possibly true event means you have a possibility that you can test.
For instance the experience of UFO alien visitations.
Compare to the extrapolation of life from our meager knowledge of the parameters involved, where we can conceive of a logical possibility of such visitations. This too you can test.
The test is the same -- can we find evidence that (a) contradicts the possibility of alien life visiting earth, and (b) can we find evidence that would increase the possibility of alien visitations.
You listed astrology as an example of belief founded concepts, and this too is something that we can test: do planets affect the behavior of people or not? So far the evidence is that astrological predictions do no better than random answers.
You have recently been talking about "biased guess" as your interpretation of what is being done, however this applies as much to the extrapolation of the possibility of life as it does to other concepts: the extrapolation is biased by what you believe about the relative validity of different evidence, based again on your world view. A theory is a "biased guess" -- it is biased by the evidence and the logic used to formulate the guess.
You've talked about the evidence that people make things up. This too is true: at one level all concepts are made up - they are the way we explain our experience of reality to ourselves within our world views.
You seem to have an objection to using subjective evidence in any way, that for me is difficult to understand as long as the end result -- testing concepts against the evidence of objective reality is the same in the end. Most such subjective evidence based concepts will end up in the discard pile if they run afoul of reality.
See here for details
Have fun making up stuff.
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 350 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2009 1:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2009 2:57 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 355 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2009 7:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 352 of 375 (504267)
03-26-2009 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by RAZD
03-25-2009 9:27 PM


Guessing
RAZD writes:
You seem to have an objection to using subjective evidence in any way, that for me is difficult to understand as long as the end result testing concepts against the evidence of objective reality is the same in the end
Testing against the evidence of objective reality is exactly what I have repeatedly asked you to do to validate your flawed notion of "subjective evidence". Message 329
Have you ever actually tested the conclusions of wholly "subjective evidence" alone against the evidence of objective reality?
Straggler writes:
If you wish to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then you need to show that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in objective evidential terms, that you can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses. Message 329
You can only conclude that conclusions made on the basis of "subjective evidence" alone, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, are any more reliable than guessing if you have actually tested such conclusions against reality. I suspect that you have never applied "subjective evidence" alone to anything that can be verified or refuted. I suspect that you only ever use truly "subjective evidence" to justify belief in the unverifiable. Certainly in this thread you have consistently conflated the "subjective interpreteation of objective evidence" with "subjective evidence".
I would like nothing more than to test a conclusion that is derived from the same evidential foundation as the conclusion that gods exist. If you would actually supply us with a verifiable conclusion that is derived from "subjective evidence" alone, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, then we could wrap this whole thing up once and for all.
Either "subjective evidence" is no more than biased guessing or it can be demonstrated to be significantly more reliable than just guessing. It should be a simple matter of testing conclusions made by means of this form of evidence.
Previously I asked:
Straggler writes:
If somebody whose judgement and subjective evidence credentials you trust greatly, but who has no empirical knowledge of particle physics at all, predicts that a particle with verifiable and detectable properties exists on the basis of wholly "subjective evidence" alone - How would you rate the chances of their prediction being correct?
A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero
Please be honest. Message 315
In response you mentioned two members of EvC who are highly trained physicists and alluded to Einstein. You equated applied mathematics as a method of drawing conclusions with the reasons people find to believe in gods. All of this after relentlessly insisting that the "subjective evidence" from which gods are concluded in the absence of all objective evidence is no different to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence considered valid in courtroom situations.
Excuse me if I have little faith in your ability to differentiate between conclusions derived from no objective evidential foundation whatsoever (e.g. gods) and the conclusions that we all make by extrapolating objective evidence and prior experience of objective reality. The latter are partially evidenced conclusions made in the context of our "world view". The former have no more validity than just guesses until you can show that "subjective evidence", as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, has any validity at all.
RAZD writes:
You listed astrology as an example of belief founded concepts, and this too is something that we can test:
Yes. Exactly as we can test the reliability of "subjective evidence", as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, by testing it against the evidence of objective reality.
Straggler writes:
If you wish to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then you need to show that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in objective evidential terms, that you can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses. Message 329
If you are simply unable to demonstrate that conclusions derived from "subjective evidence" alone are any more reliable than just guessing then why not just concede the point and move on?
Until you can demonstrate this the bedrock of your position has been refuted and there is no further point to this conversation.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 9:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 353 of 375 (504269)
03-26-2009 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Straggler
03-22-2009 8:36 AM


Doin' the deist/atheist flip-flop
I never was interested in Percy or RAZD's justifications for their deism.
Moose writes:
Setting aside most or all of what is in the above cited message and topic, I have one question: Isn't it a mighty fine line between deist and atheist? I think so.
In practical terms I don't think anybody disagrees with this.
Not that such is the case for Percy or RAZD, but I feel one might easily (to make use of the in vogue term ) flip-flop-flip-flop between atheism and deism. Maybe one morning you wake up from some sort of profound dream and find yourself a deist. Later that day, the profundity of the dream fades and you're back to atheist. Repeat cycle as often as you want.
Regardless, I don't see how the difference between deism and atheism has the slightes effect on how you run your life. To me, deism is trivial to the point of all but absolutely insignificant.
Or something like that.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2009 4:02 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 356 by petrophysics1, posted 03-26-2009 8:08 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 354 of 375 (504270)
03-26-2009 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Minnemooseus
03-26-2009 3:53 AM


Re: Doin' the deist/atheist flip-flop
Regardless, I don't see how the difference between deism and atheism has the slightes effect on how you run your life. To me, deism is trivial to the point of all but absolutely insignificant.
I used to think so but am now not so sure.
RAZD's deism seems pretty important to him and the way he "runs his life".
Although Percy seems to find no reason to consider his deism "evidenced" as such RAZD very much does.
The whole issue of accepting conclusions that are not made on the basis of any experience of objective reality at all past or present as evidenced in any way, is a clear dividing line between any of the atheists that have posted in this topic and RAZD's form of "evidenced" deism.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-26-2009 3:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 355 of 375 (504273)
03-26-2009 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by RAZD
03-25-2009 9:27 PM


Sponge Stairways and Goodbye
Straggler writes:
You have repeatedly stated that THE difference between the IPU and any other "subjectively evidenced" god is that at one time or another people have actually believed in these other gods but not the IPU.
RAZD writes:
Belief is not evidence. Experience is evidence
So if I subjectively experience gods that is subjective evidence of gods. But if I subjectively believe that I subjectively experience gods that is not subjective evidence of gods. Oh.
And there I was thinking that you were advocating a circular argument where belief itself is considered to be "subjective evidence" justifying belief. How silly of me. I stand well and truly corrected.
BTW how does anyone differentiate between the subjective experience actually subjectively occurring and the subjective belief that the subjective experience has actually subjectively occurred............???? Oh dear!
If one believes themselves to be experiencing a subjective experience then one is experiencing a subjective experience. There is not, and cannot be, any difference between the two. By assuming external factors as necessary causes for subjective experiences you are forsaking parsimony if nothing else.
Straggler writes:
If belief in gods is itself considered to be evidence in support of believing in gods then you are engaging a degree of self amplifying circular logic that amounts to confirmation bias gone absolutely mad.
Then you will be glad to know that this is not the case either.
Except that it is isn't it? I find your inability to see this truly astounding.
However I am sure that there is nothing I can say to change your mind on this.
If taking someone else's experience as a possibly true event means you have a possibility that you can test.
Nobody is disputing the truth of the experiences of others. That would be an absurd thing to do. Please stop fighting that particular straw man. I dispute that the cause attributed to the experience need necessarily be anything external to the experiencee. I do not and have not ever disputed that the experience itself is a genuine subjective experience.
Why do you assume that wholly subjective experiences necessarily have any external cause at all? I suggest that it is human desire that sparks belief. Desire for answers, desire for certainty, desire for comfort, desire for truth, desire for meaning, desire for purpose, desire for something in which to believe, desire for...... From such desires come the beliefs required to meet those desires and the wholly subjective experiences to justify those beliefs.
If taking someone else's experience as a possibly true event means you have a possibility that you can test.
Except that you have made the "possibility" to which you attribute the cause of experience in question both unnecessarily external and conveniently untestable. Why do you do this? Why can the subjective experience not be judged on it's own merits without invoking supernatural "unknowable" beings? Why?
You do realise that every single god concept ever created was just as untestable in it's day as those that you advocate now? Scarab the Egyptian godly dung beetle was as unknowable and irrefutable to the ancient Egyptians as are the deities being advocated here now. As was every deity ever conceived in it's time.
How many versions of the aether must we refute before we decide that the aether is both unnecessary and does not exist?
Compare to the extrapolation of life from our meager knowledge of the parameters involved, where we can conceive of a logical possibility of such visitations.
You have recently been talking about "biased guess" as your interpretation of what is being done, however this applies as much to the extrapolation of the possibility of life as it does to other concepts:
No RAZ. It just doesn't. That is the whole difference between your argument and mine. The positions I have put forward are intentionally designed to eliminate "biased guessing" being a relevant factor. I have realised that you just don't read my posts.
Life exists. Other planets exist.
Is life on other planets possible or impossible?
Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.
No interpretation or world view or opinion or "biased guessing" is required.
In contrast concluding that actual alien visitation has occurred has minimal factual basis, defies some of what we think we know about space travel and is 98% (see Message 335) the product of subjective world view and "biased guessing".
The purely logical possibility of alien life derived from facts is not remotely comparable to the extrapoloation of "Help I have been probed by aliens". I am sorry if you just do not understand why the two should not be considered equally valid. I have explained too many times now to bother explaining it again. It is all here Message 335
You've talked about the evidence that people make things up. This too is true: at one level all concepts are made up - they are the way we explain our experience of reality to ourselves within our world views.
Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.
Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?
Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.
No interpretation or world view or opinion or "biased guessing" is required.
In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of subjective world view and "biased guessing".
My conclusions in both cases are purely logical possibilities derived from indisputable facts that are all but devoid of "world view". In contrast your conclusions are wholly derived from the extrapolation of things that are 100% (or nearly) the product of subjective experience and "world view". You are climbing sponge stairways. I am not.
Have fun making up stuff.
Making stuff up is after all what we humans do best.
I am tired. Your argument that the actuality of alien visitations or gods should be considered as comparable logically and evidentially to the possibility of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe or gods being very possibly the product of human invention has been refuted.
I am sorry if you just do not understand why the these concepts should not be considered equally valid. I have explained too many times now to bother explaining it again. Message 335 will tell you everything I have to say on these subjects.
And so........
  • Part, if not all, of my non-belief in gods is based on the objectively evidenced fact that every god tested so far has been found to be false. How many versions of the aether must we refute before concluding that it is not there? No this does not prove that there is not an undetectable aether out there. But scientifically it provides enough evidence to justify a significant degree of doubt. Thus your Atheism = "absence of evidence is evidence/proof of absence" argument has been shown to be wrong. In my case at least.
  • The IPU has been demonstrated to be a wholly valid logical argument by the terms of the thread that you setup specifically to disprove this argument. The notion of "subjective evidence" is just one of the many examples of special pleading that you have attempted to apply to counter this. But in terms of the OP you yourself laid out the result is clear to all.
  • I fear that you will never understand why deeming wholly subjective experience to be a form of evidence that justifies belief in "unknowable" external entities is inviting confirmation bias run riot into a feast of circularity. You will either work that one out for yourself or you won't. Nothing I can say here will change that.
  • As per my previous post in this thread the validity of "subjective evidence" as distinct from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" needs to be demonstrated. If such a form of evidence, distinct from conclusions based on the experience of objective reality past or present, cannot be demonstrated to be superior to guessing as applied to verifiable conclusions then any worth it is deemed to have as applied to wholly unverifiable and unevidenced conclusions must be considered yet another product of wishful thinking and confirmation bias gone mad.
    And so we really really really have come to the end. I won't be replying here or in the IPU thread anymore. I see no point. I don't think you really read my *looong* posts and I honestly believe that all of the key differences between us have been resolved. I honestly believe that your position on both atheism and "subjective evidence" has been fully refuted.
    "Of course you would believe that! It is the product of your biased subjective world view" I hear you cry. And of course you would be right. I have never actually disagreed with much of your "world view" argument in the way that you have relentlessly assumed. The "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" is as much a fact of life as is humanity's ability to invent concepts. I just don't think that your "world view" argument particularly applies to deriving possibilities from established facts by means of pure logic. It is on this basis that I have derived both the possibility of alien life and the possibility of humanity inventing gods. Regardless - Only others can objectively judge whether or not my arguments are any better or worse, more logically valid or evidentially invalid, more convincing or less convincing than are yours. I will leave those others, or at least those who can be arsed, to apply their own subjective world views in making that conclusion.
    As a result the last word, should you wish it, is yours*.
    It's been fun. Till next time.....
    Straggler
    *But if you start telling me what my conclusions regarding the probability of alien visitation having actually occurred should be again I will have to go and blow something up. AAArrrgggh! Enough. See Message 335 for all the answers I have on that subject.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : 98%
    Edited by Straggler, : Typos
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 351 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 9:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    petrophysics1
    Inactive Member


    Message 356 of 375 (504275)
    03-26-2009 8:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 353 by Minnemooseus
    03-26-2009 3:53 AM


    Re: Doin' the deist/atheist flip-flop
    Moose
    350 posts and you still don’t get it.
    Consider your life and who you are. Are you the result of only things which CAN BE REPEATED and TESTED. At 4:46PM EST on Dec.9,1965 I saw a large meteor, can’t repeat that, can’t test it, there is no physical evidence of it, so does that mean it didn’t exist and that it didn’t happen?
    It doesn’t matter to me or any rational person that it was reported in the papers or reported to be seen by people from Toronto to Detroit, it exists because I saw it. If I was the only person who saw it, it doesn’t change a thing, except if fools like Straggler believe me. Who cares? Who died and made him or you the God of what is acceptable human experience?
    Do fantastic claims require fantastic evidence? No they require the same evidence as everything else. For that matter WHO decides what is fantastic.
    In Straggler’s thread on morality being relative his main point is that asking anyone about morals yields differing opinions. This therefore proves his point that morals are relative and made up by people. Is this the same standard of evidence he is using here?
    Why doesn’t he just go out and ask ANYONE what they think about god/s. It was acceptable for him with morality. Why not here? Or did RAZD see the same thing I did?
    Straggler changes his evidence criteria to push his belief agenda. Does RAZD do that? Not that I can see. He appears to use, like everyone in real life, all of his experience regardless if it can be reproduced or tested. He weights it differently and that depends on his viewpoint and past subjective experience. No one operates in life like Straggler is suggesting, and he knows that.
    I don’t see much difference between some theists and atheists and they produce the same results in history. Theists have been killing others for their god for centuries. Atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have done the same. Straggler has made scores and scores of posts here, just like some born again Christian nutcase. He can’t have RAZD being different. Now, why does that remind me of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?
    Name a deist who has done likewise. There maybe one, but I can’t think of any.
    Deists have pissed lots of people off. They wrote this
    we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
    The major religions had over a thousand years to say the same, and never did. No atheist would have written that either.
    Still don’t see the difference?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 353 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-26-2009 3:53 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 357 by mark24, posted 03-26-2009 3:07 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

      
    mark24
    Member (Idle past 5195 days)
    Posts: 3857
    From: UK
    Joined: 12-01-2001


    Message 357 of 375 (504298)
    03-26-2009 3:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 356 by petrophysics1
    03-26-2009 8:08 AM


    Re: Doin' the deist/atheist flip-flop
    petrophysics1,
    I saw a large meteor, can’t repeat that, can’t test it, there is no physical evidence of it, so does that mean it didn’t exist and that it didn’t happen?
    No, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, who's saying that? If you were the only one who saw it then there isn't sufficient evidence for the rest of us that a meteor was there, why is this so hard to comprehend?
    But were not talking about meteors, were talking about something that has never had any acceptable evidence put forward. So if you said you saw god, would you really expect me to accept god exists based on that alone? Do you accept the existence of the Loch Ness Monster because someone saw it? I doubt it.
    Evidence matters, you either have it or you don't. No evidence = no acceptance.
    But tell us, what evidence of a creator is there that means you accept the notion?
    He can’t have RAZD being different
    He accepts it, he just disagrees with it, sweet jesu this is a forum for debate. What do you think happens here?
    Mark

    There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 356 by petrophysics1, posted 03-26-2009 8:08 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

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


    Message 358 of 375 (507766)
    05-07-2009 10:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 319 by Rahvin
    03-20-2009 3:50 PM


    once again
    Hi Rahvin,
    In your last post on the IPU thread you said:
    This isn't about ruling out a possibility, or even about probability. The IPU argument is about demonstrating the special pleading required to have confidence in one unsupported possibility, while not having confidence in any other unsupported possibility, despite the lack of any objective and relevant difference between the chosen possibility and others like the IPU.
    You have confidence that your unsupported possibility (the existence of an undefined "deity") is valid - you believe it to be true.
    Nope. I have confidence that a subjective experience may possibly be true, but that is as far as "confidence" goes.
    You do not have confidence that the IPU is valid - you do not beleive it to be true.
    What I see, is that there is no evidence of it being anything more than fiction. There is no subjective evidence to support a possibility, and that makes it fundamentally different from any concept supported by subjective experience.
    Certainly the existence, or not, of an IPU has no bearing on the existence, or not, of god/s, so in the end there is nothing accomplished by the IPU argument.
    To bring it into context with this thread, atheists are at pains to say that they see "no reason" to believe in god/s. In this vein, deists see no reason not to believe in the existence of some kind of god/s.
    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 319 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2009 3:50 PM Rahvin has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 359 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2009 11:30 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 360 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2009 7:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Rahvin
    Member
    Posts: 4032
    Joined: 07-01-2005
    Member Rating: 9.2


    Message 359 of 375 (507770)
    05-07-2009 11:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 358 by RAZD
    05-07-2009 10:23 PM


    Re: once again
    To bring it into context with this thread, atheists are at pains to say that they see "no reason" to believe in god/s. In this vein, deists see no reason not to believe in the existence of some kind of god/s.
    Which means that deists engage in special pleading, because universal application of the "believe in x so long as there is no reason not to believe in x" would result in belief in fairies, ghosts, goblins, Zeus, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, none of which has a reason for disbelief.
    Really RAZD, we're just going to repeat ourselves over and over. I don't see any progress being made at any point in the future. There's a reason your proposal for an additional thread was turned down, and frankly I think you're just annoyed that I snuck in a rebuttal before the last thread was re-closed. Let it go - unsatisfying as it may be, this conversation was concluded a long time ago: I think your position is completely irrational, and you disagree. I think I've supported my argument sufficiently for you to need to concede, and you disagree with that as well. Fair enough; but there's really nothing new for either of us to bring to the table.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 358 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2009 10:23 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 362 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 12:52 PM Rahvin has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 360 of 375 (507803)
    05-08-2009 7:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 358 by RAZD
    05-07-2009 10:23 PM


    Mark24 Disagrees
    Rahvin writes:
    You do not have confidence that the IPU is valid - you do not beleive it to be true.
    RAZD writes:
    What I see, is that there is no evidence of it being anything more than fiction. There is no subjective evidence to support a possibility, and that makes it fundamentally different from any concept supported by subjective experience.
    Refuted by the contrary conclusion of Mark24: Mark24's Unicorn Experience
    Enjoy.
    Edited by Straggler, : Correct Link - Cheers Huntard.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 358 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2009 10:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 361 by Huntard, posted 05-08-2009 8:07 AM Straggler 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