Finally have a chance to sit down and get back to this.
Metsfanmax wrote:Neoteny wrote:Oh, I'm glad you can redefine things in ways that mesh more closely with your worldview. Atheism encompasses a wide range of views or opinions. Some would agree with your definition. Many would not. I don't particularly want to get into a semantic debate; I'm just arguing from my own perspective. That said, I'm not just rejecting theism and the existence of the "supernatural" as it pertains to religion, I'm rejecting, particularly in this thread, the intellectual process that allows you to say "any particular thing that you can make up that cannot be proven or disproven should not be assumed to not exist." You still have not addressed the fact that you are willing to lend credence to a concept toward which evidence cannot be given, and does not explain anything fruitfully. Ever. What's the point, other than to avoid stepping on someone's toes?
I didn't realize I had said anything which might imply I would lend any credence to religion.
Well, by putting it on the same ground as empirical inquiry, you are doing just that.
Metsfanmax wrote:Let us be clear then: I think religion is patently stupid, and anyone who believes in a god/invisible pink unicorn is probably wasting their time. But that's not relevant. You keep on trying to imply that because I might be implying that religion has credence, therefore your argument is correct. But that's nonsense.
That's cool except, once again, that's not my point. I'm not quite sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat what my point actually is.
Metsfanmax wrote:I think religion and atheism are both nonsensical views, and for exactly the same reason. I am not lending credence toward either, because both are assertions based in exactly zero evidence. Given that, it seems that most of your argumentation is inapplicable, since it seems to be based in an ad hominem attack. I don't understand why you think this is even clever argumentation; even if I somehow were "lending credence" to religion, that would not justify atheism at all.
The ad hominems are to help keep my attention, because you really haven't put anything forth for me to really discuss. I agree that it isn't an argument. You keep conveniently missing what my argument is though. Let me repeat it for you: how is belief in god as nonsensical as the rejection of something that does not have any evidence in its favor and does not serve an explanatory purpose for anything in its own right?
Metsfanmax wrote:As to the part about me "redefining" things, my definition may be a little bit generalizing; but the point is, it applies to anyone who believes, even to a small extent, that there cannot be a god. My argumentation certainly applies to your definition: you (and everyone else in this thread) have failed to give any logical reasons why that intellectual process you mentioned is faulty.
I keep doing it, actually, as have others. "How is belief in god as nonsensical as the rejection of something that does not have any evidence in its favor and does not serve an explanatory purpose for anything in its own right?" Even if we didn't have direct evidence for or against a god/invisible pink unicorn, why should we pretend that it's as reasonable to believe in it without evidence as it is to reject it due to lack of evidence? Why is the absence of evidence a penalty against those who disbelieve in something? That's just ridiculous. I know you don't believe in unicorns or hydra (aside from Cnidarians, of course), and any science-minded atheist would tell you that they are semantically "agnostic" in that they will consider the evidence for those kind of things. But it's unreasonable to think that the severe lack of evidence supporting the existence of the Lernaean Hydra means people who disbelieve in it are as irrational as those who believe in it. I recognize that god can still hide behind the creation of the universe, so that might count as "evidence," but there is definitely no reason to postulate a god for that when you consider the progress science has made in cosmology. Ignoring that, god is on the same footing as the Hydra as far as evidence goes.
Metsfanmax wrote:And the Abrahamic god, scripturally anyhow, does a lot of things that would by scientifically observable. The recent boobquake thing parodies that a bit, but curing whatever illness and changing the weather or outcomes of sporting events are all testable things. I'm being slightly facetious, but there is plenty that is claimed by any particular religion that could be scientifically tested. Therefore, a god that does things with us is not completely outside the burden of proof. That said, a god that does not interact with us in a measurable way is a pretty useless god that doesn't really require much in the way of belief, right?
On the contrary, the only meaningful god (in the philosophical sense) is the one that does not interact with us in a meaningful way. That is the point of the Abrahamic religions. If we could observe god, then faith would have no purpose, and there would be no reward for the faithful. Obviously if a supernatural being did exist and meaningfully interacted with us, we wouldn't need to have a philosophical debate, we would have a pragmatic one about what to do about it.
That's cool I guess. Belief without evidence seems to be a silly thing for which to be rewarded, but I don't claim to be omnipotent, and that was just kind of an aside. That still doesn't really affect the fact that you are equating belief without evidence to disbelieve due to lack of evidence.
Metsfanmax wrote:Really? All the conflicting stories as to the nature of god, the fact that all the metaphors and myths are reflections of social constructs, and the personification of nearly every god is not evidence for them being a human creation? Whatever dude.
That is correct, that is no reason for rejection of that god. The fact that humans are generally stupid does not, in and of itself, make those views incorrect. By your own stance (see below), there is an objective truth, so the fact that humans believe in a certain truth has zero effect on the validity of that statement. If the Christian God does exist, and the Bible is correct, then the fact that Christians have generally made some bad decisions and been bad people in many cases is irrelevant, is it not? It seems that most of your argumentation is based on the idea that since religious people are crazy/fallible/human, religion is incorrect. But that's just an absurd point of view, and a major logical fallacy.
That is not the crux of my argument. Once again, it is that there is no evidence for belief in the supernatural and this is not as unreasonable as belief without evidence as you silly agnostics keep claiming. All of the infallibility bit contributes to that in the long term, but you have yet to even recognize my central argument, much less comment on it. If god in all of its permutations is clearly a human concept, once again, why is belief in it with evidence as unreasonable as disbelief in it without evidence? Seriously.
Metsfanmax wrote:Wat. Of course there is a right answer, regardless of whether it's empirically proveable. Either there is a god or there isn't. No assertion about knowledge is necessary. We know plenty now that leads toward evidence of a lack of a deity. For example; there isn't a need for an intelligent creator, nor an external moral compass. So why do we not know if there is a god again?
The question of attainable knowledge is something that belongs in another thread entirely, but suffice it to say here that if we, by definition, cannot ever
know the right answer, then the fact that there
is a right answer is rather irrelevant.
That's depressing. I see that you just don't want to know the right answer. The fact that there is a right answer is reason enough to strive to seek it. Perhaps that's what really separates the agnostic from the atheist.
Metsfanmax wrote:There's nothing confusing. You just keep asserting that your stance is the rational one. I can only respond with "You still have not addressed the fact that you are willing to lend credence to a concept toward which evidence cannot be given, and does not explain anything fruitfully," so many times before you just become a broken record.
See above. I lend no support to either religion or atheism, and even if I did, that would not lend credibility to your stance.
You still haven't actually addressed it.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:I don't count statistics as a feeling. I don't know exactly what you're arguing here, but I have plenty of experience with being in a theistic mindset. I don't think it's illogical or stupid, but I don't think it accurately represents the way the world is either. That's fine, but my issue is that belief in god really has nothing to stand on as far as conveying it to others, and the idea that this is on equal ground with disbelief in god (because the burden of proof really is not on us; the null hypothesis should be that there is no god; this is where agnostics irritate me: we have all this evidence around us, and they think that we can't comment on it for some reason) Sure, god might not break the rules often, but I'm saying that when he does, science should notice.
Everything we think and do can be boiled down to a feeling. Statistic, etc are useful tools to try and get away from human being's fundamental biases, but they are just tools. If you think statistics are not often tainted by people's feelings, then you have little experience with them. Granted, a good statistician is aware of the biases, can operate to avoid "contamination" as much as possible, but failure to recognize limits is the biggest reason for faulty results in studies.
I agree with that, but I still don't quite get what your point is. We have tools, imperfect as they are, that can be used to rule these kinds of things out. You are implying some other tool to which I might not have access.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:Furthermore, as for absolute proof, the atheist have an almost impossible task there, because it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. To contrast, only one piece of evidence is necessary to prove God exists. Most of us who believe have seen evidence, just not evidence that we can trot out for others to see.
You also confuse absolute proof with evidence. Proof is absolute. Evidence, however, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Few will say that there is proof of God, but most of us will say there is evidence. (and atheists say the same in reverse).
Eh, not really. I changed my modifier to "very little" because we have not explained the origin of the universe yet. That's really one of the few areas that we have no real idea of what the hell might have happened, and therefore it's the only area where "god did it" might have any bearing. I don't think you want your god to hide behind that.
Want a list of what we don' t yet know?
How the Earth was actually created (not just the universe), what the deepest reaches of the ocean are like, what other planets are like, if there is other life "out there". We also don't know why some people are evil, others in equally terrible circumstances become "saints". We don't really know much about why people do what they do. (we know some, but there is a lot more we don't know).. and among the biggest puzzles, how it is that people can see the same evidence and yet see very different reasons for that evidence.
That's all great, but we have made significant progress on all those fronts. All of those things are not so far out of the realm of our current understanding as to require the postulation of a supernatural being. There are plenty of things we don't know, but god can only hide in those places for so long.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:At any rate, again, we are talking about evidence you, yourself do not happen to see. That doesn't mean its not there. When someone presents evidence in science that cannot be replicated, it is discarded as proof, yes. However, then that person and others try to go back and find a way to prove it. In this case, the proof is not anything that can be (currently) tryly subjected to proof. It is not scientific, but it is valid. It is as valid as Leonardo's or Andy Warhol's paintings are valid representations of "art".
That's perhaps fair enough. Like I've said previously, and I think snorri said elsewhere, you will be hard-pressed to find an atheist who will say he is 100% sure god does not exist. Any one will tell you what it will take to be convinced. We aren't all blind to evidence. But the history of evidential inquiry points the odds against a god. That said, how do you expect us to believe without evidence? What is it about atheists that is being held back? What evidence are we missing that theists are not?
Look up. The problem is that atheists often START by dismissing the very evidence that would provide the proof.
I've noted that there are places for god to hide, but they are shrinking rapidly, and there used to be a lot more. Do you consider the current lack of complete understanding of the formation of the earth to be evidence for god? If not, what do you consider to be evidence? I'm legitimately curious, and I'll do my best not to dismiss them out of hand.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:In before "god is beyond blah blah blah."
Oh wait, here it is.
Metsfanmax wrote:There are two main flaws with the type of argumentation you're using. The first is that you seem to trying to prove the validity of atheism by proving the lack of validity of major organized religion. This is in no way a logical proof. Christians may have it wrong, and in fact all religious people may have it wrong, but that doesn't make atheism correct.
That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it.
Two reasons. First, you again try to claim that empirical, testable evidence is the only evidence there can be.
I don't think you can demonstrate that there is another type of evidence. Or are we talking about how we feel again?
You dismiss feelings and other "soft" evidence to your peril. We and most life on earth are not robots. Feelings and response is a big part of what makes life the richness it is. (and the terrible parts, too).
Sure, but feelings are hardly the most accurate thing to rely on. We can see a hologram of a cuttlefish, but we can't touch it (a terrible example, but the only one I've got for now). All of our feelings do fact-checking against each other. When we are talking about the supernatural, the theist claims that god is untouchable by other fact-checking means, and we're left to take your word for it. My mind just doesn't work that way.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Second, you cannot actually prove that God is unnecessary.
Yet. He is not necessary for more and more every day.
That is your perception, because it is what you wish to believe. I believe otherwise. Again, you confuse what you feel to be sensible, what can be thought with reason, with absolute proof and truth. Confusing the two leads to many, many errors in life, not just science.
We're going in circles now. There is less and less every day for god to hide behind. I don't know what else to say.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:All you can prove is that you don't have to acknowledge God to live on earth, etc. Sure, presence of God is a belief, and assertion, but so is belief that no God exists.
The way I see it, the non-existence of god is the null.
The "way you see it" is the problem. That you cannot see an option doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You accept this without a thought in most other instances, but for some reason think God should be an exception. Why? And, who knows, maybe there is an "other".
That's a bit of word play there, and I've addressed it in talking to agnostics in this thread. Why should it not be the null? Regardless, if there is an other, and it is unobservable, what is its relevance (to quote Metsfanmax)?
Neoteny wrote:It is the most parsimonious way a universe could be. Of course it's a belief, but without any evidence for a god, how can the belief in a god be seen as "equally rational," as so many agnostics and theists claim. Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence. But there is a suspension of something that is required to believe in something without evidence.
Again, you confuse evidence you don't see with no evidence and you confuse what you believe to be true, what is possible, with elimination of other options. Atheism is a logical option. However, so is belief in God, provided one does not put in attributes that are proven wrong already. (Thunder is not Thor hitting his hammer on an anvil, at least not in any real and physical sense).[/quote]
Again, even if there was no evidence, like I've been asking Metsfanmax, or worse, there never will be, why is it unreasonable to dismiss it? Even, operating under the assumption that a supernatural being exists, if there is no evidence for it, why is it as reasonable to believe in it than to disbelieve in it? Let me try my hand at allegory.
Suppose there is a box, and one person tells two others that there is a coin in the box. The two others having no evidence as to whether there is a coin in the box, so the reasonable belief would be that of agnosticism as to the existence of the coin. There is no evidence as to its existence. Now, suppose the people are told that this coin has some property that has no precedent in human experience (invisible, whatever). Is the reasonable stance still agnosticism? At what point do the odds stack against the existence of this coin? Just because you define something as being unobservable does not mean it's at all plausible (and if it were unobservable, how the hell would we know about it?).
PLAYER57832 wrote:Neoteny wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:The intellectual dishonesty is the claim, again, that failure to understand theism truly, translates into a higher order of intelligence. It is convenient atheists, to believe that people who think like them are more intelligent, but simply not true, except where atheists self-define it so.
Again, I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has to do with some willingness to believe without evidence. I am not willing to do that. More importantly, I'm not capable of doing that.
No, it has to do with a willingness to look at different kinds of evidence. Its like the businessman who ignores impacts of pollution because they are not directly related to his business, are externalities he can safetly ignore in his profit equations. You ignore things that are difficult to understand, are hard to assess physically, to quantify, because it is convenient. Science, any great advances rarely come from staying with what is convenient
Different kinds of evidence?
Apparently anything other than black and white, good or bad, left or right is too complex of an opinion.
