Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: something super extreme] * 3
    #17780949 - 02/10/13 11:41 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

sVs said:
This whole thread; :facepalm:









Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude] * 2
    #17780969 - 02/10/13 11:45 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Common now, this is just becoming spam.






--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17780995 - 02/10/13 11:53 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Ok now, seriousness, I demand seriousness. We're talking about adults with imaginary friends here.




You can't demand seriousness while being flip.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Aedan]
    #17781143 - 02/11/13 12:27 AM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phoenician said:
Would the universe exist if there were nothing to perceive it? If yes then who would be asking the question?




Who says there's a question being asked?


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude] * 1
    #17781197 - 02/11/13 12:40 AM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

Phoenician said:
I would define God as everything, yes, but that this everything has an inherent personal characteristic. Hence "God" not "the universe" or whatever. God being the universe and everything that exists beyond it. Would the universe exist if there were nothing to perceive it? If yes then who would be asking the question? I believe the experience of God exists as a unitive state between subject and object. Why God is not rational is because the rational mind cannot comprehend it. A subsystem cannot comprehend that which is meta to it.




If we can't comprehend it, then why do think it exists?




For any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

Some extrapolation required.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17784517 - 02/11/13 05:13 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
If I don't believe in a god, that's not the same as saying I believe there is no god.  For me to believe in something, I need evidence.  I have not seen any evidence for "god," and therefore I don't believe in it.  I don't positively believe that god does not exist either.

If I don't specifically believe in god, then I'm an atheist.  I'm an agnostic as well.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?




This is silly.  Do you have any evidence of the number 3?  Not the existence of, say, three basketballs or three m&m's, but of the actual platonic number.  Do you then not believe in the number 3?  Are you an athree-ist?  Or are you actually not in the business of contemplating the existence of 3 at all?  You're an atheist if you actively believe God doesn't exist.  You're an agnostic if you actively believe it's not possible to come up with a coherent position on the matter.  You cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17784624 - 02/11/13 05:28 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

What are you talking about?  God is a concept.

If you don't have a position on the matter, you're not anything.  Just because I don't know if I believe in the Democratic planks doesn't make me a Republican.

EDIT: Didn't see your response, john.  Got to go to work.  Will be back.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/11/13 05:29 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785502 - 02/11/13 07:52 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:

clam_dude said:
If I don't believe in a god, that's not the same as saying I believe there is no god.  For me to believe in something, I need evidence.  I have not seen any evidence for "god," and therefore I don't believe in it.  I don't positively believe that god does not exist either.

If I don't specifically believe in god, then I'm an atheist.  I'm an agnostic as well.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?




This is silly.  Do you have any evidence of the number 3?  Not the existence of, say, three basketballs or three m&m's, but of the actual platonic number.  Do you then not believe in the number 3?  Are you an athree-ist?  Or are you actually not in the business of contemplating the existence of 3 at all?  You're an atheist if you actively believe God doesn't exist.  You're an agnostic if you actively believe it's not possible to come up with a coherent position on the matter.  You cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.





This is a category error.  Three basketballs are physical objects, the quantity of three is a concept.  To speak of existance  we must be careful not to conflate the physical with the concept.  Obviously we all believe the concept of god exists, its in teh dictionary and in many writings.  What we are talking about is the phsyical existance of god.  It is error to conflate the two.

Similarly with the quantity three, yes, I do have evidence that exists.  Its a concept that refers to the integer number between two and four in order of magnitude.  Having just described it, it exists ipso facto.  To the extent this answer is unsatsifying you are likely commiting a cateogry error and expecting physical evidence of a concept which is to confuse what is being discussed in teh first place.




No one disagrees that the concept of God exists.  God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though (as well as possibly a being, a supernatural entity, a force, etc.) - in the same way that 3 itself is a concept.

To define the number 3 is enough to describe the qualities of the number 3.  If one defines the concept of God, one can make inferences based on that definition as to some other qualities that "God" has.  The concept God is different from the concept 3 in that it is at least theoretically possibly (ignoring for a moment if you disbelieve in God or not) to locate the being of God and say, "Yes, this being right here - this is the one that corresponds with my concept of God. They are the same thing."  This is not possible with the number 3, because the number 3 has no physical incarnation, even in some theoretical sense.

But this is not a salient difference for the point I'm trying to make - I'm not making a category error.  The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief.  Hence the claim was that a lack of evidence constituted atheism, regardless of whether or not there was a positive belief or not.  However:
  • A.  God is a concept, and the number 3 is a concept.  Clam_dude did not have evidence for the number 3**, yet he believed in it.  Thus we can plainly see that evidence is not necessary for belief.

  • B.  Likewise, we can see that lack of evidence cannot constitute disbelief, since it is possible to have a lack of evidence and yet believe in a concept.

There are no athreeists, despite the fact that half the globe is mathematically illiterate and doesn't know of evidence of the existence of 3.  It would take positive disbelief to become an athreeist.  It is the same for being an atheist - it is not the default position for people who have never thought about God.  Similarly, agnosticism i not simply the default position for people who haven't made up their mind yet - a child who is being taught for the first time that God exists isn't an agnostic for as long as it takes for his preacher to get to his conclusion, and yes, that is what you would be claiming if agnosticism doesn't require positive disbelief in a satisfactory level of evidence for belief or disbelief in God.

**And I would like to argue that simply defining a number is not actually evidence of its existence - I can define Lamarkianism, but this is not evidence of its existence.  HOWEVER, whether or not you disagree with me on what constitutes evidence is beside the point - while you, john, may have thought about the definition of the concept 3 before, most atheists have not, including clam_dude (at least not until now I'm guessing), and so my analogy would still hold - he believes in the number 3 even without having evidence of it.

Quote:

clam_dude said:
And actually, what I said is not entirely true - an apple is not a concept - the concept of an apple is a concept.  In the same way, the concept of god is a concept, but god is not a concept.




I think God is the exception to this general rule that things are not their concepts - God is both being and concept, at least as he/she/it is commonly defined.  "God is Love" is a common saying, is it not? 

Also, this is one of the most important passages in the new testament, and therefore fundamental to many people's definition of God:

Quote:

The Gospel of John said:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

...9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.




Sounds like God is being defined as both a concept (the Word), an incorporeal being (that did things like make the world) and a coporeal being (Jesus).

Quote:

Again, your republican/democrat argument is a category error.  Political parties are manmade constructs from which we choose (or don't if we're not into politics). When someone chooses a party, it's an active choice.  If someone doesn't vote and is not into politics at all, it's safe to call them apolitical.  The word apolitical, like atheist, is defining a lack of belief (or interest).  It is therefore the default position.  The person who doesn't know what the word "politics" means is apolitical.
I could also call myself an a-toothfairiest, or a-bigfootest, the list could go on and would include anything I don't believe in or haven't even conceived of.




We choose to become atheists, agnostics, or deists - and it requires an active choice.  Being apolitical does not correspond to atheism.  Babies are apolitical, but they are not atheists - there is no word that corresponds to atheism with regards to the existence of God since people so often just end up following whatever religion their parents were or what is most dominant in their culture.  "A-deists", or whatever you want to call them, are practically non-existent in adulthood.  I don't think I've ever met one.

As a small aside, I might be willing to budge to some degree on whether agnosticism requires active beliefs about the evidence for/against God, since there are so many varieties of people claiming to be agnostics.  But I think you have to had at least thought about the concept once or twice and not just let it wash over you.

Quote:

johnm214
Dawkins has long ago stated he does not believe in god's absence but rather lacks a belief in god.  He is one of the more sloppy speakers on this subject, however, so there are instances of him being misleading on this point more so than Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Dan Barker, et cet.

All of these preceding authors identify themselves as atheists and all of them are also agnostic (at least a weak agnostic).




I definitely agree with you that Dawkins is sloppy about this - he's a gigantic dick and throws flip remarks implying his critics were attacking straw men when they were not. When he says he's an agnostic, he's simply playing games and I'm under no compulsion to respect that self-designation.  The man is a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, and he knows it.

I don't know about all of the others, but I know that for instance Hitchens branded himself as an atheist more as a label so that people understood where he was coming from more than anything else.  If he was going to be specific about it, he was an antitheist agnostic, and that is probably what most of those others (I'm guessing) would say if you pushed them to be specific.  That does not make them both atheists and agnostics - it's like if I married a woman with a young child who came to see me as her father: I would brand myself as her father, and I would share many characteristics of fathers, but if you wanted me to be precise about it I couldn't in all honesty say I was her father.  I would simply be a man involved in the child's life.  It wouldn't ever be correct to say I was both her father and "simply a man involved in the child's life".

The strict definition of atheism requires active disbelief, the common conception of atheism requires active disbelief, and it is only the messy realities of identity politics that create the illusion of wiggle room.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/11/13 07:57 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #17785504 - 02/11/13 07:52 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

whew


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17791023 - 02/12/13 05:50 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
It's like you didn't read anything I wrote.




Jesus Christ, that's some nerve, saying I didn't address your points when I specifically did and then you go and ignore key bits of evidence for mine such as the gospel of john.

Quote:

In your second sentence you say "God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though." Did you understand what I said about the concept of the apple? An apple is not a concept. Neither is a fish or a dog.  And neither is god.  A concept of an apple is a concept.  A concept of god is a concept.  But god is not a concept.  The sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.




It is a grammatically correct sentence - please tell me what rules of grammar I've supposedly broken.

Quote:

You're confusing things with the concepts of them.




Absolutely not.  I'll address this shortly.

Quote:

You say "The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief."

i never stated that lack of evidence constituted disbelief.




Do you understand what the word "necessary" means?  If you lack something necessary for belief, then it's impossible by the definition of necessary to believe.

Quote:

Also, it's pretty convenient to just state that "god" is an exception to the fact that concepts of things are not the things themselves.  You state "God is both being and concept, at least as he/she/it is commonly defined.  "God is Love" is a common saying, is it not?"

Again, that's not grammatically correct to state that "god is a concept."




What type of crazy grammar do you subscribe to?  "X is a concept" is a syntactically well-formed sentence.

Here's another metaphor, because you seem really confused in these posts:  "America" is a concept.  I can also have a concept of America, but the America itself is a still concept - it is an abstraction, in the same way that peace is an abstraction, or numbers.  Here is the wiki on "concept" if you need some reference.  God is an abstract idea as well.  There are also conceptions of God, but they are not what I was referring to, and I made it perfectly clear that I was avoiding such confusion.

Quote:

If someone says "god is love," well I too believe in love, so I guess I believe in god.




No - only if you also think that god is love would you then believe in god.  But you don't - you're an atheist.  Saying "God is love" for you is on the level of saying "Ghosts are love" or "The tooth fairy is love".  You're under no rational obligation to believe logical consequences from statements you specifically deny or hold as nonsensical.

Quote:

I just don't think that's an appropriate use for the word "god."




Most deists do.

Quote:

But just for the sake of argument, if "god is love," then god is just a concept and not a being - because love is just a concept.  You keep conflating things with concepts.




Did you at all read the passage from the Gospel of John?  I'm not conflating ideas here - I'm specifically arguing that God as concept and God as being are the same thing - a property which almost all deists hold as fundamental to the idea of God.  As Christians put it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I'm not conflating the "concept of God" with God at all, because "the concept of God" is not God, while "God as concept" is. In the same way, my concept of America is not the same thing as the buildings, people, land, etc. that compose America - my concept of America is not America.  However, the nation of America - which is only a concept - is the same thing as the physical incarnation of America - the people, the land, etc.

Quote:

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
We choose to become atheists, agnostics, or deists - and it requires an active choice.  Being apolitical does not correspond to atheism.  Babies are apolitical, but they are not atheists - there is no word that corresponds to atheism with regards to the existence of God since people so often just end up following whatever religion their parents were or what is most dominant in their culture.  "A-deists", or whatever you want to call them, are practically non-existent in adulthood.  I don't think I've ever met one.






Again I completely disagree.  We don't necessarily choose to become atheists.  A baby is an atheist until it is indoctrinated by it's parents.  Just because the baby is not aware of what an atheist is, does not mean that it can't be an atheist.  A baby also does not know that it is a baby, or that it's american, or whatever.  If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist.




We're obviously at a dead end here, but I would like to point out that no one I know has ever described a baby as an atheist - it is not the common language usage of the word.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17792463 - 02/12/13 09:50 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

SeaShrooms said:

Jesus Christ, that's some nerve, saying I didn't address your points when I specifically did and then you go and ignore key bits of evidence for mine such as the gospel of john.





Well it's funny that you should comment on that now, seeing as it was written all the way back at...page 6.  That just shows that you haven't been reading what I wrote.  But maybe you just didn't want to comment back then...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.




I went to bed and when I came back there were 200  new posts.  Also, why did your quote make me into SeaShrooms?

Quote:

Quote:

SeaShrooms said:
Do you understand what the word "necessary" means?  If you lack something necessary for belief, then it's impossible by the definition of necessary to believe.





Disbelief is different than lack of a belief.

....




I spoke wrongly, but that actually makes my point more clear: disbelief in God is required to be an atheist; lack of belief is not.  A lack of evidence for the existence of 3 is, to fix the analogy, similarly not sufficient to be an athree-ist, since that would require disbelief.

Quote:

Quote:

SeaShrooms said:
What type of crazy grammar do you subscribe to?  "X is a concept" is a syntactically well-formed sentence.

Here's another metaphor, because you seem really confused in these posts:  "America" is a concept.  I can also have a concept of America, but the America itself is a still concept - it is an abstraction, in the same way that peace is an abstraction, or numbers.  Here is the wiki on "concept" if you need some reference.  God is an abstract idea as well.  There are also conceptions of God, but they are not what I was referring to, and I made it perfectly clear that I was avoiding such confusion.





No, "x" is not a concept.




That X was meant to be a stand-in for any appropriate noun you could throw in.  The same way people go, "Imagine that person A does blah blah to person B, does person B have the right to blahdiblah"

Quote:

"America" is not a concept either.




America is an abstract idea - that is all it takes to be a concept.  How am I wrong?
Quote:

The concept of "america" is a concept.




This is true.  It does not make "America" not a concept.

Quote:

Quote:

SeaShrooms said:
No - only if you also think that god is love would you then believe in god.  But you don't - you're an atheist.  Saying "God is love" for you is on the level of saying "Ghosts are love" or "The tooth fairy is love".  You're under no rational obligation to believe logical consequences from statements you specifically deny or hold as nonsensical.





What I'm saying is that given this person's definition of god, I too believe in god.  And yes, it is a ridiculous as saying "ghosts are love."  If ghosts are love, then I believe in ghosts as well.




Ah, that makes sense.  I guess the traditional deist response would be to say that you do believe in god - just that you have a stubborn refusal to either accept it or recognize it as such.  As the early Christian church leader Paul said, "What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."  As the pantheists would say, since you believe in the universe, you do believe in God - but again, you just refuse to accept this.  I don't mean to argue either of these points, only to use them to explain.

Quote:

Quote:

SeaShrooms said:
Did you at all read the passage from the Gospel of John?  I'm not conflating ideas here - I'm specifically arguing that God as concept and God as being are the same thing - a property which almost all deists hold as fundamental to the idea of God.  As Christians put it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I'm not conflating the "concept of God" with God at all, because "the concept of God" is not God, while "God as concept" is. In the same way, my concept of America is not the same thing as the buildings, people, land, etc. that compose America - my concept of America is not America.  However, the nation of America - which is only a concept - is the same thing as the physical incarnation of America - the people, the land, etc.





I never said that a (your) concept of America is america.  Your concept of america is a concept of america.  The "nation of America," is a thing, not a concept.  The concept of the "nation of America" is a concept.




The nation of America is a concept - it is not merely the physical thing.  It's the same way you are not merely your body - you are an abstraction, a collection of consciousness (an emergent property resulting from the configuration of your atoms but not simply those atoms) and prior actions and relationships with people and the world.

Quote:

And there are concepts of those things
It does not make any sense to say that the thing is the concept itself.




Why not?  In many cases the thing isn't the concept, but in many cases it is - love is a concept, peace is a concept, happiness is a concept, nations are concepts, people are concepts, sports teams are concepts, money is a concept.  They are abstractions.  They are descriptions of things which are sometimes physical but which are more than just physical things - when I talk about Real Madrid, the team is physically composed of the players, but the team is more than that - it is a particular relationship those players share as well. Money is a physical object, but it is also an abstraction - it is a store of value.  And a dollar is both.  There is no confusing of concepts and things there.

Quote:

It doesn't matter what some people, who know less about the world than anybody that you or I will ever meet, wrote in a book during the bronze age.




Well, normally, but if we're talking about the beliefs of people whose ideas are profoundly shaped by bronze-age writings, I'd say it's relevant.

Quote:

After all of this, you still haven't addressed the thing that I find most irritating - the fact that you called me dogmatic numerous times.  Do you still think I'm being dogmatic, given that I have stated that I'll change my views in a heart beat if presented with evidence for god?




I think you have confused me for SeaShrooms, though I'm unsure what sort of server error caused his username to replace mine.  I haven't used the word dogma once.  This is only barely on topic, but the philosopher Bertrand Russell, when asked what he would do if he died and ended up facing God, being asked why he didn't believe, said that he would say, "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!"


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17796464 - 02/13/13 04:52 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

As for not merely being my body, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  I'm a materialist myself, and think we are just atoms.  If there is something else, then what is it?




There are also emergent phenomenon.  For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

Quote:

If somebody says to me in conversation that "peace is a concept", I go with them and know what they mean.  In conversational english, it's fine.  But technically, a concept of peace is a concept.




No, peace itself is a concept even in the strictest sense of the word - what kind of odd definition of "concept" do you have where abstractions like peace aren't concepts?  Would you really cop to a proposition like "3 isn't a concept - only my concept of 3 is!"?

Quote:

However, a word like "peace," does not describe a physical entity anyway.  It is, as you say, more abstract.  It is more loosely defined, and therefore, it's definition could be taken to mean "concept of peace".




No, what the word "peace" refers to is peace.  The definition is the "concept of peace", true, but propositions involving the word "peace" are judged on the qualities of peace itself, not on the concept of peace.  Otherwise, if I said, "I wish there were peace in the world" I would be wishing for something that's already happened - the concept of peace already exists.

One of the qualities of peace is that it is an abstraction.  It is a concept.  Concepts are abstractions.  Concepts don't have to be actively conceived in order to still be conceptions.  The number 3 would still be a concept even if people had never evolved to think it.

Quote:

But an apple is not a concept.  And so if you want to put god in the category of words like "love," "peace," "happiness," etc....then fine, but that's just an admission that it's not a physical being.




No, it's not, any more than saying money is a concept is an admission that there is no physical incarnations of the concept - dollar bills, coins, etc.  A quarter is money, even if money is an abstraction.

Quote:

The bible is important in understanding history.  But there's no reason to believe that anything in it is inherently true, or relevant in today's world....other than in the context of understanding history.




If you're gay, you can be prevented from seeing your dying spouse in the hospital because they're not legally your spouse because gay people can't get married in most of this country...because in Leviticus 18:22 it says "One should not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." and voters care about that.  I can come up with a thousand similar examples.  You may think that the Bible is irrelevant to today's world, but it clearly is.  I think you're confusing "should be relevant" with "is relevant".


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17796556 - 02/13/13 05:07 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
I spoke wrongly, but that actually makes my point more clear: disbelief in God is required to be an atheist; lack of belief is not.  A lack of evidence for the existence of 3 is, to fix the analogy, similarly not sufficient to be an athree-ist, since that would require disbelief.





I don't think I responded well enough to this last time.  You can't compare 3 to "god." That is a category error.  3 is a concept.  Here it's appropriate to say that, as I explained with "peace." So if you want to say that "god," too, is just a concept, then fine.  But then it's not a physical entity.  If you want a more accurate analogy, just take the tooth fairy (defined for this purpose as a physical entity). 

Do you believe in the tooth fairy?  If not, would you call yourself an a-toothfairyest?  I would. 

If you think god is a physical entity, then compare it to a physical entity
If you think god is a concept, then compare it to a concept.

But you can't have it both ways.




Regardless of your personal definition of what a concept is, the analogy still holds.  I don't believe in [some primitive culture's boogeyman that I've never heard of], but that doesn't make me an a-[some primitive culture's boogeyman that I've never heard of]-ist.  And I've never believed in the existence of [some number I've never thought about], but that doesn't make me an a-[some number I've never thought about]-ist. 

I am an a-toothfairy-ist, and that is because I actively deny the existence of the tooth fairy.  People in Finland that have never heard of the tooth fairy are not a-toothfairy-ists.  Active disbelief is required to be an atheist, regardless of whether or not you think God is a concept or a physical being or both.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17798653 - 02/14/13 12:02 AM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
I disagree.  I would say that I am an a-[something I've never heard of].
Because atheism just means that you don't happen to hold a belief in something.




I've gone too far; we've lost the point of the metaphor since no one actually ever uses the word a-toothfairy-ist.  I'm simply going along with my argument, and you with yours.

Quote:

My point is that you do not have to deny that thing's existence.  You say that you deny the existence of the tooth fairy.  I wouldn't go that far.  I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

You can't deny the existence of anything.  This is why the burden of proof is on the person who positively believes in something.

Here is a good analogy:  In a court of law, the defendant is either found guilty or not guilty.  Not 'guilty or innocent'.  That's because you can't prove a negative.  You can't prove someone's innocence.  So by finding someone not guilty, we don't necessarily believe them to be innocent.  I find "god" not guilty of the existing.

So I don't believe in god, like I don't believe in the tooth fairy.  But I don't deny their existence either.  Yet I am an atoothfairyest just like you.




I know "you can't prove a negative" is a popular slogan in these sorts of discussions, but it's merely a handy gloss - in reality, there are many cases in people have proven what could be considered a "negative." For instance, it's been proven that there are no sets of positive integers a, b, and c such that a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value greater than two.  I'd say that it's conclusively proven that there were no people living in North America at the time of the Dinosaurs, as another example.  It's not possible to come up with evidence of nonexistence, but it is possible to come up with evidence that implies the nonexistence of something else.

Now, it is true that there is no such thing as certain proof in the strictest sense of the word.  But to claim that all or most atheists are also agnostics because they know it's possible they're wrong or misinformed is a level of technicality far too precise to apply to a word so rarely used in such a way. Vigorously proselytizing for positive atheism while at the same time claiming to be nothing but a passive atheist as well as agnostic based on strict definitions of these word that you know your opponents aren't using and don't believe are the proper definitions...I can admit that there is an extremely small possibility that, say, the Earth is flat, but if I visited the nearest geology department proclaiming "I don't deny that the Earth is flat", well, that would be nothing more than philosophical wanking.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17800664 - 02/14/13 11:58 AM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Like I said, nothing but philosophical wanking.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17800893 - 02/14/13 12:55 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Like I said, nothing but philosophical wanking.




How so? It matters what labels we choose for ourselves and how those labels are perceived.  I would have no problem dropping the word "atheist" and going with "agnostic" instead.  But when I think about how that's perceived, I don't want to use the word.  I do believe "god" to be incredibly unlikely, and am therefore an atheist.  I don't want to be called an agnostic, yet I also don't claim to know that "god doesn't exist."  It should really be pretty east to understand my position.  In which case, the philosophical wanking will stop.




You're right - it does matter what labels we choose for ourselves.  "Atheist" and "agnostic" are terms of social identity, and that's the reason that I think you're wrong to define the terms in such a way that a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic.  At the level of precision you're using, anyone who's halfway cognitively honest would have to say that they're agnostic - and since your definition of atheism doesn't require positive belief, they'd also be atheists.  A person could be a Muslim, an agnostic, and an atheist all at the same time.  You've defined all the piss out of the words.

It's not incorrect to identify as an atheist while still admitting the possibility you could be wrong.  If you went up to Billy Graham and told him, "You're not a Christian because you can't be absolutely certain that God exists - you're agnostic" he would spit in your face (or turn the other cheek, if he's got his Christian shit down), or if you went to Al Sharpton and told him, "You're not an African American because you can't prove with certainty that your ancestors came from Africa - you should be agnostic about your race" he would smack you.  In the same way, you can be an atheist even if your belief isn't certain...and to conflate that identity with agnosticism based on technical definitions seems to me to be nothing but an excuse to make hay.

And it's not only that you're misusing these word - if we're going to be this level of precise, it seems to me that your definition of agnostic fails you.  Can you prove that you don't know with certainty that God exists?  Maybe you're just fooling yourself, and you really do know, in your heart of hearts, with absolute certainty that God does not exist - in which case you're not an agnostic.  In fact, you should be agnostic about your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism...you don't see the absurdity with this level of technicality?


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #17800919 - 02/14/13 01:00 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Bertrand Russell:

Quote:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.




If you want to only say you ought to be called an agnostic, that would be fine...


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17801349 - 02/14/13 02:26 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
And it's not only that you're misusing these word - if we're going to be this level of precise, it seems to me that your definition of agnostic fails you.  Can you prove that you don't know with certainty that God exists?  Maybe you're just fooling yourself, and you really do know, in your heart of hearts, with absolute certainty that God does not exist - in which case you're not an agnostic.  In fact, you should be agnostic about your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism, and agnostic about your agnosticism about your agnosticism with regards to your agnosticism...you don't see the absurdity with this level of technicality?





No, I'm telling you - I am not predisposed to disbelief in "god." Just like you are not predisposed to disbelief in the tooth fairy.  If evidence came along for it, you would change your mind.  But that doesn't mean there is any reason right now, to believe in the tooth fairy.  I keep repeating myself with the tooth fairy analogy, but just think about it for a minute and everything I say will make sense.




I don't see how this is a response to that paragraph...

Quote:

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
You're right - it does matter what labels we choose for ourselves.  "Atheist" and "agnostic" are terms of social identity, and that's the reason that I think you're wrong to define the terms in such a way that a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic.  At the level of precision you're using, anyone who's halfway cognitively honest would have to say that they're agnostic - and since your definition of atheism doesn't require positive belief, they'd also be atheists.  A person could be a Muslim, an agnostic, and an atheist all at the same time.  You've defined all the piss out of the words.





I have not defined the piss out of the words, as those words are not mutually exclusive.  I can imagine somebody calling themselves a muslim and an atheist at the same time. A lot of people are culturally religious - they go to temple/church, say the prayers, sing the songs, etc...but don't really believe in the god of their religion.  Some other muslims wouldn't call that person a muslim.  So it is just semantics.




Yes, there are some cultural muslims.  But please go to your nearest imam and tell him that his being a Muslim and his being an atheist are not mutually exclusive and see how far it gets you.

Quote:

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
It's not incorrect to identify as an atheist while still admitting the possibility you could be wrong.  If you went up to Billy Graham and told him, "You're not a Christian because you can't be absolutely certain that God exists - you're agnostic" he would spit in your face (or turn the other cheek, if he's got his Christian shit down), or if you went to Al Sharpton and told him, "You're not an African American because you can't prove with certainty that your ancestors came from Africa - you should be agnostic about your race" he would smack you.  In the same way, you can be an atheist even if your belief isn't certain...and to conflate that identity with agnosticism based on technical definitions seems to me to be nothing but an excuse to make hay.





I think there are really two uses/definitions of the word "agnostic." There is the technical sense.  Technically, we have to be agnostic about everything.  We have to be agnostic about the tooth fairy, technically.




This is what the paragraph you first quoted, at the top of this post, was talking about...claiming no belief in anything is an absurdity - you couldn't even hold that you don't believe anything - and an impossibility as a human being...it would take the mind of a Buddha to really, truly, not believe in anything.  While it may be accurate to say that it's impossible to be sure about something, to then label yourself as an agnostic is to make a claim...and you can't claim things and then at the same level of technicality go around saying that nothing is certain.

Quote:

But the word, in our culture, is taken a certain way.  It implies, or is understood to imply that the person is completely undecided about the existence of god.  I am agnostic in a technical sense, but not in a practical sense.




I agree with this.  If you want to make a technical distinction, you can, but - and this is the thing - you can't then also say that being an atheist technically means only a lack of belief, passive or active.  Then you run into the problem of defining the distinctive meanings out of words.

Quote:

If that sounds nitpicky, let me ask you the question I have asked other people here and never received an answer.  You will see why I feel the need to differentiate.

Would you feel comfortable telling someone you're "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy?




I believe I was the one who first mentioned the tooth fairy in this thread, though I could be wrong - and as I said then, I am an a-toothfairy-ist.  I am not agnostic about the tooth fairy in any sense.  I would not feel comfortable saying I was an agnostic about the tooth fairy to a man on the street, nor would I feel comfortable saying I was agnostic about the tooth fairy to a philosophy professor.  Agnosticism, even in its technical sense, requires active belief that an issue is either undecided or undecidable.  Admitting you could be wrong about something doesn't make you an agnostic - it only makes you intellectually honest.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/14/13 02:45 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17801372 - 02/14/13 02:32 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
If the word "agnostic" was generally understood to mean someone who does not believe in "    " until they see evidence for it, I would use the word "agnostic."  And of course, that is what agnostic means.  But if society understood it to mean that, then the word "agnostic" would have the same negative connotation as atheism.  Society takes "agnostic" to mean "well ya never know."  That's why you wouldn't feel comfortable (I'm assuming) calling yourself "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy, even though you are one.  You wouldn't feel comfortable saying "You never know" regarding the tooth fairy, even though you are agnostic about it.  Yet you do feel comfortable saying you "don't believe" in the tooth fairy. 

Now imagine someone coming along and trying to pigeonhole your beliefs - either you label yourself as "agnostic" regarding the tooth fairy, or you have an unreasonable disbelief in the tooth fairy.  That's what it feels like to be an atheist.




I think most people would be alright if you said - "I'm an atheist, but I'm a reasonable one - tell me why you think God exists and I'll consider it."

I think you'll also find that there are a fair amount of reasonable deists out there who believe in God but are open to being shown that they are wrong.  But they don't go around claiming to be agnostics.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/14/13 02:45 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #17801424 - 02/14/13 02:42 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Look at this another way, it's normal usage to say something like, "We have to be agnostic about the existence of Big Foot" but it's not normal usage to say "we have to be agnostics about Big Foot".  Check out the respective amount of google search results for each:

"We have to be agnostics about"

"We have to be agnostic about"

It's possible to be atheist or deist but to label some of your beliefs as agnostic - that's simply a description of them.  But to claim to actually be an agnostic is to make a claim of identity, and that identity requires that your beliefs are only agnostic.


--------------------


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Recent Oversaturation Of Christian God Shit Here...
( 1 2 3 all )
fireworks_godS 4,701 57 11/27/05 01:15 PM
by Gomp
* Drugs and Christianity shroomsbury 761 5 02/03/03 09:34 AM
by Demon
* why christianity is bullshit
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
KingOftheThing 24,570 161 04/24/11 05:50 PM
by Holy Bud
* I want you guys to understand Christian Judgment
( 1 2 3 4 all )
World Spirit 4,363 65 05/05/03 09:33 PM
by CosmicJoke
* Christian Rationalism. An answer ? MAIA 1,339 2 08/04/02 05:08 AM
by MAIA
* Atheist Website responds to Christian Letter
( 1 2 all )
Swami 4,129 20 06/22/03 03:55 PM
by Sclorch
* Christianity, Colonialism, Capitalism and Islam. atomikfunksoldier 2,017 14 07/14/03 07:44 AM
by gnrm23
* Atheism.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
evilchipmunk 8,013 90 07/26/04 09:58 AM
by Hanky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
84,889 topic views. 3 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.016 seconds on 16 queries.