RE: Agnosticism

RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 2:53:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I don't recall making any such conclusion or saying anything like 10%. I don't think I could put a percentage or probability on the question. This is where I got it from: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I will say, however, that I do tend to bristle whenever an atheist may be cajoling me when I say, for example, that I'm 90% certain that there is no god, and they're trying to get me to state it with 100% certainty. I won't do that, but I have encountered a few atheists who can get a bit pushy in that regard. So, I might make an issue out of that, but I would never mock anyone's beliefs one way or the other - except when they try to "convert" me. Okay, now I remember, but I was just using that figure for the purpose of example. I wasn't actually claiming that I'm 90% certain that there isn't a god; it was just a number I pulled to demonstrate that even a small amount of uncertainty was not good enough for Spanish Mat Master. Even he admitted that there was a small amount of uncertainty in everything he says, but when I state as much in what I say, he gets all upset. He was as much as demanding that I express absolute certainty that there is no god (or no Azonier or whatever name he was using), even though he kept quibbling that he didn't really mean absolute certainty.

PeonForHer -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 2:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa." Gawd. Is that how much our concept of "reason" has degenerated? To say that there is no big fluffy pink elephant controlling the universe is also a claim without evidence. Who cares? Who would even bother exercising his mind for a split second over it? Who can be bothered to spend their lives trying to disprove the fantasies that keep certain people happy? I give up. I admit it. I cannot disprove the existence of big, day-glo coloured, stetson-wearing giraffes with moustaches, who are controlling all our destinies. Religionists win. I mean, seriously, what a complete waste of time . . . .

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 2:59:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Of course there are things we don't know about the universe. Nobody said otherwise. But I could, of course, start again. - "How do you know that you have a nose, if you can't exclude Azonier?" - Because I feel it. - "But if Azonier, you would have exactly the same feelings, even with no nose, so your feelings are no prove that you have a nose" - You are arrogant, flambuoyant, irrational, bizarre, convoluted , grandiose and I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing... - "Fuck you. Now - the truth. Look into yourself. How exactly do you exclude Azonier?" - Because... well... because... I have no reason to think... because... ehm... by Occam's Razor, ok. - "Then why don't you use then Occam's Razor for God?" ... silence. I could start again. Meh. Nevermind. This is ridiculous. You admitted more than once that you didn't even read some of my responses, so if you're not even bothering to do that, then why bother discussing these issues to begin with? (It's humorously ironic that you say "not hearing not hearing not hearing" about me when you're the one who doesn't bother reading the responses to you and puts people on hide. I don't do that.) In any case, based on this summary of yours, it's quite obvious that you never read or bothered to grasp anything I was trying to say. So, you're the one who is "not hearing not hearing not hearing," not me.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 3:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 To say "there is no god" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a god." I see no difference, so if we're going to criticize the religious for making claims without evidence, it's best to avoid doing the same thing ourselves. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The thing is, there is evidence, at least terms of historical documentation and artifacts regarding what human beings have written and claimed to have seen. This is true for stories about Santa Claus, as well as the Bible and other religious writings. I'm getting confused here, can you clarify, is there or is there not evidence? Yes, there is evidence that can possibly demonstrate that religious scriptures are questionable and probably false, so if someone was trying to discredit a particular religion, that would be possible. Just as we can find the literature and fictional stories from which the Santa Claus legend was derived. But that's what would be required in making a specific claim and providing the evidence to support it. You were asking how you can say "there is no Santa" and no one calls upon you to prove it, it's because most adults already know of the evidence and the backstory behind the Santa Claus legend. But if you didn't know that and simply said "there is no Santa" just based on a gut feeling, then I would consider that to be an unsupported claim.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 3:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa." Gawd. Is that how much our concept of "reason" has degenerated? To say that there is no big fluffy pink elephant controlling the universe is also a claim without evidence. Who cares? I certainly wouldn't. quote: Who would even bother exercising his mind for a split second over it? I wouldn't know; that's why I'm agnostic. But if someone wants to challenge me and demand that I say outright "there is no big fluffy pink elephant controlling the universe," and if I don't, I'm considered "irrational" (or worse), then I'm probably going resist that line of reasoning. I would ask the same question as you: Why expend energy going around and saying "there is no big fluffy pink elephant controlling the universe"? I'll just say "I don't know" and be done with it, but apparently, that's not considered "rational" from a positive atheist viewpoint. That was the whole reason I started the thread, in order to get opinions on the topic. quote: Who can be bothered to spend their lives trying to disprove the fantasies that keep certain people happy? Exactly. Why bother saying it at all? quote: I give up. I admit it. I cannot disprove the existence of big, day-glo coloured, stetson-wearing giraffes with moustaches, who are controlling all our destinies. Religionists win. I mean, seriously, what a complete waste of time . . . . Why would religionists win? Can't anyone see that there is a position between belief and disbelief? Are you saying that this is an either-or question? This is precisely why agnostics might inadvertently "misinterpret" the atheist position. You're automatically lumping me in with religionists if I don't toe the line 100%, as if there's a "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude being displayed by atheists, particularly by Spanish Mat Master. I've had this discussion in other forums, where I was called a "fence-sitter" for not coming and saying "there is no god." That's what I'm wondering about, and that's why I'm asking.

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 3:35:10 PM)
quote: But if someone wants to challenge me and demand that I say outright "there is no big fluffy pink elephant controlling the universe," and if I don't, I'm considered "irrational" (or worse), then I'm probably going resist that line of reasoning. You may want to check out the atheist PR thread.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 4:07:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa." Gawd. Is that how much our concept of "reason" has degenerated? To say that there is no big fluffy pink elephant controlling the universe is also a claim without evidence. Who cares? Who would even bother exercising his mind for a split second over it? Who can be bothered to spend their lives trying to disprove the fantasies that keep certain people happy? I give up. I admit it. I cannot disprove the existence of big, day-glo coloured, stetson-wearing giraffes with moustaches, who are controlling all our destinies. Religionists win. I mean, seriously, what a complete waste of time . . . . Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. In the case of Santa and god in particular, it is. So the time wasting is his because he actually didnt say what he thought he did.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 9:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I give up. I admit it. I cannot disprove the existence of big, day-glo coloured, stetson-wearing giraffes with moustaches, who are controlling all our destinies. The question is precisely, you can. And you do. Following instinctively a rule which you probably would include in "common sense". And the religious can also. And do. Applying the same rule. But they don't use it on God. In other words: if religious people would use common sense with God, they would easily conclude that there is no God.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 4:51:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Yes, there is evidence that can possibly demonstrate that religious scriptures are questionable and probably false, so if someone was trying to discredit a particular religion, that would be possible. Just as we can find the literature and fictional stories from which the Santa Claus legend was derived. But that's what would be required in making a specific claim and providing the evidence to support it. Is there another god named God out there? I thought we'd been over this.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 5:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Yes, there is evidence that can possibly demonstrate that religious scriptures are questionable and probably false, so if someone was trying to discredit a particular religion, that would be possible. Just as we can find the literature and fictional stories from which the Santa Claus legend was derived. But that's what would be required in making a specific claim and providing the evidence to support it. Is there another god named God out there? I thought we'd been over this. "God" is not a name; it's a job title.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 5:45:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Is there another god named God out there? I thought we'd been over this. Is there another god named "God" ...now there's a hoot! I've always found atheists to be fairly intelligent, but when it comes to religion some of them are as ignorant as a bag of hammers. Though actually, of course, a bag of hammers would have the advantage of being unable to indulge the conceit that it knew anything. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 7:12:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 "God" is not a name; it's a job title. Cool, you referred to it as a job description before, I'm fine with that. Hopefully we're expressing the same thing two different ways. So job, as in doing something. What is Gods job, what is he supposed to be doing?

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 7:47:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 "God" is not a name; it's a job title. That was a cute answer, but I have a feeling you're going to pay for it. [:D] K.

Azonier -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 8:12:44 AM)
I've got your nose. And there's nothing you can do about it. Enjoy your day.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 8:42:27 AM)
[sm=rofl.gif]

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 9:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Yes, it was. And still, people understood it and pointed it out to me. Therefore, it was not incomprehensible. Actually it made things incomprehensible until someone who knew spanish showed up and translated for us. That's the one that sticks out in my mind because that's when I stopped reading the on topic portion of your game. The problem at this point is that I don't know spanish, is there anyone left in the thread who you haven't alienated who speaks spanish? There are various phrases like when when you informed zonie that you were interested in having a conversation with a 5 year old that I can figure out based on context and others that are inscrutable but I think probably don't make a difference. But that stuff adds up so that when I'm informed that what I thought you were saying: "LevelOf("2+2=4") = LevelOf("there is no God")" is not your position I look back and think fuck I've had to edit much of what this guys said to make sense of it, how much of this guys position am I actually getting? Even when a sentence makes sense in english I know that I can't trust that he's meaning what he's saying, how often am I missing cases of him saying one thing and meaning another? Now I suppose you have a point that the language barrier doesn't truly rise to the definition of incomprehensible if we try hard enough we'll probably get on the same page eventually. But the speed with which you get hostile really demotivates people to make that effort so whether you're difficult to understand or incomprehensible effectively becomes a distinction without a difference.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/4/2011 12:44:03 PM)
Ok, GotSteel. Thanks for the explanations. Maybe I should use more formal demostrations, and more symbolic logic. If you or anybody wants that I make a more formal demostration of anything I said, just tell me. Including the "level of" - thing.

SpanishMatMaster -> Trying (12/4/2011 12:55:21 PM)
Let me see... 1. We want to follow rules, which allow us to say that we have a nose (for example). 2. Let us define Unoser as a being whose existence implies, that we have no nose, and what our perceptions on the matter are misleading, and Unoser is not detectable in any rational way. 3(2). If Unoser exists, we have no nose. 4. There is only one rational way to affirm that Unoser does not exist: Occam's Razor. 5(1,4). We must include Occam's Razor in the set of rules we follow to decide things. 6. There is no evidence for God either. 7(5,6). We must conclude that there is no God. How is that as semi-formal proof? Premises have no precents (as 1, 2, 4 and 6) and the steps are marked with their precendents (3, 5 and 7). About the probabilities: 1. Without Occam's Razor, we cannot calculate (seriously) the probability of a scenario, where 2+2 are not 4. 2. Without Occam's Razor, we cannot calculate the probability of a scenario, where God exists. 3(1,2). Without Occam's Razor, we cannot say that one is more probable, equally probable or less probable as the other. 4. With Occam's Razor, we conclude that the scenarios where 2+2 are not 4 are not real (do not occur). 5. With Occam's Razor, we conclude that the scenarios where God exists do not occur. 6(4,5). We conclude that 2+2=4 and that God does not exist, using the same kind of premises and steps. 7(6). Therefore, we assure one thing with the same degree of certainty = In both cases, for the assert to be wrong, a scenario which was rejected by the same rule, would have to be false. So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful.

Moonhead -> RE: Trying (12/4/2011 1:25:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful. Piffle. You won't be thankful, and you certainly won't admit that you're wrong, you'll just put them on ignore.

Politesub53 -> RE: Trying (12/4/2011 4:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster So. If someone can tell me which premises are wrong or which steps are invalid, I would be thankful. According to logic, all of it is invalid, as Occams razor is in itself just theory. "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on ~~ Walter of Chatton

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02