Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
« 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Atheism 3.0
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 6:08pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 6:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Although people did not commit martyrdom in the name of fairies as far as I know, nor did they do such things in the name of Billy, my imaginary friend.

This is a non-sequitur, as the fact that people martyred themselves to a concept does nothing to demonstrate that they are correct.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;

2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

...

We know of no irrefutable objections to its being physically possible that there are multiple universes.

There are multiple universes.

Again, semantics, in this case matter.

Something else that matters is context, which you are fervently stripping from all of these quotes. Because we have mountains of evidence that life evolved from natural processes, and there are no irrefutable objections to this explanation of said mountains, therefore it is as "true" as anything else that we hold scientifically to be true. Sure, if you leave out the part about the mountains of evidence, you can make the argument sound absurd and like it justifies anything, but that's what's called a "straw man."

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I wonder if the universe is so chaotic and that if there are multiple universes--could miraculous events also be considered inevitable and therefore not miraculous?

Yes. In fact I said exactly that in the "Proof for an Intelligent Creator" thread earlier this evening.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 6:27pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 6:37pm (5 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
Right, so then, by your own logic, fairies (for instance), are not only possible. They are probable because they are inevitable.

I did not say that because people committed martyrdom--God exists. I said that people, at least, behaved and reacted in a manner that seems to indicate that the concept of God differs greatly from the concept of fairies. They did not die over fairies--as far as I know. This indicates that it may be rational to conclude that they witnessed something that affected them far more than an abstract concept akin to the tooth fairy.

That "something" is of course, not necessarily, a divine being.

Furthermore I have stated repeatedly that what we consider "evidence" is somewhat limited based on the idea that we ourselves are limited in our capacity to distinguish it or even define it. This seems especially probable if one were to compare our species' "place" to what we observe in the universe or to look at our pale blue dot in comparison to the cosmos.

EDIT: I'm sorry if this has been annoying you--it is apparent that we flat out disagree on some principles with regard to forming a logical argument (as in the case with Dawkins). Nevertheless, I've found it to be quite enjoyable actually--I otherwise wouldn't have continued to discuss this.

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 6:40pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 6:46pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Right, so then, by your own logic, fairies (for instance), are not only possible. They are probable because they are inevitable.

Somewhere and sometime in the universe, sure. But is not apparently here or now, and at this time fairies do not, as far as we can tell, exist. No one has said they are impossible. Just that there is no reason to believe that they exist at any time or place of human experience, which makes them entirely like things that do not exist.

In Africa there are tribes that speak of a creature called Mokele Mbembe. Some people believe, based on the natives' descriptions, that Mokele Mbembe is a brachiosaurus, or a descendant thereof, surviving in the African jungle. If I say I do not believe that Mokele Mbembe exists, that doesn't mean I don't believe that brachiosaurus once existed. So maybe fairies did exist, or will exist -- or even DO exist -- but from our perspective as humans on Earth in 2009, there's no way to distinguish them from something that doesn't exist, so we put them in the same category until we find reason to do otherwise.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I did not say that because people committed martyrdom--God exists. I said that people, at least, behaved and reacted in a manner that seems to indicate that the concept of God differs greatly from the concept of fairies. They did not die over fairies--as far as I know. This indicates that it may be rational to conclude that they witnessed something that affected them far more than an abstract concept akin to the tooth fairy.

No, it's only rational to conclude that they felt more strongly about the abstract concept of a god than anyone is known to have felt about the abstract concept of fairies. It still says nothing about the validity or source of those feelings.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Furthermore I have stated repeatedly that what we consider "evidence" is somewhat limited based on the idea that we ourselves are limited in our capacity to distinguish it or even define it.

Evidence is that information which can be reliably observed and studied, and from which we can draw conclusions. It's not hard to nail down.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 6:54pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 6:55pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
I simply do not place as much....faith in our species ability to "understand" the world. I think we're very good at it, but I think, ultimately, even what we consider "evidential" never really approaches truth (as far as we can understand that concept).

I think that, pure evidentialism is somewhat self-defeating just as pure naturalism might be.

Although, if one could not believe rationally in naturalism because his/her cognitive abilities may not be "reliable" as a result of unguided evolution, then could one be rational at all--if rationality is in fact stemming from a possibly unreliable cognitive mechanism?

This somewhat begs the question: can we know if our mental capacities are reliable? What would constitute reliability? It seems to be somewhat of a paradox as we seem incapable of thinking outside of ourselves (in fact that sounds rather absurd).

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 7:01pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 7:04pm (2 edits total) Edited By: DorkmanScott
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I simply do not place as much....faith in our species ability to "understand" the world.

This contradicts your position and earlier argumentation. You have said that there are things we can know that do not require evidence -- you think it is valid to "know" something to be true without any evidence at all. This is certainly not the position of someone who does not put faith in humanity's ability to understand. It is, if anything, evidence of too much faith, and faith quite misplaced to boot.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
I think we're very good at it, but I think, ultimately, even what we consider "evidential" never really approaches truth (as far as we can understand that concept).

We define the concept. It is that which is consistent with our expectations and supported by evidence.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
This somewhat begs the question: can we know if our mental capacities are reliable? What would constitute reliability?

Corroboration with the observations of others.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
It seems to be somewhat of a paradox as we seem incapable of thinking outside of ourselves (in fact that sounds rather absurd).

As before, it's "living as though."

We can't prove that we're not all just brains in a jar living out a fantasy fed to us by electrodes. But if we are, that fantasy is internally consistent and it behooves us to live as though it is reality. Because there is a good chance that it is, and if it's not, it's close enough to be indistinguishable for our purposes.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 7:20pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 7:26pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
"This contradicts your position and earlier argumentation. You have said that there are things we can know that do not require evidence -- you think it is valid to "know" something to be true without any evidence at all. This is certainly not the position of someone who does not put faith in humanity's ability to understand. It is, if anything, evidence of too much faith, and faith quite misplaced to boot."

No, this is a misunderstanding of the difference between knowledge and faith. By my logic, I actually seem to be suggesting that we rely on varying type/degrees of faith for just about everything.

"Corroboration with the observations of others."

pure evidentialism is self-defeating because it is subjective. We cannot think outside ourselves. Multitudes of people cannot think outside themselves. They can communicate--but this means that what we consider evidence is still subjective based on our shared experience, which is still at it's core--subjective.

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 7:51pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
No, this is a misunderstanding of the difference between knowledge and faith. By my logic, I actually seem to be suggesting that we rely on varying type/degrees of faith for just about everything.

I would almost agree, except that I know you would include religious faith in that, and I don't believe that religious faith can actually be properly called faith.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
pure evidentialism is self-defeating because it is subjective. We cannot think outside ourselves. Multitudes of people cannot think outside themselves. They can communicate--but this means that what we consider evidence is still subjective based on our shared experience, which is still at it's core--subjective.

This is very frustrating because I answered this in the very post you're quoting, which leads me to believe that -- as you did with Dawkins -- you are cherry-picking those things I've said which you feel like you can go philosophy 101 over, and intentionally ignoring the rest.

If you're intent on getting into the philosophical quagmire of solopsism, then I can't stop you because hey, you don't even know if I really exist. But the fact is that in order to get anything accomplished, we must accept our perceptions are true, particularly when they coincide with the reported perceptions of others and -- more importantly -- with a consistent pattern of perception.

If I see a man take off into the sky like Superman, I know that it is more likely that I have just had an hallucination than that such a thing actually happened, because such a thing is distinctly outside the established pattern of perception that we define collectively as "reality." If such a thing happened regularly, and this perception could be corroborated bot just with other peoples' accounts but by secondary evidence as well, then that becomes woven into "reality." But only when the pattern reaches such critical mass as it is more sensible to assume such a thing true than false.

If up became down and unpredictable things happened every minute of every day, then it would be impossible to define a shared reality, and then it all becomes subjective. But as functional human beings with a shared pattern of perception, it behooves us to accept what is in front of us, and only accept something that seems to break the pattern if some alternative pattern can been determined that fits both the new information and the previously established.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 8:00pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/3 8:14pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Asterix_of_Gaul
"I would almost agree, except that I know you would include religious faith in that, and I don't believe that religious faith can actually be properly called faith."

Well, to be fair, this is why I remained somewhat ambiguous on the issue of faith (I mentioned different types). So you basically are agreeing with me here and this goes into the whole thing about evidentialism.

As a species, we of course do the best we can.

Your comments about Superman seem to ignore what we established earlier. For example, a person may fly despite gravity due to inevitable chance. Is a miracle miraculous if it is reproducible? If it happened over and over again on a regular basis--then it wouldn't be considered miraculous.

I don't think I need to add anything else. Thanks for the discussion.

EDIT: I'll leave with the idea that even if Christ was resurrected or Moses talked to a burning bush or if a chocolate eiffel tower appeared--even these occurrences could be interpreted differently. None of them would have to mean that a divine being exists, would they?

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Manager Emeritus
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 8:21pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Your comments about Superman seem to ignore what we established earlier. For example, a person may fly despite gravity due to inevitable chance.

You have misunderstood that portion of the conversation. That chance refers to the quantum scale of things and an infinite period of time.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
Is a miracle miraculous if it is reproducible? If it happened over and over again on a regular basis--then it wouldn't be considered miraculous.

I hear childbirth referred to as "miraculous" all the time, and it happens many times every day.

Asterix_of_Gaul posted:
EDIT: I'll leave with the idea that even if Christ was resurrected or Moses talked to a burning bush or if a chocolate eiffel tower appeared--even these occurrences could be interpreted differently. None of them would have to mean that a divine being exists, would they?

Nope. You're quite correct. Even if those things could be proven to have happened, their cause would still be up for debate.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Title : Title: Senate Moderator
Total Posts :
Private Messages (0)
My Blog
My Collection
 Date Posted: 11/3 8:38pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Well, really, the odds are that once in the history of a universe, a rock has flown upward in the sky due to all the molecules moving straight up at the same time. It's not quite the same as controlled flight.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/3 9:34pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Quix put into words, much more effectively, how I feel (in a sense):

"The basis for my belief is that there is no way for us to step outside of our conceptual and evaluative framework to determine whether our supposition corresponds to the way things actually are. Because we will always necessarily have a particular viewpoint on the universe around us (the nature of how we think), there will always be a divide between the phenomena and noumena of whatever objects might exist naturally and supernaturally. This leads to the agnostic theism in question. I cannot escape the natural limits of human cognition nor can I objectively assess my conceptual paradigm (the conundrum is that we use our evaluative framework to evaluate our evaluative framework, rather than an objective measure), so I cannot claim knowledge." --Quix

I'm not the most "religious" person so much as I have a religious belief or faith. I am, in many ways, rather anti-institutional actually (at least, I like to think so).

I take that extra leap of faith, basically, when it comes to what I think about the existence of a divine being.

However, I wouldn't necessarily call my faith "blind" as if to imply that there was absolutely no rational/reasonable thought behind it.

With that I would probably self-identify as an agnostic theist (if speaking generally). Although, I find myself fluctuating between agnostic and gnostic from time to time (if that makes any sense).

In light of how I understand knowledge--reality vs. actuality etc.--

I find ideas like the first cause argument, associated with arguments about a "necessary" being, or the fine tuning argument, or the anthropic principle, or quantum theory, etc---these are particularly...juicy. tongue

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/5 3:24pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Freedom of religion indeed

I love seeing that people want it to be taken down yet they're perfectly okay with their Christ-**** billboards up. Morons.

 

-----signature-----
A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?
An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him? - Terry Pratchett
i.hada.field.AD
But now that I'm older, My heart's colder, And I can see that it's a lie...
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/5 4:18pm Subject: Atheism 3.0 - Date Edited: 11/5 4:21pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Lord_Vivec
I like how a sign that tells atheists they're not alone upsets religious people. What losers that they get upset over a non-offensive sign.


I think I get why they want the sign down. They need to teach their children that God exists before their kids get old enough to begin questioning everything. They try to ram their faith down their kids while they're young. If their kids see this sign, they'll begin questioning sooner and might know that there are other views out there. So this sign works against their agenda of indoctrinating their children.

 

-----signature-----
"Those of us who don't believe in science are being attacked by forces we don't understand...like momentum, acceleration, and gravity."
Gavin Newsom for CA Gov '10!
Property of JEDI_TEEGIRLOO
Currently the most attractive guy in the EUC
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/5 8:51pm Subject: Atheism 3.0
Good point.

I think that we should start demanding that all 'In God we trust' quotes in federal locations be removed. That essentially claiming that all Americans must trust in God. Remove 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance. That is a belief and not one we are obligated to follow.

If any christian complains about atheist encouragement signs, then tell them to do the same thing about their own beliefs before they start whining.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Date Posted: 11/6 12:00am Subject: Atheism 3.0
"In God We Trust" is actually the official national motto.

It is also in the last stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner.

This is, historically, a religious country. People came to the new land seeking religious freedom. The founding fathers, however, were not all Christian or especially religious as far as I know. Nevertheless, I don't think printing "In God We Trust" on the coins violates anything legally.

 

-----signature-----
Fin
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
« 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 » - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, ASPNET0) 2.422