Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The 'Nones' are taking over the country
Posts
Qingu, I see your argument and would direct you back one of my recent posts where I made the EXACT SAME FUCKING points but replaced "atheist" with "Christian" as YOUR muddling of THOSE terms was equally as infuriating to me and as detrimental to the discussion as what you are arguing now.
I know that I'm not going to fall through my chair because I've seen very strong evidence that my chair will support my weight. I know that on a theoretical level, it might not, but I've run a CBA, and decided it was worth sitting.
I have yet to see any evidence for or against the existence of God.
Whatever you claim to believe about the possibility of God's existence (specifically Yahweh's), you do not modify your behavior in a way that indicates you think the possibility is remotely likely.
specifically here
Not to mention that, unlike god-centric religions like christianity, Judaism focuses on your adherence to a list of 613 laws, not your faith in the existance fo a higher power.
To break down the core of each fo the Abrahamic religions would look like this:
Judaism is about action/deed
Christianity is about faith/belief
Islam is about submission/devotion
I have trouble arguing against eventual existence of omnipotence(in our current understanding of the word) in the universe. I judge the odds of an intellect evolving and surpassing ours to a point where it is beyond our current understanding as unlikely enough for me to consider myself firm atheist, but I've never been good going against that in a discussion. Could be just me.
This is why I mentioned "argument of insistence". Because apart from saying that, how does your position distinguish you in anyway from an atheist, other then you going on - in this one very specific context - to type long paragraphs about how "you can't prove a negative".
there's no fallacy, dude.
the fallacy is when you say "it's impossible to have evidence that I'm right, so the lack of evidence must mean that I'm right"
Sometimes it's okay for there to not be a clear answer.
This is a problem because most people don't understand the word "agnostic" to indicate a generalized metaphysical position. They understand it to mean a specifically religious position—namely that you're on the fence. But you're not on the fence at all, functionally speaking.
And this is why I have been talking about the definition creep of the word "atheism"
because there are some "athesists" who would say the exact same thing as me, but there are other "athesists" who believe that I am entirely full of shit for entertaining the idea that a god might exist.
People use the word "atheist" to mean too much, and all it does is muddy discussion.
See the thing is though, this isn't even god. God is a word we use very specifically to refer to religious deities. Your generic omnipotent intelligence would be talking about some other concept entirely.
That's wrong. I haven't followed your argument, but that last part is VERY wrong. If you can't construct your problem within a scientific framework, lack of evidence does mean that the hypothesis does not deserve any credibility.
ellm, I'd agree with you, but I believe too many people equate "omnipotent" as god.
lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack
occam's razor isn't scientific fact, it is a tool of probability
the difference with those examples is that they were formulated for the PURPOSE of being false.
that isn't a meaningful difference
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
did you move those heavy goalposts all by yourself?
Mmmmm....that's not what you were saying? Lack of evidence is not "impossible to have evidence" either.(as I said, I haven't followed your argument, so if you meant something else, sorry.)
My favourite wikipedia link, not needed but I like to pimp it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Of course. That's why I distinguished between what's commonly called Soft Atheism (I don't believe) and Hard Atheism (I believe against).
it absolutely is
we know those things are false because they were manufactured for that purpose. That absolutely makes a difference.
the absurdity of bringing up the beck example, of course, is because of just how many liberals who, knowing full well it was manufactured, still wish secretly that it will one day turn out to be true.
except that it is unnecisarily confusing to take two very different beliefs (soft atheism is just as distinct from hard atheism as it is from theism itself) and to put them both under the same moniker.
or, to put it another way, what would you call some one who "doesn't not believe in god"?
atheist: Does not believe in the existence of a God
agnostic: Is uncertain if there is a God or not
I consider myself an atheist because you cannot prove a God to exist. I have seen no evidence that the universe has any need for any sentient designer or controller. The universe is pretty damn awesome all by itself. Thus, I do not believe in a God.
Does this mean I completely disallow for the existence of God? No. If a God exists, and the means of measuring and quantifying are simply beyond our current means, and one day we DO find evidence, or even proof, cool. I'm a flexible creature. I'm capable of adjusting my world view and philosophies when new data becomes available. Hell, I'm even ok with being wrong. I'm reasonably certain I'm right, but hey, I'm human, and making mistakes is practically our number one past time.
Which is why agnostics, as defined above, irritate me. Are they afraid of commitment? Do they fear being wrong if they choose a side? Or are they simply too lazy to do any examination on the subject and come to a conclusion?
"What makes a man turn neutral? Gold? Lust for power? Or is he simply born with a heart full of neutrality?"
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
Could you expand on this? Is "lack of evidence does mean that the hypothesis does not deserve any credit" somehow contingent on the hypothesis being articulated within a scientific framework? So, if I operate outside of a scientific framework I do not need evidence?
That is what I take you to be saying.
@Arch, I looked back at some of your posts, but I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that I define atheists functionally, but not Christians?
Well, you have a point. On one hand, I think it's fair to call someone whose beliefs are basically Deist, but who nevertheless goes to church on Easter and Christmas, a "Christian."
On the other hand, I think there is a strong benefit to limiting the definition of Christian in a clear way, just to avoid confusion with other religious traditions like Deism and Unitarianism. I prefer to limit "Christians" to people who believe, at minimum, that Jesus is the son of Yahweh rose from the dead and this act was salvific in nature. I don't think it's beneficial to include "fans of Jesus' philosophy" as Christians because then Christianity becomes a philosophical position, like Platonism, and not a religion.
But really, when it comes down to it, I'm willing to call people whatever they want to be called, and I don't have problems calling people "Jewish atheists" or "Christian Deists." Oftentimes when I'm writing about this stuff on here, I'm trying to get someone who self-identifies as Christian to realize that, belief-wise, he's an atheist and so maybe shouldn't even bother.
Not a defining quality. Not green.
It's a fuck up. "Lack of evidence" should be "impossibility to get evidence". My bad, I apologize. Thank you for pointing that out, it was probably why Evander replied that way too, I hadn't noticed.
I could just as easily claim that religion was formulated for the purpose of being false. Opiate of the masses etc.
For that matter, what about Santa Claus?
If we decide we aren't comfortable with qualifiers, you just need to make up another word.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
you should go back and read my argument (or, if you like, ask me some specific questions to feel out my position) because I feel like you really aren't quite getting me.
I do not believe in the existence of a God. I do not disbelieve in the existence of a God. I find the existence of a god to be less likely, but still possible. I also come from a religion where belief in God, while expected, isn't strictly required, so I still consider myself to be a religious man, while not believing in God. (This is the one that really pisses Qingu off, I think.)
it absolutely is
we know those things are false because they were manufactured for that purpose. That absolutely makes a difference.[/QUOTE]
Okay, Evander. Would you say that you feel the same way about God as you do about the existence of Santa Claus, Bigfoot, fairies, UFOs, demons, and secretive, economy-controlling Jewish conspiracies?
These aren't reducto-ad-absurdums made up for rhetorical purposes. People actually believe in them, like people actually believe in God.
And like God, there is no evidence to support their existence. But you can't prove they don't exist, so....?
do you have any evidence of the fabrication of god? it's absurd to think you would, due to the fact that it was done many thousands of years ago, but that's kind of the point. Since we can't know for sure, I see nothing wrong with simply accepting the small possibility, keeping an eye out for evidence in EITHER direction, and moving on with our lives.
As for Santa Claus, I was never raised to believe in him, so it wasn't much of a question for me.
That's all I've ever wanted to do. People fight against it, surprisingly.
No, hard atheism is a subset of soft atheism. Soft atheism is simply lack of a belief in god. It's the position that encompasses everything that's not actually positive belief in god. Hard atheists, by definition, lack a belief in god. The only difference is that hard atheists have an additional belief that there is no god. Hard atheism is soft atheism plus a specific belief.
If by your double negative you mean that he does believe in god, he's a theist. If you mean that he's undecided, he's a soft atheist, because he lacks a belief in god. Indecision about god =/= belief in god.
Eh. Hard atheism is a matter of words. We use it for the same reason others use agnosticism - so we can discriminate against people we find offensive by putting them in another group.
Not at all. "There is no such thing as god" is a positive statement that requires evidence to support. "I lack a belief in god" is not (unless you're arguing with a real stickler who demands evidence that you do not, in fact, have a belief in god).
So is "There is no such thing as elves."
Don't dodge the issue. There are any number of completely unsubstantiated myths we have that weren't created "for the purpose of being false," but no one is making the claim that since we can't disprove their existence, we have to treat it as an equally possible case.
edit: and as far as the fabrication of God, that's pretty easy. There are a bunch of religions with contradictory, mutually exclusive religious positions. Someone has certainly fabricated something.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
Yes, that is what I am saying exactly. It may not have ever been explicitly stated, but it was heavily implied.
Now here is a nice avenue for debate- I believe that in order for Christianity (and other religions) to flourish in the diminishing social sphere they (apparently, to keep with the thread) occupy they NEED to undergo memetic evolution to become more of a personal philosophy influenced by certain works and less of a religion that takes those works literally.
I have implied this a lot, and it seemed to me that you take contention with this (as evidenced by your ideas decrying the Bible being treated as "metaphor"). I am now directly posing this statement to you and others(instead of asking you to read between the lines, which is an unhelpful tool for debate, and I apologize)
To this end and following this idea I feel that both scientific thought and religions are perfectly compatible, and in some ways this newfound malleability to common religious dogma can lead to interesting avenues of insight and personal growth even among "SCIENCE". For example, a more liberal Christian dogma could claim that the emergence of consciousness in the primate that became Man was their God "making" man in his image i.e. sapient.