The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
That is a guiding evidentialist principle... I thought it might be relevant to the whole passages of evidentialism present in the thread.
There are many cases in which it is not wrong to believe something that you don't have sufficient evidence for. Most cases involve not having time to gather the requisite evidence.
Skeptical arguments aside.
Yeah, I wasn't really posting it because I have a hard-on for Clifford, so much as that I agree with the passage itself, and the second paragraph was extremely topical.
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% chance that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
MikeMan on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
I thought it was dinosaur bones.
It's a cock made out of time traveling dinosaur bones.
TRY TO KEEP UP, JEEZE
MikeMan on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
While I accept the fact that your penis may be a time-traveling dinoprick I'm going to reject the actual object regardless of its composition.
See how I just tied that into the god thing?
(But I'll accept you, o mighty Thor, if you are a true God.)
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
Because I know he knows that the possibility of a deity existing is not 50%. I know he has a better grasp of probability than this, and the 50/50 thing is in direct contradiction with basic probability, not to mention the very concept of probability.
There's a 50% probability that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
While I accept the fact that your penis may be a time-traveling dinoprick I'm going to reject the actual object regardless of its composition.
See how I just tied that into the god thing?
(But I'll accept you, o mighty Thor, if you are a true God.)
People are confusing the ideas of "I see no positive evidence of it, so I don't believe in god," which is atheism, and "There is no clear evidence of it, but I am still unsure, so I'm unwilling to declare the existence or non-existence of a god," which is agnosticism.
You can be atheist (literally not believing in god) and still be open to the possibility that you are simply wrong. It's called "recognizing human fallibility," not "agnosticism."
Doc on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
People are confusing the ideas of "I see no positive evidence of it, so I don't believe in god," which is atheism, and "There is no clear evidence of it, but I am still unsure, so I'm unwilling to declare the existence or non-existence of a god," which is agnosticism.
You can be atheist (literally not believing in god) and still be open to the possibility that you are simply wrong. It's called "recognizing human fallibility," not "agnosticism."
Not entirely correct on the definitions, although I agree with your message.
Atheism is, as I understand it, not only a positive disbelief in god, i.e., literally saying, "I don't believe in God, because..", but Atheism is also saying, "I possess no positive belief in any deity." Atheism, very literally, means the absence of a belief in a god, although some people narrow it down to simply directly stating, "I do not believe in God." Your second example, "There is no clear..." counts as Atheism (as I know it, anyhow), because it does not possess a belief in God.
In other words, Atheism, by definition, can just be the absence of a belief in a deity, even if you do conceptually make room for the existance of one.
However, as I was taught, Agnosticism is saying, "There could be a god, there might not be a god, but I don't believe that, even if their was, the human mind would be capable of comprehending truly such a being," or any similar philosophy. Agnosticism, as I was taught, isn't, "There may or may not be a God, don't know."
Atheist - A (without, or un-) + theos (god) = Without a god/religion.
Agnostic - A (without, or un-) + gnosis (knowledge or comprehension) = Someone who believes in an incomprehensible nature of _______.
Might be wrong, but these are the definitions I was taught.
Mai Guo-Xun on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
It all boils down to how you define the terms. We really aren't going to get any further.
It all boils down to how you define the terms. We really aren't going to get any further.
We are if someone buys an OED.
Cervetus on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
There's clearly more going on than simply semantics. Drez for example was trolling for a substantially different position than we atheists AND different from the less radical agnostics (whose differences seem far more superficial/semantic than Drez' agnosticism).
However, even ignoring the fact that there are such differences, I still think there's more going on than a simple definitional dispute. Or rather, the definitional dispute is motivated by epistemological confusions and disagreements.
agnostic, noun: One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
It comes down to this. Agnosticism, like that which Drez is describing, prides itself on treating the existence of a deity as some sort of special clause in the epistemological rulebook; to wit:
"A Deity, unlike other creatures fantastical & imagined, shall be heretofore considered as Special, and elevated above other such creatures fantastical & imagined, such as the humble Unicorne and arrogant Giant Space Sloth; and furthermore, vis a vis, ergo, thus, habitually brought up as precisely fifty-fifty in Probability in Arguments against Atheists & other such Dirty Scoundrels who seek to introduce an element of Certainty into an Uncertain World."
It comes down to this. Agnosticism, like that which Drez is describing, prides itself on treating the existence of a deity as some sort of special clause in the epistemological rulebook; to wit:
"A Deity, unlike other creatures fantastical & imagined, shall be heretofore considered as Special, and elevated above other such creatures fantastical & imagined, such as the humble Unicorne and arrogant Giant Space Sloth; and furthermore, vis a vis, ergo, thus, habitually brought up as precisely fifty-fifty in Probability in Arguments against Atheists & other such Dirty Scoundrels who seek to introduce an element of Certainty into an Uncertain World."
I dunno, if anything I think unicorns are more likely than deities. Though granted I'm a crazyperson.
It comes down to this. Agnosticism, like that which Drez is describing, prides itself on treating the existence of a deity as some sort of special clause in the epistemological rulebook; to wit:
"A Deity, unlike other creatures fantastical & imagined, shall be heretofore considered as Special, and elevated above other such creatures fantastical & imagined, such as the humble Unicorne and arrogant Giant Space Sloth; and furthermore, vis a vis, ergo, thus, habitually brought up as precisely fifty-fifty in Probability in Arguments against Atheists & other such Dirty Scoundrels who seek to introduce an element of Certainty into an Uncertain World."
I dunno, if anything I think unicorns are more likely than deities. Though granted I'm a crazyperson.
Insofar as it's possible to imagine a horsie somewhere that evolved a horn, yeah I'm with ya.
It comes down to this. Agnosticism, like that which Drez is describing, prides itself on treating the existence of a deity as some sort of special clause in the epistemological rulebook; to wit:
"A Deity, unlike other creatures fantastical & imagined, shall be heretofore considered as Special, and elevated above other such creatures fantastical & imagined, such as the humble Unicorne and arrogant Giant Space Sloth; and furthermore, vis a vis, ergo, thus, habitually brought up as precisely fifty-fifty in Probability in Arguments against Atheists & other such Dirty Scoundrels who seek to introduce an element of Certainty into an Uncertain World."
I dunno, if anything I think unicorns are more likely than deities. Though granted I'm a crazyperson.
Insofar as it's possible to imagine a horsie somewhere that evolved a horn, yeah I'm with ya.
Not so much with the flying, though.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Pegasus? Either way I don't treat them as unique from deities.
ViolentChemistry on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It comes down to this. Agnosticism, like that which Drez is describing, prides itself on treating the existence of a deity as some sort of special clause in the epistemological rulebook; to wit:
"A Deity, unlike other creatures fantastical & imagined, shall be heretofore considered as Special, and elevated above other such creatures fantastical & imagined, such as the humble Unicorne and arrogant Giant Space Sloth; and furthermore, vis a vis, ergo, thus, habitually brought up as precisely fifty-fifty in Probability in Arguments against Atheists & other such Dirty Scoundrels who seek to introduce an element of Certainty into an Uncertain World."
I dunno, if anything I think unicorns are more likely than deities. Though granted I'm a crazyperson.
Insofar as it's possible to imagine a horsie somewhere that evolved a horn, yeah I'm with ya.
Not so much with the flying, though.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Pegasus? Either way I don't treat them as unique from deities.
My "Left Behind" game taught me the end times will be more like an RTS, complete with women knowing their place and people who use bad words getting shot.
Posts
Yeah, I wasn't really posting it because I have a hard-on for Clifford, so much as that I agree with the passage itself, and the second paragraph was extremely topical.
There's a 50% chance that the very concept of probability is bullshit.
I'm gonna rape you with my time traveling dinosaur cock.
It's a cock made out of time traveling dinosaur bones.
TRY TO KEEP UP, JEEZE
So siggable, but I like my current one.
While I accept the fact that your penis may be a time-traveling dinoprick I'm going to reject the actual object regardless of its composition.
See how I just tied that into the god thing?
(But I'll accept you, o mighty Thor, if you are a true God.)
Your current one is pretty damn good.
You win this round, Trebeck.
*swooshes cape*
You can be atheist (literally not believing in god) and still be open to the possibility that you are simply wrong. It's called "recognizing human fallibility," not "agnosticism."
Not entirely correct on the definitions, although I agree with your message.
Atheism is, as I understand it, not only a positive disbelief in god, i.e., literally saying, "I don't believe in God, because..", but Atheism is also saying, "I possess no positive belief in any deity." Atheism, very literally, means the absence of a belief in a god, although some people narrow it down to simply directly stating, "I do not believe in God." Your second example, "There is no clear..." counts as Atheism (as I know it, anyhow), because it does not possess a belief in God.
In other words, Atheism, by definition, can just be the absence of a belief in a deity, even if you do conceptually make room for the existance of one.
However, as I was taught, Agnosticism is saying, "There could be a god, there might not be a god, but I don't believe that, even if their was, the human mind would be capable of comprehending truly such a being," or any similar philosophy. Agnosticism, as I was taught, isn't, "There may or may not be a God, don't know."
Atheist - A (without, or un-) + theos (god) = Without a god/religion.
Agnostic - A (without, or un-) + gnosis (knowledge or comprehension) = Someone who believes in an incomprehensible nature of _______.
Might be wrong, but these are the definitions I was taught.
We are if someone buys an OED.
However, even ignoring the fact that there are such differences, I still think there's more going on than a simple definitional dispute. Or rather, the definitional dispute is motivated by epistemological confusions and disagreements.
"A Deity, unlike other creatures fantastical & imagined, shall be heretofore considered as Special, and elevated above other such creatures fantastical & imagined, such as the humble Unicorne and arrogant Giant Space Sloth; and furthermore, vis a vis, ergo, thus, habitually brought up as precisely fifty-fifty in Probability in Arguments against Atheists & other such Dirty Scoundrels who seek to introduce an element of Certainty into an Uncertain World."
As long as it's the current and not obs. definitions, no he wouldn't.
So if someone makes a comment on how the church of the FSM is not a real religion or something, you'd be able to file a claim.
I dunno, if anything I think unicorns are more likely than deities. Though granted I'm a crazyperson.
Insofar as it's possible to imagine a horsie somewhere that evolved a horn, yeah I'm with ya.
Not so much with the flying, though.
I read this as Woody Allen.
Are you sure you're not thinking of Pegasus? Either way I don't treat them as unique from deities.
I guess that's me, then. I don't deny, I just don't give a shit.
If some deities were to suddenly knock on my door and ask to borrow a cup of sugar I'd reconsider, of course.
We are the same, you and I.
right