K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
Nope.
Nice to see than Hermoor has an intellectual protégé
- Status
S
sl1982
Guest
No baiting.
A
Armorvil
Guest
It's a matter of definition, really. Does god exist ?
The theist says "yes", the atheist says "no", and the agnostic says "with the information available, I can't know for sure". There are no degrees of certainty in the theist and the atheist's answers, as they're absolutely sure.
So of course, with this definition in mind (the right one, AFAIK), there are fewer atheists than you'd think.
Anyways, I posted in this thread because your definition of atheist and agnostic isn't the same as mine, not that I was disagreeing with you. You can call me an atheist for all I care. And you'd be nice not to call me a troll when I'm clearly not.
The theist says "yes", the atheist says "no", and the agnostic says "with the information available, I can't know for sure". There are no degrees of certainty in the theist and the atheist's answers, as they're absolutely sure.
So of course, with this definition in mind (the right one, AFAIK), there are fewer atheists than you'd think.
Anyways, I posted in this thread because your definition of atheist and agnostic isn't the same as mine, not that I was disagreeing with you. You can call me an atheist for all I care. And you'd be nice not to call me a troll when I'm clearly not.
Last edited:
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
lrn2 informal language. As a rule, people don't say things like "I think x is overwhelmingly likely, but there remains a possibility that not x". They say "x is true".* Just think about how unnatural "with the information available, I can't know for sure" sounds. Does anyone speak like that? Would you say "I'm planning to go shopping today, but there remains a possibility that I might be killed, so I can't be sure"? No, at least I hope not. Most people would say "I'm going shopping today". When an atheist says "God doesn't exist", he means "I consider the possibility of the existence of a god to be so remote that it might as well be zero, and will live my life as if no god existed". The second sentence is very unnatural-sounding and very long winded, so the first phrase is used in its place. Everyone, with the exception of a small minority of pedants, knows what he means. People need to learn that in normal conversation, remote possibilities are usually ignored unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. The remote possibility can be safely ignored because most people will understand that the person speaking knows that the remote possibility exists. The remote possibility is ignored since it's impractical to always take into account all remote possibilities.
This is why I compare your type of agnostic to the Pyrrhonian sceptic. Pyrrho was so obsessed with the fact that he couldn't know anything for certain that he couldn't live his life. He couldn't be certain that he needed to eat to survive. He couldn't be certain that he wouldn't die if he walked off a cliff. Legend has it that he needed to be looked after by others because his scepticism was so debilitating. Living a normal life and having a normal conversation requires assuming things are certain when they are actually just nearly certain. For some reason, there are a group of people who live normally, but apply this kind of debilitating scepticism when it comes to questions about the existence of a god. Perhaps they know that they wouldn't be able to live or communicate normally if they approached every question in life in the same way they approach the question of whether God exists.
This isn't the definition that any atheist uses. The only people who use this definition are people making strawman arguments.
When you define an atheist as someone who claims 100% certainty, calling you a troll is an act of kindness.
*This brings up another pet peeve of mine, which isn't related to this thread. Very often, people will say "x is better than y" about something that is a matter of opinion. And very often, some autist will respond to this by saying "that's just a matter of opinion! x can't be objectively better than y!", as if the first person was unaware of this. The second person thinks he is very clever but is, of course, an idiot. He has apparently not noticed the fact that saying "in my opinion" before stating an opinion is very unnatural and makes one sound as if one lacks the courage of one's convictions and is apologising for having any opinion at all. He has failed to realise that where something is obviously a matter of opinion, normal people use phrases like "x is better than y" because, in the context, it is understood that they are referring to their opinion. Only someone with very poor knowledge of human communication would assume that people saying things like this actually thought that their opinion was an objective fact.
In the same way, when someone says "God doesn't exist", I understand them as meaning that they deem the existence of God to be very unlikely. In the context, it's safe to assume that this is what the person actually means. The chances that the person is discounting a remote possibility for the purposes of practicality are far greater than the chances that he is claiming to be 100% certain.
B
Bosola
Guest
Let's avoid calling each other 'trolls'. I'm sure no-one sincerely believes anyone here is being deliberately disruptive, but it is something of an inflammatory phrase. Let's stick to insulting peoples' arguments, rather than those persons themselves.
--
Now,
It's always the same -
Alice: X
Bob: Y
Alice: THAT'S JUST YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION STOP OPPRESSING ME YOU NAZI!!!11ELEVENTEEN!!1
Honestly. Why is it that, unless you choke your prose with weasel words and countless parenthetical 'in only my exceedingly humble opinion which you are free to ignore...' statements, you're some sort of evil fascist who'd happily send any dissenter to the gas chamber?
Not only are all these apologetic caveats unnecessary, they make for poor prose, too. Compare:
It might be argued by some, with varying degrees of vigour, that Joseph Stalin, by performing what was perhaps a purge against (arguably) the most capable members of his armed forces, perhaps damaged the Soviet Union's capacity to defend itself in certain ways to a degree, possibly even significantly, although others have made other claims at various points in time.
with
By purging talented officers from his army, Stalin crippled Soviet defences.
Which would you rather read? Which one can you read?
--
Now,
This is a real bugbear of mine.
It's always the same -
Alice: X
Bob: Y
Alice: THAT'S JUST YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION STOP OPPRESSING ME YOU NAZI!!!11ELEVENTEEN!!1
Honestly. Why is it that, unless you choke your prose with weasel words and countless parenthetical 'in only my exceedingly humble opinion which you are free to ignore...' statements, you're some sort of evil fascist who'd happily send any dissenter to the gas chamber?
Not only are all these apologetic caveats unnecessary, they make for poor prose, too. Compare:
It might be argued by some, with varying degrees of vigour, that Joseph Stalin, by performing what was perhaps a purge against (arguably) the most capable members of his armed forces, perhaps damaged the Soviet Union's capacity to defend itself in certain ways to a degree, possibly even significantly, although others have made other claims at various points in time.
with
By purging talented officers from his army, Stalin crippled Soviet defences.
Which would you rather read? Which one can you read?
Last edited:
O
obesebear
Guest
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
This can't seriously be what is being debated?
I can't be bothered to read this whole thing, but please, someone tell me I'm wrong.
This can't seriously be what is being debated?
I can't be bothered to read this whole thing, but please, someone tell me I'm wrong.
O
Opine
Guest
Aww, is that really what it sounds like? I say that all the time
Guess I should cut that out...
A
Armorvil
Guest
According to KM, the lexicographer who wrote this is a troll. Oh no, wait, it's the one who wrote the definition of agnostic. In fact, still according to KM, agnostics don't exist. There are only theists and atheists out there.
Last edited:
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
Nice to see that at least one person agrees with me.
What a lot of people fail to take into account is that normal communication requires making a lot of assumptions. For the sake of practicality, we usually adopt a style more like the latter example than the former; we assume that our audience will assume that the first paragraph about Stalin is what we actually meant, because we know that most people will give us the benefit of the doubt and assume that we aren't claiming to be absolutely certain about everything. If it seems odd that we would expect people to make such assumptions, think of it this way:
A person who says Mozart is better than Beethoven either (a) believes that Mozart is objectively better than Beethoven, or (b) understands that this is a matter of opinion and is not intending for his words to be taken literally. We are therefore forced to decide whether to use interpretation (a) or (b). If he is intelligent adult, he is highly unlikely to be unaware of the difference between facts and opinions, so (b) is much more likely than (a), and is therefore what most people would assume.
Those people who say things like "when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me" might do well to look at those two statements about Stalin and think about which one of them looks like it was written by an ass. Or better still, they could try living without making assumptions. Those of us who are sympathetic to David Hume might say that any statement about causality is an assumption, so people who are opposed to making assumptions may wish to walk into oncoming traffic. Surely, they would not make the assumption that this would be fatal, based only on the fact that it has been fatal to a lot of other people who have tried it?
No, that really is what is being debated.
I see nothing in that definition about 100% certainty.
There are certain situations in which calling someone a troll is less insulting than assuming that they actually meant what they said.
Yes, you should.Aww, is that really what it sounds like? I say that all the time
Guess I should cut that out...
See my response to obesebear.
If you actually believe that (and have completely forgotten about that little chart I posted), then I shall waste no more time arguing with you, since it is clear that we are unable to communicate.
Last edited:
X
xLostWingx
Guest
I might go shopping today, unless I need to do something else.
By removing capable members of his armed forces, Stalin damaged the Soviet Union's capacity to defend itself.
I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, but I'm not sure speaking in absolutes is any better than packing sentences full of modifiers. There are pure opinions, and then there are opinions that have been formed based on other information, including facts.
The first sentence of many answers is often, "It depends..." Look at all the reality TV shows, they are objectively rating Singers, Cooks, Designers, etc. even though their products are Song, Food, and Aesthetics. That may not make any of the judges 'right' or 'wrong' but people can make an objective arguement that Mozart is better than Beethoven.
By removing capable members of his armed forces, Stalin damaged the Soviet Union's capacity to defend itself.
I'm not trying to antagonize anyone, but I'm not sure speaking in absolutes is any better than packing sentences full of modifiers. There are pure opinions, and then there are opinions that have been formed based on other information, including facts.
The first sentence of many answers is often, "It depends..." Look at all the reality TV shows, they are objectively rating Singers, Cooks, Designers, etc. even though their products are Song, Food, and Aesthetics. That may not make any of the judges 'right' or 'wrong' but people can make an objective arguement that Mozart is better than Beethoven.
M
m35
Guest
Wow, this thread got crazy again.
Thanks for your methodical answer. That's the kind of insight I was hoping for.
Now a new question for anyone with thoughtful replies. I've seen people espouse the idea of "moral axioms", and that moral systems can be built off those axioms and remain internally consistent. Since it's pretty hard to objectively define moral absolutes, having an internally consistent system may be the best you could get. Now organized religions receive a lot of criticism from people seeing internal inconsistencies in those beliefs. My question is, could those criticisms be seen as a "shell game"? I mean, it's really easy to criticize religions because their moral systems are actually published and known. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like those criticizing stand behind any well documented moral system that is open to good analysis. Is there perhaps some published, non-religious moral system out there that I am unaware of? Or does it even matter?
It's true that people have harmed others as a result of their religious belief. Maybe I should have included that acknowledgement in my first post. The question is, how is this different from many other tendencies? If there is no difference, then is religion really the problem? There's likely a flaw in this parallel, but haven't been able to find it yet.
But I thought higher powers were by definition not directly observable.
I was under the impression that it's rather common knowledge that people are strongly inclined to supernatural/superstitious/religious ideas, especially given the wide acceptance of such beliefs throughout history and cultures. I assumed there had been plenty of scientific study on the topic, such as this article (including the scientist's helpful follow-up). Even Dawkins thinks it's a reasonable idea: "I am thoroughly happy with believing that children are predisposed to believe in invisible gods". But if that assumption is wrong, then it would be good to know.
Indeed, hence why people add the disclaimer "so long as it doesn't hurt others."
Thanks for your methodical answer. That's the kind of insight I was hoping for.
Now a new question for anyone with thoughtful replies. I've seen people espouse the idea of "moral axioms", and that moral systems can be built off those axioms and remain internally consistent. Since it's pretty hard to objectively define moral absolutes, having an internally consistent system may be the best you could get. Now organized religions receive a lot of criticism from people seeing internal inconsistencies in those beliefs. My question is, could those criticisms be seen as a "shell game"? I mean, it's really easy to criticize religions because their moral systems are actually published and known. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like those criticizing stand behind any well documented moral system that is open to good analysis. Is there perhaps some published, non-religious moral system out there that I am unaware of? Or does it even matter?
Last edited:
X
xLostWingx
Guest
@m35
That was exactly my point, the "higher powers" so-to-speak, are not directly observable - I guess the way I said this in my head, isn't what it translated to in text.
People are inclined to ideas which explain that which they do not have the answer to. That's one of the reasons why in the past, everyone flocked towards supernatural and religious ideas, and in modern times people seem to recognize science as a suitable explanation. I'm speaking matter of factly, but as you know, these are only my own observations/beliefs. Although the evolutionary perspective on this topic may hold water.
Something that should be considered when dicussing any moral system, is that regardless of the rules of that system, living in an environment where you are exposed to that system, can influence one's beliefs. A an individual may claim to follow a certain moral philosophy, but you could easily find someone else claiming to follow the same system, and have different ideas about right and wrong. Also, if you are immersed in one of these systems, it is likely that you don't apply the rules indiscriminantly; of course there are those that do, but I would hesitate to say they are practicing true morality. For the most part, I am something of a Rule Utilitarian, but I'm no purist. I think that the "it depends" and the qualifiers of life are just as important as anything else when it comes to moral judgements.
That was exactly my point, the "higher powers" so-to-speak, are not directly observable - I guess the way I said this in my head, isn't what it translated to in text.
People are inclined to ideas which explain that which they do not have the answer to. That's one of the reasons why in the past, everyone flocked towards supernatural and religious ideas, and in modern times people seem to recognize science as a suitable explanation. I'm speaking matter of factly, but as you know, these are only my own observations/beliefs. Although the evolutionary perspective on this topic may hold water.
Something that should be considered when dicussing any moral system, is that regardless of the rules of that system, living in an environment where you are exposed to that system, can influence one's beliefs. A an individual may claim to follow a certain moral philosophy, but you could easily find someone else claiming to follow the same system, and have different ideas about right and wrong. Also, if you are immersed in one of these systems, it is likely that you don't apply the rules indiscriminantly; of course there are those that do, but I would hesitate to say they are practicing true morality. For the most part, I am something of a Rule Utilitarian, but I'm no purist. I think that the "it depends" and the qualifiers of life are just as important as anything else when it comes to moral judgements.
K
Kudistos Megistos
Guest
I don't understand the "even" part.
Or rather, I don't understand why the theory that humans are hard-wired to think religiously should be championed by theists and challenged by atheists. Surely it helps the atheist debate? After all, it explains away the ubiquity of religion, the strength of belief and also most religious experiences as a kind of pathology. As a misfiring. As an evolutionary throwback.
Actually, Dawkins himself does use this theory as an attack against religion in The God Delusion.
If nothing else, it allows us to use a good old-fashioned genetic fallacy: you only believe in God because humans are built that way.
At any rate, the idea that humans are hard-wired to think religiously is no more an argument in favour of religion, for the same reason that the fact we have trouble accepting that 0.9999... = 1 does not mean that 0.9999... =/= 1. Something does not become true just because we're hard-wired to believe it.
D
DLPB_
Guest
I agree. I think it is more than that though... The human mind is quick to brainwash and if you bring up a child with religion, then it is hard to break free from it (I was devout catholic for 10 years). The human mind is easy to corrupt and to brainwash.
But I would also agree that hope and religion served a purpose in our evolutionary development at one stage but now it has become a burden. The brain also seems to lack rational thought with a great number of people. Proof of this can be seen with ghost stories, alien abductions and the like.
Basically if the human brain is not educated it is just a blob of mush.
X
xLostWingx
Guest
In psychology thre are things called the Gambler's Fallacy and Irregular Reinforcement Schedules - they can explain many of the irrational beliefs.
Y
yarLson
Guest
agreed
M
Mako
Guest
Though I am not a believer of the christian god, I do believe we are hard wired to believe in something higher then ourselves. Any implant of the "idea" of god Jesus,Buddha,Allah,ect... Fill's that empty void we were hard wired with. Why is this not proof? We are hard wired to do so much automatically Mate,Love,Hate,Think,Survive,Covert Air,ect. All without any outside stimuli we automatically know these feeling.
Why not innately know that there are beings out there that may have crated this thing called a universe? My 2 pennies.
X
xLostWingx
Guest
Brainwashing occurs. But that doesn't mean each of us would not be happy in Brave New World. Perhaps we've been brainwashed to think that science is greater than the path to enlightenment 
M
Mako
Guest
I think this may be the case, Time and time again has proved that even if you remove all outside influences humans will develop a religion that fills the need, a need they have yet to explain.
Y
yarLson
Guest
this is essentially my point I made in the other topic on religion. My arguement however is that we should not pretent to know something that is unknowable at this point. We could easily function in a society that acknowledges the existence of higher beings, but why pretend like we know all about them? This is the key flaw of modern religions. They force people to go around babbling about such specific things they would never care to prove, and such an attitude is degrading towards the environment, the individual, and to the intellectual process. I mean if you actually study the major religions you come to find that the only real differences in the story are times, places and names. Essentially everything else is the same. Perfect example is how Christians think they are so unique but they are mostly and aboslutely oblivious to the fact that this idea of the 3 day ressurection that is the basis of the entire fath has existed as far back as early Egyptian religions. the exact same concept even on the exact same days of the year. Its a celebration of the soltice gone horribly and utterly wrong. They just cut and paste and steal from one another, and when that doesn't work they just blatently make something up. Then wage wars against each other based on this idiotcy. Its major hypocrisy, and downright lunacy to go practicing such simplistic and logically flawed methodologies when the light of sicence has begun to show solutions to all these problems that religions present as unsolveable.
In short, this planets existence in itself is a miracle and if we think that as a species, we have an infinite amount of time to dally around and kill one another for essentially no reason, we are sorely mistaken. Evolution has presented us with an opportunity, not a certainty. it is our own complacency that might end up undoing all that we have acomplished. I can only hope that someday soon, the powers that be will remove their own heads from within their rectal cavity and begin to function as rational individuals.
- Status