RE: A question game for agnostics. (Full Version)

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



Message

SixMore2Go -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 10:31:50 AM)

Of course we do, we stole them, along with all the good looking birds, the last time we was down south.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 11:34:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Now please let me define this rule: "Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true". Please accept this as a valid formulation of the "Principle of Parsimony" or "Skeptical Rule". It is not *very* exact but I hope it is good enough.

Now let us apply this new rule
* Unless there is a reason to think that no man lacks a woman to love, we have to consider that yes, there are men who have no woman to love.
* Unless there is a reason to think that there is a cup on the table, we have to consider that there is none.
* Unless there is a reason to think that there is a relation between the assassination of JFK and ...  ok, enough.

Please note that:
* The rule does not say that we are SURE that the positive assertion is wrong. It only says that we consider it wrong, for the time being.
* The rule does not exclude that we may have, some day, a reason to think that the positive assertion is true. Then we will simply change our minds.
But, until then... there is no cup in the table.
Said as a temporal assertion. Truth until proven otherwise. Without pretending to be an absolute eternal truth.



The rule is unnecessary when it comes to issues of existence, because it's already implied by agnosticism.

Unlike with the cup/table (a situation where a negative assertion can be made in a measurable context) negative assertions cannot be proven when the question revolves around existence, because the context isn't absolutely measurable.

The only thing that can be proven in question related to existence in context that aren't absolutely measurable are positive assertions.

For example:

It's impossible to proof with absolute certainty that ghosts do not exist.
Or that unicorns do not exist.
Or that Aliens do not exist.

All these things are only capable of being proven to exist.
It only takes one example to show their existence.

However, the lack of proof to their existence doesn't necessarily imply that they don't exist, it only implies that they haven't been proven to exist yet.
The only thing we can do when it comes to disproving existence is estimate the probability of nonexistence on a scale that is directly related to the measurable context in which something would exist.

If we go explore other planets and solar system, every planet we encounter on which there are no aliens makes it slightly more probably that aliens don't exist.
The more of our planet we explore, and the more we discover of the fossil record, the more probably it becomes that unicorns don't exist (on our planet).
The more seemingly paranormal activity is explained by means of the scientific method, the more probably it becomes that ghosts don't exist (in a capacity that we can perceive).

However, none of these things will ever be able to be disproven in an absolute sense. All we can ever do is come closer to an approximation of the likelihood that something doesn't exist.
This is why positive atheism is a rather useless stance to take, because it's possible of being wrong. It only takes one instance in which the existence of God is proven for positive atheism to be proven wrong. And an eternity of evidence will never prove a positive atheist to be right. Positive atheism is a stance one takes which makes that one can only ever be proven wrong, never be proven right.

Besides that, the fact that the existence of God cannot be disproven is already included in an agnostics view.
An agnostic's view can only be changed if the existence of God is proven. It will never change because the existence of God is disproven, because such a thing is impossible.

So while it's a rational stance to state that positive assertions are false until proven otherwise in a strictly measurable defined context, like deciding whether a table has cups on it or not, it's a futile exercise when it comes to determining the existence of cups (or God) in general, because a positive assertion of the existence of cups (or God) in general can never be disproven.



heartcream -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 12:20:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SixMore2Go
Well of course there is, you just have to have the right bleeding rule now don't you? Like: "You don't spit in another man's pint ... unless he's from Cork."

See there, now doesn't that one cover all the possibilities without danger of misinterpretation? It's all in the wording.




My brother lives in Cork, ought I warn him or will he already know this?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:03:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I mostly agree with your view, "Said as a temporal assertion. Truth until proven otherwise. Without pretending to be an absolute eternal truth." As long as it doesn't purport to be the final word on the matter, then I can live with that. Otherwise there would be no progress or scientific discovery.

Agreed. I do not believe that we can have a guaranteed final word on almost any matter, including "Is 2+2=4?" or "Do I exist?".

But please explain why the use of the rule is limited to "day-to-day life". Can you really justify that, or whas it only a way to have an "escape door" for the case you need it?

If it was - why do you create such a "door"? Is there any reasoning behind?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:05:09 PM)

Ishtarr: You commit many logical mistakes in your analysis, but I asked you to abandon this thread if you are not ready to play seriously. Now you use the move made to another person - that is not your game, your game is stopped because you insist playing with words.

You can also start again, be answering the OP, but do not interfere in anothers' game, this is bad manners.

I am ready to say "please", as I did, still, if you insist on participating here ignoring the rules, then I will hide you.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:10:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Ishtarr: You commit many logical mistakes in your analysis

I would be curious to know what, precisely, you think those mistakes are.

K.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:13:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

You commit many logical mistakes in your analysis,



Which logical mistakes?
You keep telling me I'm wrong, but provide no argument whatsoever as to why I'd be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

but I asked you to abandon this thread if you are not ready to play seriously.



Yes, and you broke the TOS by asking me to do so. You're not entitled to tell people where they can or cannot post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

your game is stopped because you insist playing with words.



I've asked you before: where did I play with words?
You again make accusations without any proof or argument to back them up.
Things aren't what they are, just because you say so. If you make a statement, back it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

if you insist on participating here ignoring the rules, then I will hide you.



I have a feeling that anybody on CM who has ever proven you wrong has ended up on hide, rather than you dealing with a logical argument when you've come to the conclusion you can't win.



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:24:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



I agree with you about selection for moral sensibilities, but I think it leads to the opposite conclusion. In fact, I recall a study finding that people from widely different groups tend nevertheless to respond to moral dilemmas in the same way. I'd have to do some digging to come up with the link, but here's a snippet from Newsweek...

A new science of morality is beginning to uncover how people in different cultures judge such dilemmas, identifying the factors that influence judgment and the actions that follow. These studies suggest that nature provides a universal moral grammar, designed to generate fast, intuitive and universally held judgments of right and wrong... What is remarkable is that people with different backgrounds, including atheists and those of faith, respond in the same way.

K.


Thank you Kirata, that was a very interested article and the first thing I've read in a while that has caused me to redefine my stance on ethics and morals. It hasn't necessarily changed my view, but it did point out some flaws I have when it comes to presenting/wording my views.

I'm not yet sure how best to communicate the shift yet. But the main issue seems to be that I was wrong in stating that ethics aren't universal, because they very clearly are -in part- it's the other part of a more the more fluid ethical system that I find ethics not to be universal in to the point that -because ethics stem from a survival mechanism- they can change depending on context.
Especially when taking into account that for ethics closely related to relationship structures with other (friend/family/foe) and relationship structures can change, I mainly feel that they aren't universal in the sense that one can't pin them down in one hard and fast rule that will apply always, with all people, in all context and circumstances.

Thanks again for making me think. [:D]



Ishtarr -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:31:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Why would it be a struggle? It is patently obvious to anyone who's thought processes aren't clouded by religion. Or was yours at one time?

And of course that leads to the most important corollary which is the absurdity of moral equivalency. Anyone who holds to a particular ethical system MUST believe it is a superior system or they would change to one they view superior, so treating other systems as being equally valid is self-defeating.


It's been a struggle mainly because I -due to circumstance I'm not going to get into here- basically grew up in an ethical vacuum, and non of my views on ethics and morality are based on the systems I was loosely faced with when growing up.
So basically the opposite of growing up being clouded by religion.

Thus, when I set out to define my own views on these things, I had no starting point, and I've been basically since been struggling myself through any ethical system I can find, trying to find any validity and if I did, taking that and moving on, or if I didn't rejecting it entirely, in an attempt to synthesize my own views on things.
The Golden Rule was one of the more tricky ones to navigate, because it was one of the first I was confronted with, and it -without having any other context- seems to make a lot of sense at a casual glance. It took me a while to reach the conclusion that I reject it... at the very least as a "rule".



DarthVaderOfLove -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/16/2011 8:35:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MadAxeman

First rule of Twat Club is we don't discuss Twat Club.


good one!



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 2:38:38 AM)

Kirata:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I would like that people who answer accept this as a game and follow its "rules" (...)

UPDATE: I won't discuss here anything else, I will just play the game :) . Sorry. If you want from me any answers about anything else please contact me in another thread. Thank you very much.



anniezz338 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 5:11:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Kirata:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I would like that people who answer accept this as a game and follow its "rules" (...)

UPDATE: I won't discuss here anything else, I will just play the game :) . Sorry. If you want from me any answers about anything else please contact me in another thread. Thank you very much.



Wrong...this is not a game. This is another "I'll beat this to death until you see things MY way". You have received logical input but have chosen to "play your game" with the winner already determined....yourself. sheesh....you would argue with a fence post.



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 6:14:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I mostly agree with your view, "Said as a temporal assertion. Truth until proven otherwise. Without pretending to be an absolute eternal truth." As long as it doesn't purport to be the final word on the matter, then I can live with that. Otherwise there would be no progress or scientific discovery.

Agreed. I do not believe that we can have a guaranteed final word on almost any matter, including "Is 2+2=4?" or "Do I exist?".

But please explain why the use of the rule is limited to "day-to-day life". Can you really justify that, or whas it only a way to have an "escape door" for the case you need it?

If it was - why do you create such a "door"? Is there any reasoning behind?



It's just a matter of practicality. In my day to day activities, I'm going to assume that I have a nose and there is no alien being who is surreptitiously stealing noses. But at the end of the day, when I'm relaxed and can ponder the nature of existence, then I can consider other possibilities.

Going back to what you said earlier, ""Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true," I would still ask why I would need to do this at all. What's the purpose? What reason would I have to consider any assertion to be true or false at all? Why should it matter to me? Why can't I just say "Maybe it's true, maybe not" and get on with my life?

Now, in terms of practical, day-to-day living, there are reasons for following that rule.

For example, if I was walking down the street and you told me about "Azonier" and how he's stealing my nose, I might think "yeah, well, whatever" and just move along. But if you told me, "Give a $1000 donation to the Church of Azonier, and you can get your real nose back," then I would likely be more inclined to say "No, there is no Azonier."






SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 8:37:33 AM)

Dear Zonie63:

Then, you consider something true or not depending on, if you are relaxed and willing to ponder the nature of existence, or not?

Really?

Or maybe I understood something wrong...



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 8:54:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Dear Zonie63:

Then, you consider something true or not depending on, if you are relaxed and willing to ponder the nature of existence, or not?

Really?

Or maybe I understood something wrong...



Well, not precisely.

Let's just say that I follow the rule Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true in practical situations, depending on the possible motives of the person making the assertion. If I suspect an ulterior motive (such as someone asking for donations), then I'm more likely to follow the rule. If I do not suspect an ulterior motive, then I'll try to give the benefit of the doubt, since I have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so.





SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 9:19:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Dear Zonie63:
Then, you consider something true or not depending on, if you are relaxed and willing to ponder the nature of existence, or not?
Really?
Or maybe I understood something wrong...

Well, not precisely.
Let's just say that I follow the rule Positive assertions are to be considered false until there is a reason to consider them true in practical situations, depending on the possible motives of the person making the assertion. If I suspect an ulterior motive (such as someone asking for donations), then I'm more likely to follow the rule. If I do not suspect an ulterior motive, then I'll try to give the benefit of the doubt, since I have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so.


Please consider that not all reasonable "reasons" can be immediately expressed in an exact way. This does not make them less reasonable. For example, if the aspect of a person leads you, by induction, to say that there is a high probability that the money he is asking to buy a Porsche will be used to buy some wiskey, then you DO have a "reason" not to believe that the money is for a Porsche. Assertions based on probability are also assertions. "There is a high probability..." is also an assertion.

That considered, please tell me again:

Are things, for you, true or not depending on your mood (previous message from you) and other things, which are NOT reasons of any kind?

If not, please simply tell me, if you have a nose or not. Undepending on your mood and other things which are not reasons. Reasons do not change according to your mood. So... is "I have a nose" in your case true or not true?? If the answer is "it depends" please explain on what and why.



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 11:05:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Please consider that not all reasonable "reasons" can be immediately expressed in an exact way. This does not make them less reasonable. For example, if the aspect of a person leads you, by induction, to say that there is a high probability that the money he is asking to buy a Porsche will be used to buy some wiskey, then you DO have a "reason" not to believe that the money is for a Porsche. Assertions based on probability are also assertions. "There is a high probability..." is also an assertion.

That considered, please tell me again:

Are things, for you, true or not depending on your mood (previous message from you) and other things, which are NOT reasons of any kind?

If not, please simply tell me, if you have a nose or not. Undepending on your mood and other things which are not reasons. Reasons do not change according to your mood. So... is "I have a nose" in your case true or not true?? If the answer is "it depends" please explain on what and why.


"Mood" may not be the word I would use to describe it.

But to answer your question, irrespective of whatever mood I happen to be in, my final answer would be: "Based on my understanding of reality as I have observed it, I have a nose." I would operate under that assumption unless I find a plausible reason not to. However, I also allow for the infinitesimal probability that my understanding and observations of reality could be an illusion.

But when I say "day to day activities," what I mean is that I don't spend much time dwelling on it or thinking about it when I have other things to do. It's not so much a question of mood, but more a matter of accepting reality at face value, since there's really nothing else I can do, for all practical purposes.

I think where I differ with positive atheism is that I don't feel that I have any point to prove on this particular issue. I'm not going to approach someone who believes in God and say, "No, you're wrong. There is no God." I don't see any particular need to be confrontational under such circumstances. I agree with those who criticize the abuses and outright atrocities of religion, and I agree with the general concept of freedom from religion. But that's as far as it goes for me. To go a step further and say "There is no God" is taking it too far, not as far as I would go.









SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 11:19:47 AM)

Hello Zonie63, you change your moves in the middle of the game, and that makes difficult to play. We would have to start again, actually. But I will try to take a shortcut.

quote:

Based on my understanding of reality as I have observed it, I have a nose.


Based on what, exactly? Which part of your understaing of reality leads to you say, that you have a nose?
"Your perceptions" cannot be the answer, because if Azonier existed (and therefore, you nose would not) you would have exactly the same perceptions. Therefore, your perceptions cannot rationally lead you "I have a nose".
So... what exactly leads you to say that you have a nose? Which part of your understanding of reality as you have observed it?

IMHO it is the rule I stated... I think this becaue of your reaction to it ("I'm sure I could live with that", "I mostly agree with your view" with clauses I agree with, no final answer, etc).

If not, I cannot imagine anything. So: Are you actually using this rule (or an equivalent, or an intuition which actually is equivalent when you think about it) as your base to say "I have a nose"? Or is it something else?

Please remember also rule #5. I have not mentioned positive atheism (besides the OP) at this point. We must really stick to the subject at hand to advance, if I start to answer everything I can about your postings then our postings would grow exponentially or you would be forced to ignore most of my answers. We must remain "in a line". One single argument and subject, as much as possible.

Best regards.



Zonie63 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 12:18:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Hello Zonie63, you change your moves in the middle of the game, and that makes difficult to play. We would have to start again, actually. But I will try to take a shortcut.

quote:

Based on my understanding of reality as I have observed it, I have a nose.


Based on what, exactly? Which part of your understaing of reality leads to you say, that you have a nose?
"Your perceptions" cannot be the answer, because if Azonier existed (and therefore, you nose would not) you would have exactly the same perceptions. Therefore, your perceptions cannot rationally lead you "I have a nose".
So... what exactly leads you to say that you have a nose? Which part of your understanding of reality as you have observed it?


All I have to go by is what I can observe. What I observe is my reality. These are my perceptions, because it's impossible for me to see the world through someone else's eyes or from some unseen neutral vantage point.

Even if Azonier existed, it wouldn't matter, since my perceptions would still tell me that I have a nose. So, either way, I would still have a nose, based on my observations and understanding of reality. If Azonier existed and I didn't, in fact, have a nose, I wouldn't notice it and it wouldn't matter to me. I would still go on with my daily activities as if I had a nose, without giving the matter a second thought. I wouldn't go around worried about whether or not I had a nose.

quote:


IMHO it is the rule I stated... I think this becaue of your reaction to it ("I'm sure I could live with that", "I mostly agree with your view" with clauses I agree with, no final answer, etc).

If not, I cannot imagine anything. So: Are you actually using this rule (or an equivalent, or an intuition which actually is equivalent when you think about it) as your base to say "I have a nose"? Or is it something else?


Well, I suppose if I could quantify it in terms of probabilities (as you allowed for above), then I could say "There is a 99.99999% probability that I have a nose." I don't know if that falls completely in line with the rule you outlined, but that may be the best I can do under the circumstances.

quote:


Please remember also rule #5. I have not mentioned positive atheism (besides the OP) at this point. We must really stick to the subject at hand to advance, if I start to answer everything I can about your postings then our postings would grow exponentially or you would be forced to ignore most of my answers. We must remain "in a line". One single argument and subject, as much as possible.


Fair enough.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/17/2011 8:30:57 PM)

quote:

Even if Azonier existed, it wouldn't matter, since my perceptions would still tell me that I have a nose.

Zonie... how exactly do they "say" that?

I don't see it. From the fact "I feel the touch" you cannot deduce that you have a nose, as long as you cannot exclude Azonier.
How exactly do they "say" that?

As I see it, you have at least two possible explanations of "I feel the touch". Azonier, and a nose. And you, in a completely arbitrary way, with no apparent reason behind it, choose the second.

I would say "because it's simpler". But then, I am using Occam's Razor. But you do not seem to accept Occam's Razor as a reason enough to deny the existence of anything. Therefore... how exactly do you move from "I feel the touch" to "I have a nose"?

No reason? Is this really so? Are you really being irrational on this point? Or there is a reason, even if you use it intuitively?

I also do not see how you can quantify probabilities. If you think that you really can (and I know, you haven't said that) then please tell me, how.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875