RE: Agnosticism

RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

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

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/1/2011 8:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I had the time to read the rest. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The way I read it, you were the one insisting that I must be certain of the non-existence of Azonier, or else I can't claim that I have a nose. Not exactly, because you do not claim to be CERTAIN of your nose, nor is it a matter of choice for you ("you must"). In the moment you say that you have a nose, you are saying that Azonier does not exist. As simple as this, and you recognized it already. It is not like you have a choice. You are logically implying it, no matter if you want it or not. And you are doing it with the same security (attention here: "the same as") you have as when you say that you have a nose. Not more, nor less. So - you say that Azonier does not exist. But you do not do the same with God. Why? There is no difference. None you can rationally justify. How do you know I don't do the same with God? You're saying that if I state positively that I have a nose, it implies that Azonier does not exist. I do not even have to say specifically that "Azonier does not exist," all I have to say is that I have a nose. And that's really all that I would say: "I have a nose." I would not express any confirmation or denial about the existence of Azonier, which is exactly what I do in regards to God. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Read up to here. You disbelieve in Azonier. You do not disbelieve in God. So, you do not do the same with God, as you do for Azonier. You say that Azonier does not exist. You affirm this. Implicitly, but you do. You do not say that God does not exist. For God's fucking sake, I feel like speaking to a 5-years old.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/1/2011 9:08:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If our existence is just a series of random events without any rhyme or reason, it becomes much easier to accept and be at peace with oneself and the world around us. I'm of the opinion that a universe of cause and effect isn't random. That such a universe allows us predict and shape events thus creating the meaning in our lives. It's the idea that the universe operates according to the whims of an unknowable being that makes things seem to work in mysterious ways.

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/1/2011 9:29:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It's the idea that the universe operates according to the whims of an unknowable being that makes things seem to work in mysterious ways. What religions teach that God is unknowable? K.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/1/2011 9:42:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 That may be one reason why atheists tend to ridicule religious beliefs by equating it with beliefs in Santa Claus, although I'm not sure if it has the desired effect, since it's really apples and oranges. The point I've really been trying to get across in this thread is that we as a society treat the God claim differently than we would any other similar claim. It doesn't matter if I talk about ghosts and aliens abductions that some believe in strongly or the little folk that our ancestors used to believe in or the fairy tales that we used to believe in, No matter what I'll be accused of ridicule by the comparison and of comparing apples to oranges. When presented with the elephant in the room which is effecting all our lives you almost immediately switch the subject from a statement about God (a word that has become the proper name of a certain deity to the extent that some posters on these forums won't even write it) to a statement about god and then switch that to the laws of physics. Tweak switched the statement about God to one of deity/deities. It wouldn't matter how specific I got, I could describe the properties of the being in detail while quoting specific Bible passages and Kirata would still be and has been there pulling the same shit. It doesn't matter how precisely an atheist words things if he's talking to someone willing to knowingly change the meanings of his words. I find the extent to which people can be manipulated by complete strangers into saying that obviously false things are true horrifying. I'd love for all of you to watch the Asch video and ask yourself how much more manipulative the God claim is since the pressure often comes from family and friends instead of just complete strangers. Since the peer pressure is backed up by childhood indoctrination and social consequences. So what's the point of standing up and stating "there is no God"? Well, did you notice in the experiments how well even a small amount of dissent negated the peer pressure. That's why. P.S. Sorry if there are any spelling/grammar/editing mistakes. I was falling asleep as I was writing this.

MissAsylum -> RE: Agnosticism (12/1/2011 10:14:03 PM)
[sm=Groaner.gif]

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/1/2011 10:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 That may be one reason why atheists tend to ridicule religious beliefs by equating it with beliefs in Santa Claus, although I'm not sure if it has the desired effect, since it's really apples and oranges. It doesn't matter if I talk about... No matter what I'll be accused of ridicule by the comparison and of comparing apples to oranges... When presented with the elephant in the room which is effecting all our lives you almost immediately switch the subject... I could describe the properties of the being in detail while quoting specific Bible passages and Kirata would still be and has been there pulling the same shit. It doesn't matter how precisely an atheist words things if he's talking to someone willing to knowingly change the meanings of his words... I find the extent to which people can be manipulated by complete strangers into saying that obviously false things are true horrifying... So what's the point of standing up and stating "there is no God"? Well, did you notice in the experiments how well even a small amount of dissent negated the peer pressure. That's why. You seem to envision yourself as some sort of hero, struggling to bring the light of truth to the unwashed. But when the weaknesses of your claims and the flaws in your arguments are pointed out, you whine about being misunderstood, people pulling "shit" on you, and the sheer gullibleness of the fools you are trying to lead out of darkness. Has it ever occurred to you that things might be different if you had anything substantive to put forward? Because that's the elephant in the room. K.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 4:00:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Read up to here. You disbelieve in Azonier. You do not disbelieve in God. So, you do not do the same with God, as you do for Azonier. You say that Azonier does not exist. You affirm this. Implicitly, but you do. You do not say that God does not exist. For God's fucking sake, I feel like speaking to a 5-years old. Actually, I was just thinking the same thing. Your whole position is entirely sophomoric. You sound like a college freshman who just took his first class in Logic 101, and you're trying to show off what little you know. That wouldn't be so bad, except for when you presume to talk down to people who clearly know more about the subject and put more thought into it than you have.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 4:12:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 If our existence is just a series of random events without any rhyme or reason, it becomes much easier to accept and be at peace with oneself and the world around us. I'm of the opinion that a universe of cause and effect isn't random. That such a universe allows us predict and shape events thus creating the meaning in our lives. It's the idea that the universe operates according to the whims of an unknowable being that makes things seem to work in mysterious ways. Well, the First Cause might have been random, or it might have been put in motion by some form of intelligent or sentient being. There's no way to really know for certain either way. I would also suggest that we can't really predict or shape events as easily as we would like.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 4:44:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 That may be one reason why atheists tend to ridicule religious beliefs by equating it with beliefs in Santa Claus, although I'm not sure if it has the desired effect, since it's really apples and oranges. The point I've really been trying to get across in this thread is that we as a society treat the God claim differently than we would any other similar claim. It doesn't matter if I talk about ghosts and aliens abductions that some believe in strongly or the little folk that our ancestors used to believe in or the fairy tales that we used to believe in, No matter what I'll be accused of ridicule by the comparison and of comparing apples to oranges. When presented with the elephant in the room which is effecting all our lives you almost immediately switch the subject from a statement about God (a word that has become the proper name of a certain deity to the extent that some posters on these forums won't even write it) to a statement about god and then switch that to the laws of physics. Tweak switched the statement about God to one of deity/deities. It wouldn't matter how specific I got, I could describe the properties of the being in detail while quoting specific Bible passages and Kirata would still be and has been there pulling the same shit. It doesn't matter how precisely an atheist words things if he's talking to someone willing to knowingly change the meanings of his words. I find the extent to which people can be manipulated by complete strangers into saying that obviously false things are true horrifying. I'd love for all of you to watch the Asch video and ask yourself how much more manipulative the God claim is since the pressure often comes from family and friends instead of just complete strangers. Since the peer pressure is backed up by childhood indoctrination and social consequences. So what's the point of standing up and stating "there is no God"? Well, did you notice in the experiments how well even a small amount of dissent negated the peer pressure. That's why. Yes, and when you put it this way, I understand perfectly. This puts the question into a larger context of why we're even addressing the issue to begin with. But the thing was, in discussions between agnostics and atheists, we don't really have to worry about the peer pressure from believers (as demonstrated by the Asch experiment you cited). As free thinkers, we've liberated ourselves from the pressures of religious dogma, so all we have is the raw universe and our perceptions of it. So, it's not really necessary to tell me that "there is no god," nor is it really necessary for me to have to make that specific statement. From the way that SMM was constructing his arguments, it was as if he was trying to exert peer pressure on agnostics to toe the line that he himself set. I know that not all atheists are like that, but that is the kind of atheism which can get my goat at times. In other words, I see no reason for atheists to pick this particular battle with agnostics. As for society treating the God claim differently, that may be a cultural thing, especially because religion is a touchy subject which can become rather volatile if not treated with a certain level of sensitivity. Maybe there's something to be said for in-your-face confrontations with religionists, although if I'm going to accuse them of making claims without evidence, I feel it incumbent upon me to not do the same thing. To say "there is no god" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a god." I see no difference, so if we're going to criticize the religious for making claims without evidence, it's best to avoid doing the same thing ourselves.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 5:01:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Yeah... talk dirty to me... quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 How do you know I don't do the same with God? quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster You disbelieve in Azonier. You do not disbelieve in God. So, you do not do the same with God, as you do for Azonier. You say that Azonier does not exist. You affirm this. Implicitly, but you do. You do not say that God does not exist. That's how. 'nuff said.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 5:38:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Yeah... talk dirty to me... quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 How do you know I don't do the same with God? quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster You disbelieve in Azonier. You do not disbelieve in God. So, you do not do the same with God, as you do for Azonier. You say that Azonier does not exist. You affirm this. Implicitly, but you do. You do not say that God does not exist. That's how. 'nuff said. So, it's not enough to implicitly say that God does not exist? If I say there's no evidence to prove the existence of God, isn't that enough for you? Or are you saying that I'm required to state explicitly "God does not exist"? I just want to be clear on this, so if you'd be so kind as to clarify your position.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 6:16:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 So, it's not enough to implicitly say that God does not exist? If I say there's no evidence to prove the existence of God, isn't that enough for you? Were are you saying implicitly that there is no God? As you do not admit Occam's Razor as a rule, the fact that there is no no evidence to prove his existence is not enough to say that It does not exist. For me, it would, because I do admit Occam's Razor. But you don't. By other side, you do admit modus tollendo tollens, so for you (and you admitted it) if you have a nose, Azonier does not exist. As you say that you have a nose, you indeed implicitly say that Azonier does not exist. But you do not do the same with God. Which is the difference. And again (x 10), this time with symbolic logic: - If "A implies B", and "A", then "B". You do not have to say explicitly "B": if you admit A and that A implies B, you admit B. Please not the "if". If you admit both premises, "A" and "A implies B". - If "you have a nose" and "you have a nose implies Azonier does not exist", then you say that Azonier does not exist. You do not have to say it explicitly, you admit it because you admit both premises. - If I say "there is no evidence for God" and "no evidence means unexistence" (until proven otherwise, etc, etc), then I say "there is no God". I do not have to say it explicitly, because I admit both premises. BUT YOU DO NOT ADMIT THE SECOND PREMISE You do not admit that "no evidence means nonexistence" (I desperately try to resume a philosophical rule in four words). Therefore, you are not implicitly saying that God does not exist, when you say that there is no evidence for His existence. PS: And when you deny that "no evidence means nonexistence until proven otherwise", you actually deny the only argument I have seen which can support your claim that you have a nose. Without this argument, as "Azonier" (B) would provoke exactly the same perception (C) a real nose (A) would provoke (that is, both A or B imply C) you cannot say that your nose exists (A) based on your perceptions (C), as you cannot exclude B as alternative explanation. So - you are being irrational, inconsistent, when you say that you have a nose. And you can be as irrational as you want, but it would be better if you simply admitted it or just stopped denying it.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 7:05:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster You do not admit that "no evidence means unexistence" (I desperately try to resume a complex and interesting philosophical rule in four words, I hope you do not start again playing...). Therefore, you are not implicitly saying that God does not exist, when you say that there is no evidence for His existence. I wonder which excuse will you find now to close your eyes... What "excuse"? Honestly, I have no idea what is behind this temerity you're displaying. Anyway, the reason why I do not admit that "no evidence means unexistence" is because it doesn't. You're the one who tries to read implied meanings into things. I'm just trying to state things as I see them. quote: PS: And when you deny that "no evidence means unexistence until proven otherwise", you actually deny the only argument I have seen which can support your claim that you have a nose. Without this argument, as Azonier situations would provoke exactly the same perception a nose would provoke (A or B imply C) you cannot say that your nose exists (A) based on your perceptions (C), as you cannot exclude B. So - you are being irrational, inconsistent. And you can be as irrational as you fucking want, but it would be better if you simply admitted it or just stopped denying it. "Irrational"? All I said was that I had a nose. YOU were the one who brought up this Azonier business and stated that I can not say that I have a nose without implicitly denying the existence of Azonier. You call that "rational"? I'll just stick by my original answer: I have a nose. Now, if you want to invent some contrived, bizarre hypothetical about Azonier and play silly games in elementary logic, then okay, but I was hoping for something a little more substantial than that. If you wish to conclude that I can not claim to have a nose, then I would say that's YOUR irrationality, not mine.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 7:08:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Anyway, the reason why I do not admit that "no evidence means unexistence" is because it doesn't. You asked "How do you know I don't do the same with God?". Now you know why. I hope you admitted it, but this is too much to hope I guess. quote: YOU were the one who brought up this Azonier business and stated that I can not say that I have a nose without implicitly denying the existence of Azonier. You call that "rational"? Yes, and you admitted it too. quote: If you wish to conclude that I can not claim to have a nose, then I would say that's YOUR irrationality, not mine. You can say what you fucking want, as long as you do not support it with arguments, it is bullshit (no, wait... a grandious irrational temerity sounds better). I have demostrated that you can't say that you have a nose unless you can deny Azonier (and you admitted it). You say that you have a nose, so you deny Azonier (and you admitted it). You cannot deny Azonier without Occam's Razor (and you never shown me how could you), so you actually use Occam's Razor (but you don't admit it), and you do not use it on God. This is inconsistent, irrational, and so I have proven that you are being irrational in this point. No matter if you admit it or not.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 7:37:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Anyway, the reason why I do not admit that "no evidence means unexistence" is because it doesn't. You asked "How do you know I don't do the same with God?". Now you know why. I hope you admitted it, but this is too much to hope I guess. Admitted what? quote: quote: YOU were the one who brought up this Azonier business and stated that I can not say that I have a nose without implicitly denying the existence of Azonier. You call that "rational"? Yes, and you admitted it too. You keep saying that "I admitted it," but what did I admit? (And please don't pull out that same out-of-context quote you posted the last time, since I've already responded to that part. When you repeat yourself like this when you didn't even bother to address it the first time we discussed it, it makes you look even more irrational.) quote: quote: If you wish to conclude that I can not claim to have a nose, then I would say that's YOUR irrationality, not mine. You can say what you fucking want, as long as you do not support it with arguments, it is bullshit (no, wait... a grandious irrational temerity sounds better). Are you talking about yourself or are you talking about me? Don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you presume to hold others to? quote: I have demostrated that you can't say that you have a nose unless you can deny Azonier (and you admitted it). All you've really done is invent some bizarre, convoluted hypothetical in which your "demonstration" took place entirely within your own imagination. You have not demonstrated anything other than it's easy to play word games. Essentially, that's the only thing I believe I "admitted" to in this strange little exercise.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 7:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Anyway, the reason why I do not admit that "no evidence means unexistence" is because it doesn't. You asked "How do you know I don't do the same with God?". Now you know why. I hope you admitted it, but this is too much to hope I guess. Admitted what? Read. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: quote: YOU were the one who brought up this Azonier business and stated that I can not say that I have a nose without implicitly denying the existence of Azonier. You call that "rational"? Yes, and you admitted it too. You keep saying that "I admitted it," but what did I admit? (And please don't pull out that same out-of-context quote you posted the last time, since I've already responded to that part. When you repeat yourself like this when you didn't even bother to address it the first time we discussed it, it makes you look even more irrational.) What I said. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: quote: If you wish to conclude that I can not claim to have a nose, then I would say that's YOUR irrationality, not mine. You can say what you fucking want, as long as you do not support it with arguments, it is bullshit (no, wait... a grandious irrational temerity sounds better). Are you talking about yourself or are you talking about me? Don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you presume to hold others to? Ditto. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: I have demostrated that you can't say that you have a nose unless you can deny Azonier (and you admitted it). All you've really done is invent some bizarre, convoluted hypothetical in which your "demonstration" took place entirely within your own imagination. You have not demonstrated anything other than it's easy to play word games. Essentially, that's the only thing I believe I "admitted" to in this strange little exercise. Fuck you. Ditto. Tired of trying to teach you something. Hidden. Repetition for the rest: 1. I have demostrated him you he can't say that he has a nose unless he can deny Azonier. He admitted it: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 There is not enough information to determine whether or not I actually have a nose. You've precluded the possibility of me being able to trust my own eyes when I look in the mirror and see that I have a nose. He can now change his mind, but I did prove it (and I can prove it again to anybody who comes to the game). The prove is in the game thread, and when he was still able to think rationally, he admitted it. 2. He said also that he had a nose. 3(1,2) Therefore, he denied the existence of Azonier. 4. He never shown any way to do this besides Occam's Razor. 5(3, 4) Therefore, he uses Occam's Razor (for Azonier). 6. But he does not use it for God. 7(5, 6) Therefore, he is irrational, inconsistent. Quod erat demonstrandum and we can go home.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 8:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Fuck you. Ditto. Tired of trying to teach you something. Hidden. That's what you said the last time. You hid me and then unhid me. I wish you'd make up your mind. quote: Quod erat demonstrandum and we can go home. Well, I guess that settles it, doesn't it? The Master has spoken. Now, we will go forth and sin no more.

xxblushesxx -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 8:35:03 AM)
Such language from a (presumably) educated gentleman. It seems that when he runs out of arguments, he resorts to profanity. Typical.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 8:45:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 To say "there is no god" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a god." I see no difference, so if we're going to criticize the religious for making claims without evidence, it's best to avoid doing the same thing ourselves. I have no idea why Spanish started the conversation but atheists might occasionally want to have it with agnostics after seeing their position misrepresented like in the above.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 9:29:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I know that not all atheists are like that, but that is the kind of atheism which can get my goat at times. I think that atheists sometimes come into these discussions kind of pissed off about agnostics misrepresenting said atheists position. There are plenty of atheists out there who would make the statement that we know that not all agnostics are like that, but there is the kind of agnostic which can get our goat at times. I suspect that the conversation is even more infuriating for Spanish on account of the language barrier. These conversations tend to be hard enough with many misunderstandings when we're all fluent in the same language. Adding a language barrier which makes Spanish incomprehensible at times and probably makes it equally hard for him to understand us must be simply impossible. So the discussion turns into an argument which devolves into name calling and I suspect the outcome will eventually be Spanish effectively banning himself from the site by hiding everyone who had been willing to talk to him.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625