RE: Agnosticism

RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

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

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 9:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel 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. I'm not sure what you mean, but it seemed pretty clear to me that Spanish Mat Master was chiding me because I wouldn't come out and say "there is no god." I know that's not what you're saying, nor would I ever say that all atheists think alike. But there are some who put forth a more active insistence that "there is no god," as SMM has done. He's also as much as called me "irrational" for not actually coming out and saying "there is no god," as if anything less is insufficient and irrational in his eyes. Apart from that, all I'm really saying in the portion you quoted above is that the same rules of evidence should apply to all sides.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 11:24:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel 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. Well, it could have been a language barrier. I even asked him if the issue was over language - whether a matter of semantics or terminology. I would have preferred to just have a nice friendly chat about our different points of view, but I was led into a strange discussion about Azonier and wondering if I really have a nose or not. It's not my intention to misrepresent anyone's position, but I would object to being called "irrational" for merely saying "I don't know if God exists or not" and somehow connecting that to whether I can logically state that I have a nose. I would wonder about the basis for making such a conclusion and the rationale behind it. All he kept saying was "Occam's Razor" and that it was "pure logic," without much elaboration. It was infuriating for me, too, going round and round like that. That said, I hope you're not implying that I've somehow misrepresented your position. I don't see where I've done that, but if I have, I'll retract whatever it is I might have said.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 5:25:29 PM)
GotSteel: If you can give me a single sample when exactly I should have misinterpreted Zonie, or where I was incomprehensible, then tell me. If not, I'll think that you are simply trying to be diplomatic with him. Or where #236 is wrong, by the way.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 5:59:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 All he kept saying was "Occam's Razor" and that it was "pure logic," without much elaboration. It was infuriating for me, too, going round and round like that. Yeah, I walked away from that one real quick. On a number of his positions I've gotten what he's talking about even when he doesn't really manage to convey it because they're classic atheist positions. The Occam's Razon thing though [sm=dunno.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Apart from that, all I'm really saying in the portion you quoted above is that the same rules of evidence should apply to all sides. You're also saying that atheists making that claim about God don't have evidence. I suspect that there are few atheists that make that claim who would agree with you. Going back to Santa Claus, we certainly haven't checked every cave and spider hole at the North Pole and in Alaska to make sure Santa isn't there so would you say that "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence? Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa."

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 6:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster GotSteel: If you can give me a single sample when exactly I should have misinterpreted Zonie, or where I was incomprehensible, then tell me. If not, I'll think that you are simply trying to be diplomatic with him. It was pointed out to you during your game that using a double negative caused you to be saying the exact opposite of what you thought you were saying.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 7:50:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster GotSteel: If you can give me a single sample when exactly I should have misinterpreted Zonie, or where I was incomprehensible, then tell me. If not, I'll think that you are simply trying to be diplomatic with him. It was pointed out to you during your game that using a double negative caused you to be saying the exact opposite of what you thought you were saying. Yes, it was. And still, people understood it and pointed it out to me. Therefore, it was not incomprehensible. GotSteel, I am speaking about people who actually WANT to understand what I say. So... any example...? One of each would be best, of course. Not forcing you, though. If you want to be diplomatic and then you prefer to pass on this one, it is ok.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/2/2011 11:50:51 PM)
PS to GotSteel, just for the case you or anybody is interested (which I doubt). If I ever get to "hide" 90% of the postings, I will consider this an inexact but still very useful filter of the 10% "most insteresting" postings of the forum. It saves me time and effort, it increases the mood they provoke on me. Of course I may miss something interesting, but if you look it with perspective, we miss anyway 99.999999% of everything interesting which is published somewhere in the net anyway. Not to speak about other, less reachable sources like books. The target is not to read "as much as possible" trying to find something interesting, but to use the time "as efficiently as possible", that is, waste as few as possible time reading useless things. And for that, the "filter" is a very good idea, even if it is inexact.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 5:01:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 All he kept saying was "Occam's Razor" and that it was "pure logic," without much elaboration. It was infuriating for me, too, going round and round like that. Yeah, I walked away from that one real quick. On a number of his positions I've gotten what he's talking about even when he doesn't really manage to convey it because they're classic atheist positions. The Occam's Razon thing though [sm=dunno.gif] Yes, it might have been better if he had explained more thoroughly his reasoning and how he was using Occam's Razor in this context. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Apart from that, all I'm really saying in the portion you quoted above is that the same rules of evidence should apply to all sides. You're also saying that atheists making that claim about God don't have evidence. I suspect that there are few atheists that make that claim who would agree with you. Going back to Santa Claus, we certainly haven't checked every cave and spider hole at the North Pole and in Alaska to make sure Santa isn't there so would you say that "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence? Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa." Technically, yes, although I doubt that very many people would ever challenge it. It doesn't necessarily involve searching every cave or spider hole, although we can assume that the Arctic region has been adequately explored by others already. The historical legends of Santa Claus and how they developed are documented in literature and art, so it's clearly not impossible to show evidence which reasonably proves the claim. To say "there is no Santa" might still be technically incorrect, since there might have been an actual historical figure upon which the legend was based. I would think it would be necessary to point that out, rather than just making a blanket claim that "there is no Santa." It might be better to say, "There is no Santa living today, as far as we know." That's often why we use these little parenthetical phrases like "as far as we know," "to the best of my knowledge," etc. I disagree with the notion that these phrases are unnecessary or that even without them, "everybody knows what I mean." I don't believe that to be the case at all.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 7:11:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Yes, it might have been better if he had explained more thoroughly his reasoning and how he was using Occam's Razor in this context. I think he's under the impression that he has explained it thoroughly and that we don't get it at all is one of the reasons he's getting pissed off. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 It doesn't necessarily involve searching every cave or spider hole, although we can assume that the Arctic region has been adequately explored by others already. Considering how much work it took to find Saddam (who didn't have magic powers) I don't think I can agree with that. Part of the myth is that Santa has a bag that can fit presents for all the good children, he clearly has some sort of magic which makes things bigger on the inside like Mary Poppins or the Time Lords. According to the myth he should have the ability to build a giant factory inside a spider hole. Once magic is involved how could we ever perform an adequate search?

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 7:22:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa." Technically, yes, although I doubt that very many people would ever challenge it. If there is no evidence either way then why would people never challenge it? If there is no evidence either way then how did you come to the conclusion that the likelihood that God exists is 10%

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 8:10:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Yes, it might have been better if he had explained more thoroughly his reasoning and how he was using Occam's Razor in this context. I think he's under the impression that he has explained it thoroughly and that we don't get it at all is one of the reasons he's getting pissed off. Probably so. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 It doesn't necessarily involve searching every cave or spider hole, although we can assume that the Arctic region has been adequately explored by others already. Considering how much work it took to find Saddam (who didn't have magic powers) I don't think I can agree with that. Part of the myth is that Santa has a bag that can fit presents for all the good children, he clearly has some sort of magic which makes things bigger on the inside like Mary Poppins or the Time Lords. According to the myth he should have the ability to build a giant factory inside a spider hole. Once magic is involved how could we ever perform an adequate search? Well, strictly speaking, we can't. But we can show that Santa Claus was, for all intents and purposes, just a character in a story, just like Mary Poppins. There would be documentation to show this. As far as Santa Claus having any magical abilities, that's another claim in and of itself related to whether or not "magic" exists. Since we would be able to show that the "magic" is also incorporated into the stories about Santa Claus, we would be able to demonstrate that it was a fictional idea invented by the author. Since the modern stories and ideas about Santa Claus can be traced back relatively recently (mainly the 19th century), it's relatively easy to do and there's very little fuss about it. The same process can be done by examining the documents and ancient texts regarding the possible existence of "God." However, that goes further back and can be far more complicated and problematic, especially considering that, unlike Santa Claus, "god" is a more general concept not tied to any specific mythology or mode of thought. Some religions have multiple "gods" and "goddesses," but the general implication is that there is some higher level intelligence and sentience with superior capabilities which would seem like "magic" to us. I don't know if any such higher intelligence exists in the universe, but I can't really say that such a thing doesn't exist either.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 8:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Does this statement strike you as reasonable: To say "there is no Santa" is a claim without evidence every bit as much as the claim that "there is a Santa." Technically, yes, although I doubt that very many people would ever challenge it. If there is no evidence either way then why would people never challenge it? If there is no evidence either way then how did you come to the conclusion that the likelihood that God exists is 10% I don't recall making any such conclusion or saying anything like 10%. I don't think I could put a percentage or probability on the question. The thing is, there is evidence, at least terms of historical documentation and artifacts regarding what human beings have written and claimed to have seen. This is true for stories about Santa Claus, as well as the Bible and other religious writings.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 9:13:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 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. Or it might have been non-random and non-sentient. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," -Stephen Hawking quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I would also suggest that we can't really predict or shape events as easily as we would like. As easily as we would like, certainly not but a whole lot of mysteries are swept away when we realize that we live in a reality which operates according to consistent laws as opposed to one that operates according to the whims of a sentient being.

Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 9:58:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 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. Or it might have been non-random and non-sentient. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," -Stephen Hawking quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I would also suggest that we can't really predict or shape events as easily as we would like. As easily as we would like, certainly not but a whole lot of mysteries are swept away when we realize that we live in a reality which operates according to consistent laws as opposed to one that operates according to the whims of a sentient being. Well, sure, I can agree with that. For all practical purposes, there's really nothing else that we can do. But we also have to be willing to acknowledge that there are still some things that we don't know about the universe in which we live. I just believe in differentiating between that which I know versus that which I don't know. I know that I have a nose. I don't know how or why the universe originated.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 12:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Well, sure, I can agree with that. For all practical purposes, there's really nothing else that we can do. But we also have to be willing to acknowledge that there are still some things that we don't know about the universe in which we live. I just believe in differentiating between that which I know versus that which I don't know. I know that I have a nose. I don't know how or why the universe originated. I agree with everything there.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 1:09:12 PM)
Of course there are things we don't know about the universe. Nobody said otherwise. But I could, of course, start again. - "How do you know that you have a nose, if you can't exclude Azonier?" - Because I feel it. - "But if Azonier, you would have exactly the same feelings, even with no nose, so your feelings are no prove that you have a nose" - You are arrogant, flambuoyant, irrational, bizarre, convoluted , grandiose and I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing I am not hearing... - "Fuck you. Now - the truth. Look into yourself. How exactly do you exclude Azonier?" - Because... well... because... I have no reason to think... because... ehm... by Occam's Razor, ok. - "Then why don't you use then Occam's Razor for God?" ... silence. I could start again. Meh. Nevermind.

tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 1:15:23 PM)
What is "Azonier"? Its name is Azonier. It is a being such, that it existence implies that you have no longer a nose, even if nobody notices. It is also defined as an imperceptible being. Please note that the very definition says that if it existe you do not longer have a nose. It does not say anything else about the being, about how this happened, or about how do you still have sensations. Azonier could be the matrix, could be a magician, could be anything... but if he exists, you do not have a nose. As simple as this, and please do not redefine "nose" or anything else without warning beforehand. My next questions are: * Can you affirm that Azonier exists? * Can you deny that Azonier exists? Your theory is that if the being came into existence, then you would no longer have a nose. It just suddenly disappears, but no one, not even you, or anyone looking at you, knows it disappeared. Then, by me saying I have a nose, its still true.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 1:37:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I don't recall making any such conclusion or saying anything like 10%. I don't think I could put a percentage or probability on the question. This is where I got it from: quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I will say, however, that I do tend to bristle whenever an atheist may be cajoling me when I say, for example, that I'm 90% certain that there is no god, and they're trying to get me to state it with 100% certainty. I won't do that, but I have encountered a few atheists who can get a bit pushy in that regard. So, I might make an issue out of that, but I would never mock anyone's beliefs one way or the other - except when they try to "convert" me.

GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 1:41:58 PM)
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. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The thing is, there is evidence, at least terms of historical documentation and artifacts regarding what human beings have written and claimed to have seen. This is true for stories about Santa Claus, as well as the Bible and other religious writings. I'm getting confused here, can you clarify, is there or is there not evidence?

Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/3/2011 2:46:26 PM)
[image]http://gallery.bobtfish.net/albums/tara/repost.jpg[/image] K.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875