RE: Agnosticism (Full Version)

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



Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 10:12:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I don't think that I can make that standard either, but by all means if that's your standard let's see LevelOf("2+2=4") = LevelOf("there is no God") please remember to list all possible scenarios.

I do not claim that LevelOf("2+2=4") = LevelOf("there is no God"), that is, that both scenarios are equally probable. My claim is that I can't make any probability calculation at all. And that, therefore, I can make no difference between the probabilities of both based on any rational argument. Both are proved only using Occam's Razor. So, I am equally certain about both, because I use the same method for both and I ignore the same about both. I have no rational support to make any difference.

So... do you have any rational argument besides Occam's Razor to support the claim, that it is more probable that 2+2=4, as that there are 8 planets?

No gut feelings, please. Remember that I always say "When we are rational". So, if you can't calculate the probabilities of possible scenarios which can only be discarded by Occam's Razor ... how on Earth can you state rationally that one thing is more probable as the other if you can't calculate the probabilities?



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/27/2011 11:46:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Why do people think it's reasonable to swap out the being widely believed by it's adherents to answer prayers and effect their lives that the atheist is actually talking about with some hypothetical, undefined, untestable deity/deities?

Probably because he says, "there is no God" period.

(Just a wild guess.)

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 1:11:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Hey guys, I haven't been put on hide! Am I missing out on spmething special?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Tweakabelle, I appreciate your tone and I agree with some things you posted.

1.

But let me still put my main objection this way.
quote:

It's often remarked that the only constant in change or that the only certainty is uncertainty.
How can you be so certain of this?
quote:

The virtues of uncertainty are many.
And of this?
quote:

Acknowledging uncertainty eliminates dogmatism
And of this?
quote:

it diminishes the power element inherent in any statement of knowledge
And of this?
quote:

it's inherently more democratic, more human
And of this?
quote:

It's consistent with the proposition that, for any given phenomenon there are a potentially infinite number of correct explanations
And of this?

What I mean is: you make a huge number of propositions in your message. Why, if you are not certain? Maybe because even not being certain, you consider them valid and then you simply state them?

Then, why on Earth should I not do the same with the existence of God?

Why on Earth should I behave with the existence of God, in a different way as you behave about almost anything else, including the assertions on your last message?

2.

quote:

the existence of deities cannot be either proved nor disproved through rational methods
This is plain wrong. It can be disproved. The problem is that even a rational proof is not a guaranteed absolute, definitive certain answer. But it can be disproved, please read my previous message in this thread (it is long, but I hope it is worth it). I can show you all three demonstrations of the inexistence of God i use and you can try to object them.

3.

Please speak with Kirata. He insists that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. Maybe you should have talked with him about the advantages of uncertainty. Why don't you do it? Maybe, for some irrational reason, you are more disturbed about the uncertain but plain assert from me "God does not exist" as for the (pretended) certain and absolute assert 2+2=4 of Kirata? Then your problem is not with certainty, but an emotional issue with religious asserts, don't you think?

As for me, I treat religious asserts about the universe as any other assert about the universe. But you seem to be at odds with this: you state plain asserts about many things without hesitation, and do not criticize people stating asserts as absolutely true, instead you criticize plain asserts even if they are as uncertain as yours or more. So... it is not uncertainty what you are defending. It is religion.

4.

I really think that you mistake uncertainty with tolerance. I can be completely convinced of my truth, and at the same time hold a truth which compels me to be tolerant and give other opinions a space. I think you are wrong on this, and that the mistake is heavy, as this kind of confusion can easily lead to moral relativism - "let them mutilate the genitals of their children, who knows, maybe they are right and human rights are an imperialistic invention".

No, thanks.




tweakabelle -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 2:46:06 AM)

In post # 100 SMM wrote:

"Therefore, for every assert we make, even the most simple ones, they can always be wrong. No matter how simple or obvious they are. No matter if they are based on data of the external world or data of our own brain, no matter if they are wrong because the data is wrong, or because the reasoning was wrong... we can always be wrong."

I agree 100% with SMM's assertion above. For me, SMM has made an accurate (or, if you prefer, valid) assertion about the limits of human potential. There is always a possibility of human assertion being wrong.

SMM claims that "God does not exist" is a proposition free from uncertainty (post#143). This claim is an assertion and subject to all the limits that apply to all human assertions. That includes the possibility that is wrong, as we have just seen. As this possibility is NOT described in SMM's claim, and to include this possiblity (which both SMM and I agree must be contained in assertion for it to be valid) requires a serious modification to SMM's claim/assertion to the extent that it loses its certainty, SMM's claim must fail.

As it happens, I almost agree with SMM in that I find it extremely improbable that a God exists. Not utterly impossible but highly improbable. It is not an issue which I (or AFAIK any one else) can assert one way or the other with 100% certainty, there will always be an element of uncertainty hovering over this question. Until someone provides an argument that "God does (or does not) exist" that provides proof to a standard that is (to borrow SMM's terms) " guaranteed absolute, definitive certain"* I shall continue to insist that there is a degree of uncertainty about the possible existence/non-existence of a God.

If SMM's own words (as I have quoted above) have any merit, I suspect SMM has no rational option but to agree with me. In the end of course, that's SMM's choice.

Further as I consider the demand that proof be "guaranteed absolute, definitive certain" as most probably beyond the limits of human potential, I see little likelihood of this changing in the future. There remains a possibility that this last assertion could be proven wrong in time.

*SMM post # 143.



gungadin09 -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 5:07:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
"Therefore, for every assert we make, even the most simple ones, they can always be wrong. No matter how simple or obvious they are. No matter if they are based on data of the external world or data of our own brain, no matter if they are wrong because the data is wrong, or because the reasoning was wrong... we can always be wrong."

I agree 100% with SMM's assertion above. For me, SMM has made an accurate (or, if you prefer, valid) assertion about the limits of human potential. There is always a possibility of human assertion being wrong.


The problem with that is i suspect you don't really go around qualifying your every claim to express the possibility that you could be wrong. i suspect you don't say, i believe the world is round, i believe the sun will rise tomorrow, i believe 2+2=4, i believe i am a woman, i believe i am human, etc. i'm with you on this one. i think we do only BELIEVE those things. But many of the things we merely believe we nevertheless express as facts, without uncertainty. By convention, we say, such-and-such is so, or is not so, and NOT, i merely believe it is so because i realize it is humanly impossible to know anything.

i think SMM is wrong to express his beliefs as certainty, while not allowing others to do the same. But i don't think he's wrong to fail to explicitly express uncertainty for every claim that he makes. We all occasionally express ourselves with more confidence that we actually feel.

pam



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 5:56:44 AM)

Dear tweakabelle, I am sorry you are not reading with much attention what I write... [&o].

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
SMM claims that "God does not exist" is a proposition free from uncertainty (post#143)

This is utterly wrong, the opposite of what I have said repeatedly in this thread (see (1)).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
As it happens, I almost agree with SMM in that I find it extremely improbable that a God exists.
Again, this is utterly wrong and the opposite of what I have repeatedly said in this thread (see (2)). I have denied explicitly the possibility to make ANY calculation of probabilities on the matter, therefore the assertion is not "improbable" or "probable".

Judging with the whole reason, with Occam's Razor, "God does not exist". Said with the same clauses I have repeatedly expressed, and which apply too for "2+2=4", "I have a nose" or "Santa does not exist".

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I shall continue to insist that there is a degree of uncertainty about the possible existence/non-existence of a God.
As of 2+2=4, there is also a degree of uncertainty about this as well. I agree. Do you agree?

You have not answered many other questions:
* Why do you concentrate on an uncertain claim about God, and not on a certain claim about 2+2=4 ? Is it possible that you are not really, as you pretend, arguing against absolute certainties, but in favor of religion?
* Why on Earth should I not use the same simple formulations you use for asserts like " for any given phenomenon there are a potentially infinite number of correct explanations", for the non-existence of God, being that are both uncertain assertions?
* Why do you say that the existence of deities cannot be either proved nor disproved through rational methods? Can you prove this somehow or is it only an intuition of you? Do you realize that you are saying that demonstrations, which you do not even know, must be wrong? How do you mix this with your defense of uncertainty?

I will let be, to spare your time, the question about how you mistake uncertainty with tolerance (as some dogmatic people are tolerant) or how your way to understand uncertainty can easily lead to moral relativism, a plague of modern society which has allowed severe physical damage on millions of innocent people. Ok, let us concentrate on Agnosticism and God.

And thank you for answering, even only partially and after two reminders.






(1) Post 52: I think that God does not exist, according to reason, used by me (I can make mistakes) on the data I get (which can be misleading), until somebody proves me otherwise.; Post 63: "I have another reasoning (which may be wrong) based on data (which may be false) leading me to "God does not exist"; Post 100: "for every assert we make, even the most simple ones, they can always be wrong" (...) "there is not God"(... ) implicitly adding the clauses of reason: " or so I think, as long as I am not proven wrong".

(2) Post 52: I have no serious and rational way to calculate any "degree of probability" which renders one "more probable" as the other, because I cannot measure all the possibilities involved, nor their probability; Post 63: I cannot even calculate a probability of it being true; Post 90: Can you make such a calculation? I can't. (...) then... which is the difference with the non-existence of God?; Post 100: Cannot we establish that 2+2=4 is just more probable as "God does not exist", for example? The problem is, well, we can't.



GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 6:39:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
SMM claims that "God does not exist" is a proposition free from uncertainty (post#143).


What I found in post#143 was a compelling rebuttal to that statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
What I mean is: you make a huge number of propositions in your message. Why, if you are not certain? Maybe because even not being certain, you consider them valid and then you simply state them?

Then, why on Earth should I not do the same with the existence of God?

Why on Earth should I behave with the existence of God, in a different way as you behave about almost anything else, including the assertions on your last message?




tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 6:43:31 AM)

quote:

quote:

quote:

the existence of deities cannot be either proved nor disproved through rational methods

This is plain wrong. It can be disproved. The problem is that even a rational proof is not a guaranteed absolute, definitive certain answer. But it can be disproved, please read my previous message in this thread (it is long, but I hope it is worth it). I can show you all three demonstrations of the inexistence of God i use and you can try to object them.


Go for it (from post 143)



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 6:45:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
SMM claims that "God does not exist" is a proposition free from uncertainty (post#143).

What I found in post#143 was a compelling rebuttal to that statement.
Thank you, I was so surprised that I actually doubted if my English comprehension was wrong and she was saying the opposite about me.

Both: Please note that #143 only repeats #102, as tweakabelle did not answer to #102 and later asked if she had lost something. So, the "previous message" mentioned in #102 is #100, a message which pretty much resumes what I have been telling in this thread all along.

Thank you for your attention.



Kirata -> Magic and Other Hobbies (11/28/2011 12:20:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Please speak with Kirata. He insists that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth.

No I didn't. You're lying again. Is there no bottom to this pit of shit? You and GotSteel are the ones relying on the word "absolute" in this discussion. And with good reason, too, because your entire position depends on it (that and making a mockery of poor Willilam of Ockham, who never did anything to either of you).

The assertion that one cannot, for example, claim that 2 + 2 = 4 with "absolute" certainty introduces a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality (namely, that there exists an "absolute" reality beyond the reality described by statements like "2 + 2 = 4") and an epistemological claim that we cannot know with certainty what the nature of this "absolute" reality might be.

That is simply a trick to escape the consequence of claiming certainty and uncertainty at the same time, which is nothing more or less than asserting two mutually-exclusive claims simultaneously, and precisely the sort of aberration that commonly convinces relatives to seek guardianship over the afflicted's affairs.

K.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Magic and Other Hobbies (11/28/2011 4:31:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Please speak with Kirata. He insists that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth.

No I didn't. You're lying again. Is there no bottom to this pit of shit? You and GotSteel are the ones relying on the word "absolute" in this discussion. And with good reason, too, because your entire position depends on it (that and making a mockery of poor Willilam of Ockham, who never did anything to either of you).

The assertion that one cannot, for example, claim that 2 + 2 = 4 with "absolute" certainty introduces a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality (namely, that there exists an "absolute" reality beyond the reality described by statements like "2 + 2 = 4") and an epistemological claim that we cannot know with certainty what the nature of this "absolute" reality might be.

That is simply a trick to escape the consequence of claiming certainty and uncertainty at the same time, which is nothing more or less than asserting two mutually-exclusive claims simultaneously, and precisely the sort of aberration that commonly convinces relatives to seek guardianship over the afflicted's affairs.

K.



the whole concept is silly. 2+2 absolutely does = 4 because of the definitions of 2 and 4. There is nothing subjective about it. If you (the general you, not Kirata) want to live in a universe with a mathematics with alternative different definitions of 2 and 4, go right ahead, but in this one it is inarguable.



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (11/28/2011 10:45:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

This is plain wrong... I can show you all three demonstrations of the inexistence of God

Go for it (from post 143)

Here's a hoot... Over on another thread, Mister there-is-no-God-and-I-can-prove-it just delivered a lecture on how to choose a religion.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 4:11:07 AM)

Its a wonder when that man goes outside he doesnt simply float away.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:17:17 AM)

Hello!

Ok, I beg your pardon (really) but MissAsylum wrote me and then blocked me immediately. So I post here my answer, under the guessing that it will find its way to her... she answered to this post of me, I won't copy all her response, only the part I read and my answer to it.
quote:

Ok, this is what I read...
quote:

Me: 1. No, you do not respect my beliefs.
Her: Yes i do. Where have you read me saying anything rude about you being an atheist? Please, point me in that direction.
My beliefs include my opinion on Christians, and you have been quite disrespectful towards them. Oh - wait - religious beliefs you mean? They deserve special respect? No, sorry, they don't. They are just like any other belief. I would be surprised if you could prove otherwise using reason and a humanist morality.
quote:

Her: That is what is childish behavior. You are not a child. Act accordingly.

Ok, apparently you can't communicate without insulting, so now I also block you. Goodbye, and good luck.
I post this here because I do not have the impression that it is so much off-topic as many other messages, but still, sorry for the disturbance.

And really! If someone can prove me, using reason, that we must respect religious beliefs more than any other kind of belief, you are welcome...

Best regards.



xxblushesxx -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 5:19:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Hello!

Well, MissAsylum wrote me and then blocked me. I post here my answer, I am confident it will find its way to her...
It is her answer to this post, and my answer to it.

Ok, this is what I read...
quote:

Me: 1. No, you do not respect my beliefs.
Her: Yes i do. Where have you read me saying anything rude about you being an atheist? Please, point me in that direction.


My beliefs include my opinion on Christians, and you have been quite disrespectful towards them. Oh - wait - RELIGIOUS beliefs deserve special respect? No, they don't. They are just like any other belief. I would be susprised if you could PROVE otherwise the REASON.
quote:

Her: That is what is childish behavior. You are not a child. Act accordingly.

Ok, apparently you can't communicate without insulting, so I block you. Goodbye, and good luck.
I post this here because I do not have the impression that it is so much off-topic as many other messages here.
And really! If someone can prove me, using reason, that we must respect religious beliefs more than any other kind of belief, you are welcome...
Best regards.



Maybe she has you on hide? [;)][:D][:D]



tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 6:19:36 AM)

quote:

Ok, I beg your pardon (really) but MissAsylum wrote me and then blocked me immediately.


Unless I am mistaken, you blocked her.. she did not block you.

quote:

And really! If someone can prove me, using reason, that we must respect religious beliefs more than any other kind of belief, you are welcome...


But its perfectly ok for you to disrespect religious belief more than any other kind of belief... simply because its not your belief.

That is the basis for her post.



MissAsylum -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 6:24:43 AM)

[8|]

Post the whole conversation, not parts that benefit you. My responses are without numbers.

1. No,you do not respect my beliefs.

Yes i do. Where have you read me saying anything rude about you being an atheist? Please,point me in that direction. I may not think much of your attitude and how you interact with others,but i still respect that you live by facts. When have i said otherwise?

2. Do you also respect the belief that there was no Holocaust? I do not. Why should we?

What does this have to do with anything? When did i say anything about the Holocaust and that you need to believe in it? Are you bringing this up because I am Jewish? How ridiculous. However,you are within your rights to believe in what you want,and i won't say otherwise. I dont think ill of you because you don't believe in the Holocaust. That's not my business.

3. I respect people,not beliefs. And only when they deserve it.

What a person decides to believe is part of that person. What a person believes in has some baring on how they conduct themselves and treat others. I had said absolutely nothing to you before yesterday,and you decided to say something sincerely ugly based off the fact that we do not share the same beliefs.

4. Why should I care about what you care of?

Obviously,you do care what i think of. You cared enough to take what i said out of context and write a response to it. You cared enough to write out this response.


5. What I told is supported by fact and history,your ourburst of flame is ridiculous.

I do not care what you presented being based on fact and history. Howeve,what is a fact is that you have not met every person who believes in a higher being,and it is rediculous to make a sweeping generalization about them. Have I met every Spanish person? No- so based on your posting history,it would be quite silly for me to believe everybody who is of Spanish descent is just like you.

6. You are being childish,not me. Shouting and insulting as only reaction.

Didn't insult you. Yelling was wrong,and i apologize. However,i do not apologize for the content of what i had said.

7. Goodbye,hidden. Grow up yourself,you need it more than me.

This is the part that is funny. You need to grow up more than I ever will. You need to have manners. Being an "adult" doesn't mean you need to be rude and antagonizing to those you do not agree with. That is what is childish behavior. You are not a child. Act accordingly.




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 6:32:16 AM)

quote:

MissAsylum
This user is on your "hidden" list and the post has been hidden.
Click here to unhide this user and view the post.

Done. Thank you all and sorry again for the off-topic.



tazzygirl -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 6:41:08 AM)

As typical, he doesnt like the answer so he runs from it.



MissAsylum -> RE: Agnosticism (11/29/2011 6:55:15 AM)

He can do that.

I have no further words for a person who can be so outright disgusting to others.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625