Thought For The New Year

[shagdrum]

no, the core issue has always been in reality.

Can you say "distinction without difference"? The standard by which you judge reality is the point I have been raising! You assume a simplistic, self-serving materialist standard that, if applied, would view things like the mind, identity, ideas, etc as a "myth". If only things present in the physical world are real, then you are ignoring a good chunk of reality. It is an absurdly inappropriate standard that you cling to because A) you don't seem to know any better, and B) it serves your interests.

You assumption of a materialist standard here is not something that you seem to be capable of understanding; let alone defending and justifying. So, it is something that you clearly take on faith. Each post that passes without you justifying that standard further proves you are basing your view on faith.

Basically, by assuming your self-serving materialist standard, you are ignoring reality in favor of your faith.

no evidence is not a logical enough reason?

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

From no evidence, you can infer that it is likely that something does not exist. But you cannot affirm conclusively that something does not exist; except through faith.

the argument is not as complicated as you wish to make it out to be.

You think this is complicated?!

Are you simply that scared of anything philosophical in nature?

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

I am not going to go back and forth with you in yet another thread as you attempt to manipulate points to fit into your delusional world view, making the thread all about you in the process.

If you are not going to consider an alternative viewpoint then you are not discussing things in good faith. And if you are only willing to consider a view point on from the point of view of your viewpoint; on your terms, thing you are incapable of actually understanding an alternative viewpoint.

Unless you can be skeptical of your own views, you are wasting everyone's time here. Unless you are capable of honest discussion, this conversation is over.

 

[shagdrum]

who said i was having a scientific conversation?

Your materialist standard shows that. That standard is, necessarily, the one science uses because metaphysics is beyond the grasp of science, directly.

i am arguing as to the reality of a god. science is not necessary here.

Then why can't you disregard your materialist standard? All this talk of any religion being a conclusive "myth" because of a lack of physical evidence is a childish attempt to perpetuate that standard.

 

[hrmwrm]

The standard by which you judge reality is the point I have been raising! You assume a simplistic, self-serving materialist standard that, if applied, would view things like the mind, identity, ideas, etc as a "myth".

nothing is myth as long as it's proven.

If only things present in the physical world are real, then you are ignoring a good chunk of reality.

examples?

 

[cammerfe]

"Who has seen the wind
Neither I nor you
but when the leaves hang trembling
the wind is passing through..."

 

[shagdrum]

nothing is myth as long as it's proven.

Are you unable to grasp the point I am raising, or unwilling?

By your standard, Atheism is a myth.

examples?

Already listed NUMEROUS times in this thread. In fact, a few were listed in a part of my last post that you quoted.

 

[fossten]

who said i was having a scientific conversation?
i am arguing as to the reality of a god. science is not necessary here.
as for the bible, well, it's not even accepted as truth and factual from believers. you are among a minority.

Oh really?

1. That's a flawed argument - Argumentum ad populum

2. 63% of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.

You FAIL.

many of the biblical stories are taken from life experiences, so i would expect them to conform to real life.

You haven't even read the Bible, so you wouldn't even know this to be true. But hey - PROVE IT.

it is the supernatural power to which they claim all is from, that is fantasy.
and much in the bible may be correct in historical accuracy as far as rulers and wars, just as a fictionary novel of today might have conflict and political leaders correctly identified.

You don't believe in the supernatural? That puts YOU in the minority.

but it still doesn't prove the "imaginary friend" is real.
why would i believe in your god over one even more ancient that has been put to the realm of mythology? or even a more ancient one still being worshipped? like i said. run along, and come back with evidence.

You're using argument from ignorance, which is a flawed argument. As I've already said, there is evidence, you're just interpreting it through your presupposed filter.

And since you're nothing but a mocking little demagogue, there's no point in conversing with you. You're not interested in a productive conversation.

 

[foxpaws]

I am not going to go back and forth with you in yet another thread as you attempt to manipulate points to fit into your delusional world view, making the thread all about you in the process.

If you are not going to consider an alternative viewpoint then you are not discussing things in good faith. And if you are only willing to consider a view point on from the point of view of your viewpoint; on your terms, thing you are incapable of actually understanding an alternative viewpoint.

Unless you can be skeptical of your own views, you are wasting everyone's time here. Unless you are capable of honest discussion, this conversation is over.

Shag - I am the one that is skeptical...you are the one unwilling to look at something differently. Heck, for years I have accepted that people who don't have god, must also use faith that god doesn't exist (your viewpoint). But, couldn't there be another way of looking at this. Maybe you haven't taken any type of analytical math, but if you understand null sets, then you have to understand that there is something beyond yes, no and maybe. Perhaps there lies something beyond the three scenarios you give in this - belief, atheist and agnostic. You are the one with blinders on Shag - not me.

You are so stuck in your books that you forget that it is far more interesting to question the world outside of the classroom texts.

 

[fossten]

Shag - I am the one that is skeptical...you are the one unwilling to look at something differently. Heck, for years I have accepted that people who don't have god, must also use faith that god doesn't exist (your viewpoint). But, couldn't there be another way of looking at this. Maybe you haven't taken any type of analytical math, but if you understand null sets, then you have to understand that there is something beyond yes, no and maybe. Perhaps there lies something beyond the three scenarios you give in this - belief, atheist and agnostic. You are the one with blinders on Shag - not me.

You are so stuck in your books that you forget that it is far more interesting to question the world outside of the classroom texts.

Wishful thinking combined with argumentum ad nauseum.

 

[hrmwrm]

63% of Americans believe the Bible is literally true.

that's about double what i found.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

but then, 63% of americans is still not the majority of christians worldwide.

You don't believe in the supernatural? That puts YOU in the minority.

still doesn't make it real.

As I've already said, there is evidence, you're just interpreting it through your presupposed filter.

as i said, post it up. does it stand up as evidence?

 

[hrmwrm]

Already listed NUMEROUS times in this thread. In fact, a few were listed in a part of my last post that you quoted.

really. must have missed them. quote them again.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I am the one that is skeptical

Much as you may want to believe that, the fact is that you are not being skeptical of certain ideas, you are being hostile to certain ideas. You are not "questioning" or "exploring" or any other such honest sounding claim; you are actively distorting to fit your world view.

You can spin it all you want as some broad open-mindedness, but if that were the case you wouldn't be hostile to ideas that you do not understand simply because they threaten your delusional worldview. Your actions are clearly those of someone unwilling to understand and honestly consider ideas that contradict her worldview.

If you want to deceive yourself, fine. But don't expect us to buy into your distortions and lies.

 

[shagdrum]

really. must have missed them. quote them again.

No.

All you are doing is actively attempting to move the goalposts and impose arbitrary self serving standards against an argument that you don't understand to defend an argument that you also ultimately don't understand but accept on faith.

If you had actually taken the time to read that article I posted up, it shows all these dishonest tactics you are using for what they are. I am simply expanding and clarifying some of those points that supported my claim for those not as familiar with some of the philosophical concepts in the article.

Here are a few more quotes from that article...

...From a logical point of view, how could God’s non-existence be proven? The atheist would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and all dimensions, to know for sure that God does not exist. However, an atheist with such properties would be virtually ‘divine’ himself...

...[the author being responded to] seems to be using the tactic of throwing the burden of proof on those asserting an affirmative proposition, e.g. ‘God exists’ as opposed to the negative proposition ‘God does not exist.’ But then an example of self-refutation occurs: the proposition: ‘The burden of proof falls on the affirmative position’ is itself an affirmative proposition, so requires proof in itself!

But this commonly overlooked point aside, as shown by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, atheism is just as much an assertion as theism. Therefore the burden of proof falls equally, and a fairer debate question would be ‘Does God exist?’ Also, atheists assert many affirmative statements without proof...

...How would you know [that proof of God's existence is not possible] unless you’ve tried all possible proofs? Or can you prove that no proof is possible? What precisely would count as ‘proofs’? Perhaps you mean ‘valid arguments with true premises with the conclusion “God exists”’. We have presented such proofs on the website, and [the author being responded to has] failed to refute these...

...Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga—he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist—see God and Other Minds, Cornell University Press, repr. 1990.

...[the view that belief in God is irrational] presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof. However, according to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof. This applies to atheism, science, mathematics, and propositional logic itself. And there are also many other propositions in everyday life that people believe without mathematically rigorous proof, e.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow, that a mother loves her child, etc. Therefore it is perfectly logical for Christians to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms. This is our bottom line—although the above arguments for God’s existence can be helpful, we believe that the Scriptures are their own authority. We do not ultimately try to prove the Bible with science, for that would place science in authority.

The difference between the Christian’s axioms and the atheist’s is that ours are self-consistent, make good sense of the evidence, and are consistent with the arguments proposed above. Conversely, the atheist’s axioms are ultimately self-refuting—perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals.​

You can not understand an argument like this on your terms and by your standard. You have to be able to be skeptical of your own view so you can understand the argument on it's own terms and verify it's internal logical consistency (in as far as it relies on logic). Then you judge it by reasonable, objective standards. Not by the self-serving, irrational standards that you are imposing.

Unfortunately, like foxpaws, your hostility toward the ideas insures that you are unable to understand them. This means that your attempt to rationalize a dismissal of the point is rather obvious to see for anyone with enough intellectual integrity to take the time to actually understand the points being raised

 

[foxpaws]

And shag, you continue in your narrow world view... it really shows how closed minded you are. Not only can you not think outside the box, heck, you can't even imagine ideas that might bump up against the box's walls...

I am not being hostile to any ideas - I have been asking why you can't have a 4th choice here - you don't even address that - clinging onto your 'safe' articles and quotes keeping you firmly rooted in something that is status quo. I accept that atheists, as historically defined (often by believers), have a type of faith that must be involved to deny the existence of God - but, couldn't there be something else involved here as well? Something else that might be explored as a possibility? Do you understand the concept of 'null set' shag?

Oh, quoting from a Creationist Ministry site? Isn't that a little self serving?

 

[fossten]

And shag, you continue in your narrow world view... it really shows how closed minded you are. Not only can you not think outside the box, heck, you can't even imagine ideas that might bump up against the box's walls...

I am not being hostile to any ideas - I have been asking why you can't have a 4th choice here - you don't even address that - clinging onto your 'safe' articles and quotes keeping you firmly rooted in something that is status quo. I accept that atheists, as historically defined (often by believers), have a type of faith that must be involved to deny the existence of God - but, couldn't there be something else involved here as well? Something else that might be explored as a possibility? Do you understand the concept of 'null set' shag?

Oh, quoting from a Creationist Ministry site? Isn't that a little self serving?

Ad hominem and whiny. Really weak, fox.

 

[fossten]

as i said, post it up. does it stand up as evidence?

We've been through this before. This discussion ends up being nothing but a long litany of dueling c/p position posts. If I thought you were sincerely trying to learn something instead of just being obstinate and rude, I'd bother. But you're not worth it.

Good luck in hell.

 

[hrmwrm]

...From a logical point of view, how could God’s non-existence be proven?

i also said in my example of the imaginary friend, in your terms, i could not absolutely prove the imaginary friend did not exist.
yet is it plausible?

All you are doing is actively attempting to move the goalposts

it is you who are moving the goalposts. just because it's "GOD" it is no more likely to exist than the imaginary friend. it is no more more than a claim of existence for something that has no evidence for it.

Not by the self-serving, irrational standards that you are imposing.

what's irrational of concrete proof?
it's you imposing irrational standards.
how rational is the supernatural?
it's you who like the black and white arguement. c'mon. put it into the straight b/w arguement your good for.
put up the proof.
otherwise he's still just the imaginary friend, for which there is no evidence.

 

[hrmwrm]

Good luck in hell

is that supposed to worry me? your hilarious.

 

[hrmwrm]

I accept that atheists, as historically defined (often by believers), have a type of faith that must be involved to deny the existence of God -

actually, it's not very involved at all.

 

[fossten]

it is no more more than a claim of existence for something that has no evidence for it.

False claim. You fail.

 

[hrmwrm]

False claim. You fail.

prove it false, else you FAILED.

 

[fossten]

prove it false, else you FAILED.

Already did. You can't claim an absolute without absolute knowledge.

You're really being childish. I'm surprised, actually. I didn't think you were this petulant.

 

[shagdrum]

i also said in my example of the imaginary friend, in your terms, i could not absolutely prove the imaginary friend did not exist.
yet is it plausible?

Absolute certainty (which is what atheism is) does not logically follow from plausibility. Showing that something is "plausible" is very far away from actually proving something.

Accepting that it is "plausible" is the agnostic position. Going beyond that and claiming it is a certainty is the atheist position.

it is no more more than a claim of existence for something that has no evidence for it.

I never said you can conclusively prove God. There is a leap of faith involved in that view that I have never denied.

The point I am raising is that there is also a leap of faith involved in atheism that atheists try to deny through various means. Your continued attempts to dodge that point only strengthen it. For instance, by continually asking for "proof" you are intentionally dodging my claim and trying to shift the burden of proof onto me by changing the subject.

what's irrational of concrete proof?

What "concrete proof" do you have for your views? Everything I have seen so far is based on certain assumptions being first accepted (like a simplistic materialist standard by which to judge reality). You have to be able to at least logically justify those standards or your views are clearly based in faith.

it's you imposing irrational standards.

What standards are those?
The only thing I have demanded is that you justify your materialist standard, which you have avoided. If you can't give a reason for it, it is "irrational".

put up the proof.

Again, you are actively shifting the focus of the debate to dodge a flaw in your reasoning; your materialist standard.

 

[shagdrum]

And shag, you continue in your narrow world view... it really shows how closed minded you are.

You are misrepresenting and distorting the points I am raising and the distinction between agnosticism and atheism. There are only two possible explanations for that:

1. You genuinely don't understand the points being raised.
2. You are actively trying to avoid honestly confronting the points I am raising.

If it is the first case, you should apply any skepticism to your own views and instead apply empathy toward my points until you are sure that you understand them. To do anything else shows a lack of good faith, integrity and wisdom.

If it is the second case, it also demonstrates a lack of good faith, integrity and wisdom as well as dishonesty and hostility to opposing views.

Either case is not the action of someone who is at all "open-minded".

While it is clear that you do not grasp the points I am raising, considering how you are misrepresenting me, it seems that both cases are true for you in this instance; primarily the second case.

You are also dogmatically holding to the notion that the truth lies in some middle ground between two different views. While your argument seems highly dependent on that assumption, there is absolutely no reason to make that a priori assumption.

However, manufacturing a false "middle ground" is a very effective technique for propagandists and those looking to deceive other (or themselves).

Because it inherently distorts the two views to muddy the waters and create a gray area where there is none (or expand a gray area beyond what is reasonable), it is very useful in avoiding honestly and logically confronting opposing views as well as deceptively making the irrational seem rational. As you have said before, you "need" gray areas. If you have to use "gray areas" as a crutch, there is no honesty or integrity in your arguments. If your argument inherently misrepresents the points it is responding to (a consequence of manufacturing a "middle ground"), then only a fool would give it any consideration. It is not an issue of being "open-minded", it is an issue of honesty and integrity.

 

[foxpaws]

You are misrepresenting and distorting the points I am raising and the distinction between agnosticism and atheism. There are only two possible explanations for that:

1. You genuinely don't understand the points being raised.
2. You are actively trying to avoid honestly confronting the points I am raising.

Shag - I haven't avoided, misrepresented or distorted your points. However, you stick to 3 choices here - but not once have you addressed the possibility of a forth. You keep stating that it must be one of your 3 choices, but why not even address the possibility of a forth?

And since you haven't answered whether (please note spelling shag - it drives me crazy that you spell this usage of the word 'weather', weather happens outside, whether or not you agree) or not you understand null sets, I am going to assume then you aren't able to look at this with some modicum of set logic.

If it is the first case, you should apply any skepticism to your own views and instead apply empathy toward my points until you are sure that you understand them. To do anything else shows a lack of good faith, integrity and wisdom.

I am 'wondering' why there can't be that forth possibility, however, you can't even address that possibility. Why can't be a 4th scenario, you have yet to logically dispute it, you dance around it, but you don't ever seem to refute it.

If it is the second case, it also demonstrates a lack of good faith, integrity and wisdom as well as dishonesty and hostility to opposing views.

Either case is not the action of someone who is at all "open-minded".

While it is clear that you do not grasp the points I am raising, considering how you are misrepresenting me, it seems that both cases are true for you in this instance; primarily the second case.

I understand your points - they aren't difficult, and we have no argument with the three. However,you have yet to answer the null set question (the 4th possibility)- I can assume you don't understand it - but, I doubt that. Certainly you have enough math to grasp the set concept I set out earlier. You keep trying to put the 4th possibility into the 'agnostic' set - but that set still has items in it, what happens with the set with no items in it?

You are also dogmatically holding to the notion that the truth lies in some middle ground between two different views. While your argument seems highly dependent on that assumption, there is absolutely no reason to make that a priori assumption.

However, manufacturing a false "middle ground" is a very effective technique for propagandists and those looking to deceive other (or themselves).

Because it inherently distorts the two views to muddy the waters and create a gray area where there is none (or expand a gray area beyond what is reasonable), it is very useful in avoiding honestly and logically confronting opposing views as well as deceptively making the irrational seem rational. As you have said before, you "need" gray areas. If you have to use "gray areas" as a crutch, there is no honesty or integrity in your arguments. If your argument inherently misrepresents the points it is responding to (a consequence of manufacturing a "middle ground"), then only a fool would give it any consideration. It is not an issue of being "open-minded", it is an issue of honesty and integrity.

It isn't a middle ground shag - it is an addition of another possibility to the three you outline. Where is the middle ground?

I have said that you don't explore the gray - in this case looking beyond your school text standards. Your black and white involves what you have read in texts up to this point.