Thought For The New Year

[shagdrum]

Shag - I haven't avoided, misrepresented or distorted your points.

Either you are lying, or you are deceiving yourself with your rationalizations. My money is on "lying". Especially, since this thread has clearly gotten personal for you.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, you are actually telling the truth, then you clearly don't understand the points I am raising. Weather intentional or not, you are misrepresenting the points I am raising.

Considering you are so quick to counter views that you don't understand (especially after that fact has been pointed out), you are not arguing in good faith and are showing hostility to legitimate points being raised. Again, an issue of integrity.

However, you stick to 3 choices here - but not once have you addressed the possibility of a forth.

Because your "4th choice" depends on misrepresentation. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is simply a means to dodge that point.

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.

The burden of proof is on YOU to logically prove that there is an actual "4th option". Since you can only rationalize that through misrepresentation, your point is not worth consideration. Only an honest, reasonable point is worth consideration. However, if you are trying to deceive, you marginalize yourself and your arguments.

 

[hrmwrm]

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".

you keep injecting the supernatural, which IS irrational and has no evidence for it. (you keep refering to as faith).

justify my materialist stance? this a joke? you ever been in a court room? it relies on evidence. you know, real facts for real things.
although i do question your need to keep interjecting the supernatural, an unproven thing.
i have justified my stance. what's your need for the ghouls and goblins to be included.

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.

you go ahead and believe in a childs imaginary friend. i think i'm safe in going further and not believing in it's existence.


from fossten

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

you can't claim existence without evidence. enjoy your imaginary friend.

 

[shagdrum]

you keep injecting the supernatural, which IS irrational and has no evidence for it. (you keep referring to as faith).

"Metaphysical" is not the same thing as "supernatural". There is some overlap in the two concepts, but they are distinct from each other. For instance, the mind is something that would be considered metaphysical, but has nothing to do with the supernatural.

Also, simply claiming that the supernatural is "irrational" doesn't prove it, let alone justify it as a standard by which to judge.

Are you unable to justify any of the axioms your views are based in? Do you even understand them?

justify my materialist stance? this a joke? you ever been in a court room? it relies on evidence. you know, real facts for real things.

In other words, you don't understand it and cannot justify it. In fact, you are not even interested in understanding it, let alone attempting to justify it. You only seem able to dodge, misrepresent and mock.

It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion
-Edmund Burke

 

[fossten]

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.

Ironic spell Nazi troll is ironic. Those who live in glass houses...

 

[shagdrum]

Ironic spell Nazi troll is ironic. Those who live in glass houses...

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

 

[foxpaws]

Either you are lying, or you are deceiving yourself with your rationalizations. My money is on "lying". Especially, since this thread has clearly gotten personal for you.

However, assuming, for the sake of argument, you are actually telling the truth, then you clearly don't understand the points I am raising. Weather intentional or not, you are misrepresenting the points I am raising.

however I know, and laugh, and probably will not misspell 'fourth' again. Please shag... you are in school - don't your profs mention this. I have my wonder proofing guru, who certainly never sees this junk - plus, I do admit to a certain dependency on my Macs spell checker and i do get lazy...

I do understand the points, however, you never address mine - why?

Considering you are so quick to counter views that you don't understand (especially after that fact has been pointed out), you are not arguing in good faith and are showing hostility to legitimate points being raised. Again, an issue of integrity.

Because your "4th choice" depends on misrepresentation. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is simply a means to dodge that point.

Heck, I don't have to misrepresent... I am not shifting the burden of proof. If your society hasn't been introduced to, or had any type of deity, then you are neither atheist, agnostic or religious. What is the other choice Shag, zero concept of God - the null set.

The burden of proof is on YOU to logically prove that there is an actual "4th option". Since you can only rationalize that through misrepresentation, your point is not worth consideration. Only an honest, reasonable point is worth consideration. However, if you are trying to deceive, you marginalize yourself and your arguments.

Take a look at: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. It talks about how Scandinavia is moving away from God and religion, not in an athiest or really agnostic sense, but in a different way. There isn't a need for God, and maybe this is a step into an evolutionary progression into that type of society where there is really no concept of God. If you have no concept of God, you fall into none of those 3 categories that you have outlined, do you? Maybe I am missing something Shag. Where would that lie?

 

[fossten]

however I know, and laugh, and probably will not misspell 'fourth' again.

Nope, you've moved on to 'led' and 'thought.'

Maybe you should go to bed, fox. It's a little late for you, isn't it?

 

[foxpaws]

Nope, you've moved on to 'led' and 'thought.'

Maybe you should go to bed, fox. It's a little late for you, isn't it?

nope - I am in the mysterious mountain time zone - where no one knows what time it really is... Ever notice how when times are mentioned on TV they never mention the mountain time zone? Do we not watch a lot of TV, or is the sparse population the reason?

 

[fossten]

nope - I am in the mysterious mountain time zone - where no one knows what time it really is... Ever notice how when times are mentioned on TV they never mention the mountain time zone? Do we not watch a lot of TV, or is the sparse population the reason?

I mean it's a little late for YOU. Less about the time and more about your state of mind. Interesting that you didn't even detect that subtlety.

 

[foxpaws]

I mean it's a little late for YOU. Less about the time and more about your state of mind. Interesting that you didn't even detect that subtlety.

Nope - got the old inference - just because I didn't acknowledge it doesn't mean that I didn't detect it.. I thought diversion was a better tactic than lowering myself to your level Foss...

 

[fossten]

Nope - got the old inference - just because I didn't acknowledge it doesn't mean that I didn't detect it.. I thought diversion was a better tactic than lowering myself to your level Foss...

Actually, it wasn't that either. So even when I spell it out for you in the previous post, your paranoia trumps. Fascinating.

And you always think diversion is a better tactic. That's your problem. You can't discuss things in good faith because it's a habit.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, it wasn't that either. So even when I spell it out for you in the previous post, your paranoia trumps. Fascinating.

And you always think diversion is a better tactic. That's your problem. You can't discuss things in good faith because it's a habit.

So what was it... spelling? Goodness, I can misspell at 10:00 am...Time isn't my enemy - laziness is... and thinking faster than fingers

 

[fossten]

So what was it... spelling? Goodness, I can misspell at 10:00 am...Time isn't my enemy - laziness is...

Sigh.

Read Matthew 7:1-5.

 

[foxpaws]

Sigh.

Read Matthew 7:1-5.

at least I go down the path of seeking... and knocking...

And I am not judging shag - trying to help perhaps, but I certainly can't judge spelling or grammer or even sentence construction, mine is terrible, on all counts

 

[shagdrum]

What is the other choice Shag, zero concept of God

The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none.

Not knowing weather or not God exists is the core of agnosticism. Weather it takes a weaker form of simply being ignorant of the whole concept of God (an unrealistic hypothetical), or it takes the stronger form of claiming that one cannot know conclusively either way on the issue of God, the view is still agnostic. How many times do I have to point that out?

There isn't a need for God, and maybe this is a step into an evolutionary progression into that type of society where there is really no concept of God

So human nature is perfectible on a societal level?

Also, I thought you said that you were a Christian. How can you be a Christian if you think it is possible to achieve some state where there is no "need for God"?

 

[foxpaws]

The logical fallacy of denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none.

Not knowing weather or not God exists is the core of agnosticism. Weather it takes a weaker form of simply being ignorant of the whole concept of God (an unrealistic hypothetical), or it takes the stronger form of claiming that one cannot know conclusively either way on the issue of God, the view is still agnostic. How many times do I have to point that out?

The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. - I thought that was the definition of agnostic - do you have another definition shag?

What I am talking about is different - within the agnostic definition you are assuming that the person knows of the concept of God, and finds no proof either way - correct? What if the person doesn't have any concept of god whatsoever. I haven't seen a definition of agnostic that takes that into account. I am really interested shag - do you have a source that also uses 'ignorance' (not the term I really want - but benightedness or unawareness doesn't work either) as part of the definition of agnostic? I know there is the whole 'professes ignorance', but that isn't real ignorance, is it?

So human nature is perfectible on a societal level?

I don't think so - but the book is interesting on how it presents the things that are happening in Scandinavia. I do go there, and it is becoming apparent that the idea of religion and relationships to 'God' are changing there in really different ways. The societal study is interesting, because it has always been assumed that without a deity society would degrade, including rises in crime, murder rates, etc. But, just the opposite is happening in the north.

Also, I thought you said that you were a Christian. How can you be a Christian if you think it is possible to achieve some state where there is no "need for God"?

Joesph Smith had an interesting idea of God giving us 'agency' - it is a little more encompassing than just choice, it is an interesting idea and certainly works its way into here (and no, I am not Mormon, but it is an interesting study and looking at their contemporary prophets shows a type of societal movement within religions.) I can certainly question it.

 

[hrmwrm]

In other words, you don't understand it and cannot justify it. In fact, you are not even interested in understanding it, let alone attempting to justify it. You only seem able to dodge, misrepresent and mock.

It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion

i understand and have defined it. just because you are too thick and or stupid to understand it.
well, mr. ignorant one, just thought i'd point out a difference you failed at.
faith. even i have faith. what you describe is BLIND FAITH. there is a difference. be aware of it.

metaphysical - relating to metaphysics. Øbased on abstract reasoning. Øtranscending physical matter or the laws of nature.


supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

sound pretty much interchangeable.

 

[shagdrum]

faith. even i have faith. what you describe is BLIND FAITH. there is a difference. be aware of it.

Can you say "false distinction"?

metaphysical - relating to metaphysics. based on abstract reasoning. transcending physical matter or the laws of nature.


supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

sound pretty much interchangeable.

Apparently you missed the whole point about the the metaphysical being based on ABSTRACT REASONING!

Of course, using a dictionary to understand abstract concepts like that is like using a hammer to screw in a light bulb; it's the wrong tool for the job. an encyclopedia would be more appropriate.

By your simplistic, false equation of the two concepts, the mind would be supernatural.

Basically, the supernatural is a concept that (like most any other concept) would be metaphysical in nature, but that doesn't mean that metaphysics is inherently supernatural. It is like saying that, because a tire is round, all round objects are tires.

Even wikipedia provides a better explanation then the cherry picked definitions you give:

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. Someone who studies metaphysics would be called either a "metaphysician" or a "metaphysicist."

The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy."

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge" of epistemological origin. The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.​

By equating metaphysics with the supernatural you are only showing your utter ignorance of both philosophy in general and the two concepts of metaphysics and the supernatural in particular.

If your best justification for your materialist standard is to distort certain concepts by equating them, then you have no justification. Your view is based in faith.

 

[fossten]

Heh. Both of you are out of your league here. Best give it up.


I'm not ashamed to admit that Shag is teaching me something as well.

i understand and have defined it. just because you are too thick and or stupid to understand it.

What's next, is Shag a poopy head too?

 

[shagdrum]

The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. - I thought that was the definition of agnostic - do you have another definition shag?

Again, a definition from a dictionary is not the proper tool to understand a philosophical concept like agnosticism. You need a broader explanation to understand the concept, all the variations of the concept, the boundaries of the concept, what distinguishes it from other concepts in that area (and what does NOT distinguish it from other concepts). Using a dictionary for that is like using a hammer to change a light bulb; the wrong tool for the job.

within the agnostic definition you are assuming that the person knows of the concept of God, and finds no proof either way - correct?

It generally assumes that (because the opposite is an unrealistic hypothetical), but the view does not HINGE on that. It only HINGES on someone not taking a position concerning the issue of the existence of God. The "how" and "why" are incidental to the concept.

Simply put, the only way to exclude one from being agnostic is if they affirm that God exists, or doesn't exist. Not making either of those affirmations means you are an agnostic. That IS the default position.

it has always been assumed that without a deity society would degrade, including rises in crime, murder rates, etc. But, just the opposite is happening in the north.

The argument is more complex then that. And it is easy to manipulate statistics to show what you want.

However, in the limited areas I have studied in the Scandinavian countries, civil society IS degrading in the areas of the population that "lack God".

Also, when I said perfectible, I wasn't meaning that human nature could "be perfected" but that it could be changed, on a societal level toward toward that end.

 

[fossten]

The societal study is interesting, because it has always been assumed that without a deity society would degrade, including rises in crime, murder rates, etc. But, just the opposite is happening in the north.

You routinely redefine things to suit your point.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't think so - but the book is interesting on how it presents the things that are happening in Scandinavia. I do go there, and it is becoming apparent that the idea of religion and relationships to 'God' are changing there in really different ways. The societal study is interesting, because it has always been assumed that without a deity society would degrade, including rises in crime, murder rates, etc. But, just the opposite is happening in the north.

I don't have the crime rates of the Scandinavian countries on hand here, but I would be more inclined to think that any improvements that might be being seen have to do with a declining population, tremendous oil wealth, and a very homogeneous society.

I'd also add, that while there's a growing number of people with no religious affiliation, the number of self-identified Christians is overwhelmingly high. It's like 80%, depending on the country you're looking at.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, a definition from a dictionary is not the proper tool to understand a philosophical concept like agnosticism. You need a broader explanation to understand the concept, all the variations of the concept, the boundaries of the concept, what distinguishes it from other concepts in that area (and what does NOT distinguish it from other concepts). Using a dictionary for that is like using a hammer to change a light bulb; the wrong tool for the job.

However, you have used the 'dictionary' as a tool on this site Shag, to define this very term... Do you have a text or some other source that deals with your concept that agnostic also includes those cases where people aren't really 'aware' of God? I really am interested - I have never seen the term agnostic used in those cases. Huxley didn't include that concept when he coined the word. Now, I know word meanings change over time, and certainly since the mid 1800s the word meaning could have changed, but I still have never seen it used in this way.

It generally assumes that (because the opposite is an unrealistic hypothetical), but the view does not HINGE on that. It only HINGES on someone not taking a position concerning the issue of the existence of God. The "how" and "why" are incidental to the concept.

But, they have to acknowledge 'God' correct? What if there isn't a concept of God in their societal makeup? How can you not take a position on something that doesn't exist within your frame of reference?

Simply put, the only way to exclude one from being agnostic is if they affirm that God exists, or doesn't exist. Not making either of those affirmations means you are an agnostic. That IS the default position.

I think you are expanding on the definition shag - once again, I have never seen agnostic defined to encompass the 'null set'.

The argument is more complex then that. And it is easy to manipulate statistics to show what you want.

Yes, it is very complex, as Cal pointed out, there are lots and lots of factors, and over time things might change - but initial data is interesting, and certainly worth looking at, especially since it is tracking away from what is 'expected' as a country or group of people start to set aside religion and God. And Foss, I am not redefining, the book I referenced is showing that 'degradation' isn't occurring as has traditionally been expected.

However, in the limited areas I have studied in the Scandinavian countries, civil society IS degrading in the areas of the population that "lack God".

I know you have looked at the fact they allow gay marriage (is that your 'lack God" tie-in) - correct? Do you have figures that show that real crime (not vice, but real crime) is rising in those pockets? Drug use, prostitution, et al, is vice Shag - not 'crime'.

Also, when I said perfectible, I wasn't meaning that human nature could "be perfected" but that it could be changed, on a societal level toward toward that end.

I don't think that human nature can be changed on a societal level, or really any level (other than messing with dna perhaps). So do you think it is human nature to have a God shag - or is it a societal need - or perhaps a political cogitation to create levels of power within a society?

 

[shagdrum]

However, you have used the 'dictionary' as a tool on this site Shag, to define this very term...

No, they were encyclopedia entries. Maybe you should extend me the courtesy of actually reading and honestly considering what I have to say instead of simply trying to poke holes in the points I raise.

I really am interested

If you were then your actions would reflect that instead of reflecting hostility toward what I have to say.

What if there isn't a concept of God in their societal makeup?

What about the fact that the view assumes only humans have a conception of God, or what about the fact that the view assumes that only living humans have a view of God.

You can cite any red herring you want and claim it is significant enough to warrant a distinction. However, you cannot logically justify it as such. Rhetorical assertions followed by shifting the burden of proof doesn't do that. Hinging your argument on a distortion of agnosticism doesn't do that.

I think you are expanding on the definition shag - once again, I have never seen agnostic defined to encompass the 'null set'.

Again, it is not something to be "defined". It is something that you research and learn about. It is rather clear that you have not done that.

 

[foxpaws]

No, they were encyclopedia entries. Maybe you should extend me the courtesy of actually reading and honestly considering what I have to say instead of simply trying to poke holes in the points I raise.

So, show me the encyclopedic entries that back your supposition that agnostic includes the ‘null set’. You avoid this over and over again shag – agnostic, to my knowledge, does not include those who have no knowledge of God. You include it, but you have yet to show source on this… expand my knowledge shag – I would really like to see where this idea is presented. I have had this discussion lots shag - with a lot of very different people, and although it might seem trivial, I really am interested. I know this will come up again in my 'circle' and I would really like to present this idea as something to ponder. But without some sort of source I can't.

If you were then your actions would reflect that instead of reflecting hostility toward what I have to say.

I have been patient, asking over and over again for a source or link shag that ties agnostic with your idea. I have yet to call you things that you would label me with instantly with if I never came up with the ‘goods’. You just need to link source, is that a hard thing to do?

What about the fact that the view assumes only humans have a conception of God, or what about the fact that the view assumes that only living humans have a view of God.

You can cite any red herring you want and claim it is significant enough to warrant a distinction. However, you cannot logically justify it as such. Rhetorical assertions followed by shifting the burden of proof doesn't do that. Hinging your argument on a distortion of agnosticism doesn't do that.

Well, needless to say your first paragraph is mostly just confusing, and certainly could use some clarification (do we need to say that only humans have a concept of God?), let's proceed with the idea that I am distorting agnosticism. I have looked and looked shag and there is no source that I can find that lines up with your idea that people who have no knowledge of God would be labeled as agnostic. As far as I can tell you are the one distorting, until you can show me where others have described agnostic as including those people.

Again, it is not something to be "defined". It is something that you research and learn about. It is rather clear that you have not done that.

You have been the one hung up on definitions in many posts Shag – why veer now? And here I am trying to research and learn about your idea of agnostic – seeking what source you have found that causes you to conclude that agnostic includes ‘null set’. This is fascinating to me. Again, I have discussed this many times with many different people, and not once has this odd idea ever presented itself. Once again… How can you 'not take a position' on something that doesn't exist within your frame of reference? You can’t say that it is inconclusive or doesn’t matter, or say ‘I have no position on the subject’ if dog can or cannot fly if you have never ever been presented with, or have any knowledge of the concept of ‘dog’.