On 1/19/2014 10:13 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the
>>>> study of
>>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>>
>>> Erm... no, not really.
>>>
>>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>>
>> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>>
> I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about.
> Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you
> know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty,
> even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't
> suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there
> being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B).
> Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all,
> god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.
>
>
Uh, misread that slightly, and yeah, finding the 
Bose-Einstein-concensate kind of clinches things.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 16:57, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a
>> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.
>
>> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
>> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.
>
>> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
>> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
>> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
>> simply can't know for sure.
>
> You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Am I?

You failed to quote the following paragraph:

"Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on 'gut feeling' - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma."


> Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
> view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
> agnostic view is that it is not.

Be aware that the term gnosticism does /not/ denote the opposite view of 
agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


> A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
> (or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)
>
> An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
> doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.
>
> A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
> it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
> more or less what "strong atheism" means.
>
> An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
> assert it with certainty.
>
> People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
> That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

Are they?

I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

Though, to be more precise, I should indeed not call myself an agnostic, 
but rather a "meta-agnostic": Not only do I lean towards the agnostic 
stance that the existence or non-existence cannot be known for sure - I 
also lean towards the belief that we cannot even known for sure whether 
the agnostic stance in its strict sense is true. In other words, I 
suspect (but yet don't know for sure) that we cannot know whether we can 
know whether there is a supreme entity.

Or, to use the words of that famous Reborn Christian mantra: "I don't 
know whether we can know whether we can know..."


Also note that non-agnosticism only comes in the flavors of theism and 
atheism, while agnosticism does come in all shades of grey - theists, 
atheists, people who aren't sure but tend towards one or the other, 
people who have no idea and are still trying to figure out - and people 
who don't bother because they believe that it has no practical 
implication anyway.


> The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
are atheists.

The claim is usually made in the sense, "I'm not an atheist, I'm 
[merely] an agnostic [theist or somewhere in between theist and atheist]"

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.

No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability, 
saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's 
plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)

> The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming,
> when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is
> that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious
> believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god"
> involved spectacularly fails them.

... in which case they invoke - guess what - that we cannot put God to 
the test, and they may even reinterpret the "data" to confirm this 
aspect of God, rather than the one they intended to test for in the 
first place.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in
>> debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the
>> situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible
>> is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with
>> him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.
> 
> This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their world
> view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.

Yep.  I'm find with people believing things I consider to be crazy, so 
long as they don't use that belief to influence the world around them in 
a negative way.

So I'm find with young earth creationists believing the earth is 6000 
years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted - until they get 
elected to positions in the Texas Board of Education and use that belief 
to push this nonsense into public schools around the country and have it 
taught as a "fact."

> I once had a long email conversation with a young-earth creationist
> about the subject of honesty, and why most creationist arguments and
> tactics are not. For example, I tried to explain to him why quote-mining
> is a really dishonest tactic.

That's actually a very interesting point.  Context matters, and usually 
people like my brother's friend "F" does just that to try to make his 
point.  He also tries to use latin phrases he's heard (he goes on and on 
about how "ex nihilo" is impossible and only explainable by the 
introduction of *his* God - not even "just any deity," but explicitly the 
one he believes in) to convince people who are less educated that he 
knows what he's talking about.  Quite a dishonest tactic.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind

"BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting 
Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal 
based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you 
guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
> here:
> 
> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
> 
> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.

I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since 
about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later 
posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the 
possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been 
weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and 
stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's 
consistent with what he's thinking.

In one of his more recent posts, he talks about his methodology and the 
ties between belief and action.  I found it to be a very enlightening 
post, and I'm looking forward to seeing how he progresses through the 
year.

But my initial reaction was "this is a guy who actually probably /is/ an 
atheist, and is just coming to realize that himself.  He's at the point 
of consciously changing his behavior to match his current state of belief 
- or disbelief."

He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process 
and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who 
decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with 
teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those 
organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them 
ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience 
has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that 
"out" atheists experience.

But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as 
well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:40:39 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as
> well.

Not quite.

Atheisim is about probability to many (or even most) atheists.  The 
evidence doesn't support there being a deity (or anything "supernatural") 
in the universe.  So while the word derives from the Greek for "denying 
god," practically, it's a bit more nuanced for most.

Most atheists are probably more accurately self-labeled "rationalists," 
because they take the stand that if testable evidence arose for the 
supernatural or deities, they would change their position.  But 
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, too - so it's not 
just "well, look at the Universe, it's just obvious that God created it."

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>
> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 19-1-2014 14:40, clipka wrote:
> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
> simply can't know for sure.
>
> Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in
> the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but
> either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.

I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After 
long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism 
can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you 
are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and 
disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can 
check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear 
that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the 
same god meant.

Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god 
does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a 
part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will 
be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)

I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I 
stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.


> It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

*) I do not mean they are incompatible. I do know many theists that live 
a very ethical life and don't bother that the prophet was possibly 
making things up. It does not stop them from being good.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 

The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
the form:

1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
3) Therefore God exists.

This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
further evidence it's not possible to say.

The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.

Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message