God? Yep or Nope? [Archive]

GeeMack

1st September 2007, 01:52 PM

fishkr

1st September 2007, 01:58 PM

Double yawn. More semantic tail-chasing by Oliver.

DoubtingStephen

1st September 2007, 02:13 PM

Atheism is the natural state of all living things. All human children are born completely free of any concept of an Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy. This condition, not being afflicted with religious beliefs, is atheism.

Atheism is consistent with reality. Things that actually do exist always exist at some point in time or space. Things that do not exist in time or space do not exist at all.

A rational person can examine the claims made by those who are afflicted with religious beliefs, and examine in detail the supposed attributes of each Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, and then reach the only available logical conclusion: that this fantasy creature could not possibly exist because the traits it is alleged to have are paradoxical and mutually exclusive.

It is only by defining the prepostrerous claims made about a specific Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy that the internal contradictions that prove it is impossible can be known.

So, in a chronological order, all human beings begin as natural atheists. Unfortunately some human beings are taught fairy tales as if they were true, and many of them fail to hold these claims to a sufficiently critical examination. Thus some atheists, usually because of misguided parents, fall by the wayside and become afflicted with religious beliefs.

But a close examination of any particular set of theistic fantasies always reveals the preposterous nature of that particular set of nonsense, thus producing a group of people who have studied religious fantasies, reached the obvious conclusion, and are now called strong atheists.

To the extent a person has suffered the misfortune of being exposed to religion, and reacted appropriately by noticing the extreme absence of facts, then that person is likely to progress from natural atheism to strong atheism.

As for those who do fall victim to religion, we suggest and try to provide ridicule therapy.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 02:20 PM

Oliver, your poll asks whether people believe there is no god. Several people have suggested that your poll is poorly worded because they do not believe there is a god, and you have not provided that option.

You've posed a catchall option, "Planet X/I don't know/I don't care," as if it is an honest none-of-the-above choice, when in fact there are other, legitimate choices which you have neglected to include. You see, many people do know how they feel about it, and do care, and would choose a more accurate response of, "No, I do not believe there is >no< god," over your fifth option. Offering your strawman is dishonest, and is therefore a pretty crappy way to word the poll.

The two statements, "I believe gods do not exist," and, "I do not believe gods exist," do not mean the same thing, not as a matter of linguistics, not as a matter of concept, and not as a matter of logic. This was explained very clearly in that other thread, but for some reason you refuse to accept it.

The sooner you get past the mistaken notion that a lack of belief is itself somehow the same as a belief, the sooner you will be able to make forward movement with your inquiry. But as long as you continue to desperately cling to your willful ignorance, you will continue to misunderstand.

You didn't grasp my point here. If you don't agree with a poll, you're always be free to use Planet X.
That's why we have "planet X" here if you didn't know that.

And I made this example in another thread as well to explain why I
think that there is nothing like a "lack of belief" if you claim to be an
Atheist. And here is why:

Atheism is a lack of belief.

No, this is a fallacy. There only can be a "lack of belief" if you have no
Idea whatsoever what a belief is.

Once you understand the concept of belief, then you cannot make the
claim that Atheism is a lack of belief.

Do you understand the simple logic?

Or to make an example:

Me: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."
You: "I don't believe that there are Aliens in this Galaxy."

Ergo: We both don't know it - therefore we're both believing in a contrary way about Aliens within this Galaxy.

You can, however, say that it's a lack of belief on your side if you don't know what Aliens or a Galaxy are.
In this case this is truly a lack of Belief.

Do you know what I mean?

Mercutio

1st September 2007, 02:29 PM

Why, yes. Yes, I am a god. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=18156)

skeptifem

1st September 2007, 02:37 PM

ITS A TARP!! er TRAP!!

Slimething

1st September 2007, 03:05 PM

No, this is a fallacy. There only can be a "lack of belief" if you have no
Idea whatsoever what a belief is.

Once you understand the concept of belief, then you cannot make the
claim that Atheism is a lack of belief.

Do you understand the simple logic?

No, but please lead me through. Once I understand what it is to believe something then I have to believe in something. Is that what you are trying to say? So, if I never learned the concept of belief, then I could not be an atheist, although I still didn't have any inkling of god. So, per you, there are natural atheists and atheists-a-la-ollie, the latter who believe there is no got but the former get to not believe there is no god. It's quite clear to me now! :boggled:

Or to make an example:

Me: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."
You: "I don't believe that there are Aliens in this Galaxy."

Ergo: We both don't know it - therefore we're both believing in a contrary way about Aliens within this Galaxy.

Let's reword it more like reality:

You: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."
Me: "Evidence?"

Ergo, you claim to know but I remain unconvinced until shown proof. I am not disbelieving evidence, only you.

Do you know what I mean?

No. :rolleyes:

petra10

1st September 2007, 03:13 PM

well said doubtingstephen I noticed Oliver never remarked on your post.

Oubliette

1st September 2007, 03:20 PM

How many times??? It's getting old and boring... :rolleyes:

Civilized Worm

1st September 2007, 03:29 PM

No. [/Daratmode] :D

The poll isn't poorly worded because I try to find out if strong Atheism is a Belief (=believing in something) as well. So if the poll question doesn't fit - then Planet X is the right option for you.

To be convinced (without any evidence) that there is no supreme being or meaning of life sounds pretty similar to fundamentalism.

Well you should have made that clearer, because I voted for the first one since it was the closest option I saw.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 03:30 PM

Let's reword it more like reality:

You: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."
Me: "Evidence?"

Ergo, you claim to know but I remain unconvinced until shown proof. I am not disbelieving evidence, only you.

Thank you for pointing it out:

Your evidence that God does not exist is .... ? :confused:

Oliver

1st September 2007, 03:39 PM

Well you should have made that clearer, because I voted for the first one since it was the closest option I saw.

The intention behind the poll was to find out if you believe or base your
conclusion on facts. So a big description would have distorted the results.
So yes, the poll is about choosing based on what you agree with regarding
the options you have.

Because if you emotionally disagreed with option 1 - you wouldn't have
chosen it in the first place.

Just see that as a psychological test to find out how people feel about
the options that are present.

But I strongly wonder how anyone is able to choose:
"No, I know for fact that there is >no< god."

That's impossible to know this for fact. :confused:

articulett

1st September 2007, 03:42 PM

It's a bad question designed to infer that not believing is the same as having a belief. I haven't any beliefs in any gods or any invisible forms of consciousness of any sort and I see all as useless and childish explanations. I find all gods on par with Zeus and leprechauns and internet overlords. My lack of belief in all is identical for the same reasons.

I do not find faith and belief a useful way to actually know or understand anything nor do I find the faithful more moral.

If someone claims god is love or god is nature... I supposed I'm forced to admit that I "believe" in those gods-- but I sure as hell wouldn't call them god and I'd wonder about the motives of one who did.

I think all gods are on par with all mythological gods. I think believers try to play semantic games so they can convince themselves that non-believers have "faith" in the notion that there are no gods.... and thus are just as "irrational" as them.

When the argument turns to semantics-- you can bet someone is protecting a belief by using spin to make those who don't believe seem bad, wrong, or illogical.

When you see a poorly worded question with an implied answer-- beware of dogma and ulterior motive. The questioner will not admit it-- but it's a standard woo technique. Oliver-- those who don't believe do not consider their lack of belief a belief-- only those who believe do-- and that's so they can pretend that both probabilities (god or no god) are equally likely without pointing out that there is lots of evidence showing that people fool themselves on the topic and nothing which suggest an kind of consciousness can exist in anyway absent a brain.

articulett

1st September 2007, 03:47 PM

My evidence is that there is the exact same amount and same kind of evidence for gods as there are for Zeus, fairies, Xenu, engrams, Hell, devils, sprites, and little green men visiting planet earth. The evidence for all is indistinguishable from the known way people delude themselves. If your god is indistinguishable from imaginary entities-- I shall treat it as imaginary... as I treat all invisible, immeasurable entities-- because on Planet Reality-- none have been shown to exist.

We can't disprove any of these. But that doesn't make even a single one of them probable. We don't need evidence to prove that something doesn't exist. Proof that it does exist would be plenty of proof to change our minds on the subject. Real proof... measurable proof... the kind that we could distinguish from the known ways people fool themselves.

Oh-- and we have tons of evidence that people are very very good at fooling themselves when it comes to gods and other invisible entities. TONs. Doesn't that count for something? What other kind of evidence can there be for the non-existence of something or the conclusion that all such claims are delusions?

Mercutio

1st September 2007, 03:51 PM

Thank you for pointing it out:

Your evidence that God does not exist is .... ? :confused:

...dependent on your definition of "god". Do you have one?

articulett

1st September 2007, 04:00 PM

...dependent on your definition of "god". Do you have one?

Yes...

Oliver what would you accept as evidence that your god didn't exist? Anything?

We would just need something measurable and tangible and distinguishable from the known way people fool themselves on this topic to conclude that we are mistaken. That's all it takes to show that imaginary things aren't imaginary after all, right?

Civilized Worm

1st September 2007, 04:04 PM

The intention behind the poll was to find out if you believe or base your
conclusion on facts. So a big description would have distorted the results.
So yes, the poll is about choosing based on what you agree with regarding
the options you have.

Because if you emotionally disagreed with option 1 - you wouldn't have
chosen it in the first place.

I didn't disagree with it emotionally, I disagreed with it intellectually. But since it was close enough I voted for it, not realising that I was supposed to vote Planet X.

I "believe" that there are no gods in the same way that I "believe" there are no teapots orbitting the sun.

DoubtingStephen

1st September 2007, 04:04 PM

The correct procedure, Oliver, is that you present your preposterous claim that some Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy is watching us from a magical fairyland in the sky, and then once we stop laughing we point out that it is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

It is not possible to refute a claim unless the claim to be refuted has already been made.

So, let's wrap up the preliminary stuff. which of the tens of thousands of One And Only Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy do you claim we deny?

GeeMack

1st September 2007, 04:07 PM

You didn't grasp my point here. If you don't agree with a poll, you're always be free to use Planet X.
That's why we have "planet X" here if you didn't know that.

Oh, I think we've all grasped your point. You've built a bogus poll with crappy response choices. You've done it intentionally in hopes of trapping people into the answers you want to hear. You'd desperately like to be right in your claim that a lack of belief is itself a belief. But you're still wrong. Your strategy is dishonest. It's a lie, Oliver, and if your belief does turn out to be true, you're going to burn in hell for it.

Darth Rotor

1st September 2007, 04:08 PM

Can I vote for "Yes this is a poorly worded poll"?

That's now six votes for that option.

DR

Oliver

1st September 2007, 04:21 PM

Atheism is the natural state of all living things. All human children are born completely free of any concept of an Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy. This condition, not being afflicted with religious beliefs, is atheism.

And I agree with that - as long you're never confronted with the
concept of a god/supreme being/meaning of life.

Once you are confronted with the concept - you either choose to
believe in it - to believe it doesn't exist or to take no stance and
you say: I'm undecided or I don't care.

Atheism is consistent with reality. Things that actually do exist always exist at some point in time or space. Things that do not exist in time or space do not exist at all.

So what about the things that you don't know if they exist or not?
Or to point to what I mean:

Do you believe in Aliens based on the things we scientifically know (mathematical probability)?

A rational person can examine the claims made by those who are afflicted with religious beliefs, and examine in detail the supposed attributes of each Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, and then reach the only available logical conclusion: that this fantasy creature could not possibly exist because the traits it is alleged to have are paradoxical and mutually exclusive.

And I agree that a "white-bearded, old man" is from scientific point of view a hoax. And historically not even a good one since all gods are clones from the initial gods of sun, thunder, water and stuff like that.

It is only by defining the prepostrerous claims made about a specific Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy that the internal contradictions that prove it is impossible can be known.

So what about an Idea like Nature itself is god - or that the universal laws of nature like Gravity is "God" - to which we all "obey". This is no preposterous claim at all. We all "obey" to gravity - if we want or not. The fallacy I see is to think of a god as something human.

So, in a chronological order, all human beings begin as natural atheists. Unfortunately some human beings are taught fairy tales as if they were true, and many of them fail to hold these claims to a sufficiently critical examination. Thus some atheists, usually because of misguided parents, fall by the wayside and become afflicted with religious beliefs.

Can you explain what the difference is between a religious belief and
believing in general? Psychologically it's the same thing. It doesn't even
include holy scriptures to hold a belief. Once you have an opinion about
a god or no god, then you hold a religious belief. (In case of Atheism
this tends to be "I believe there is no god").

And remember - I'm not talking about white bearded guys in the sky.

But a close examination of any particular set of theistic fantasies always reveals the preposterous nature of that particular set of nonsense, thus producing a group of people who have studied religious fantasies, reached the obvious conclusion, and are now called strong atheists.

And even if I never studied Religion very much - but I also think that
the preposterous claims are an unscientific hoax. But I'm no atheist
because logic tells me that the issue of a "supreme being/god/energy"
isn't provable (today).

To the extent a person has suffered the misfortune of being exposed to religion, and reacted appropriately by noticing the extreme absence of facts, then that person is likely to progress from natural atheism to strong atheism.

You should understand that religion was invented by someone. And therefore
this person wasn't exposed to any religion at all, was he or she? :confused:

As for those who do fall victim to religion, we suggest and try to provide ridicule therapy.

By law - if you ask me. :D

articulett

1st September 2007, 04:22 PM

It's a lie, Oliver, and if your belief does turn out to be true, you're going to burn in hell for it.

:D

(I think Oliver mentioned that he'd never be so ridiculous to believe in hell...)

Oliver

1st September 2007, 04:31 PM

:D

(I think Oliver mentioned that he'd never be so ridiculous to believe in hell...)

Not exactly. I was at the baptism of my niece some weeks ago
and I really thought that I'm in logical Hell. :D

Civilized Worm

1st September 2007, 04:33 PM

I think you're putting us through logical hell.

articulett

1st September 2007, 04:42 PM

Yawn.

Next ...

Come now... wasn't a chance to read or re-read cactus wrens' great parody worth it. I laugh every time I see it and every time I read Oliver.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 04:43 PM

I think you're putting us through logical hell.

Then you really should visit a Baptism again. :D
I blame this ritual for any mental misconceptions I may have encountered since then.

Slimething

1st September 2007, 05:13 PM

Thank you for pointing it out:

Your evidence that God does not exist is .... ? :confused:

Hey, way cool! We've somehow gone from talking aliens to the existence of some undefined god. How did that happen? :confused:

Anyway, here's my proof of something really, really relevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)to you. Please read it and tell me if it will suffice.

How I wish life were as simple as you! ;)

Oliver

1st September 2007, 05:31 PM

Hey, way cool! We've somehow gone from talking aliens to the existence of some undefined god. How did that happen? :confused:

Anyway, here's my proof of something really, really relevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)to you. Please read it and tell me if it will suffice.

How I wish life were as simple as you! ;)

So? What fallacy of the link you posted do I have?

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28logic%29) of a subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29) is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Looks like the latter one is the Atheists fallacy. :rolleyes:
My point still is: A supreme Being can't be proven or disproven. (today)

Mercutio

1st September 2007, 05:33 PM

My point still is: A supreme Being can't be proven or disproven. (today)
In other words: A supreme being is utterly irrelevant.

Do you really mean to say that? Is that how you feel?

Oliver

1st September 2007, 05:43 PM

In other words: A supreme being is utterly irrelevant.

Do you really mean to say that? Is that how you feel?

If it inspires people to explore these unknown things then
of course this is relevant. After all, that's how we found
todays knowledge about the world and the universe. Out
of the curiosity to find answers to things we don't know.

To say "we know there is no meaning of life" or "we know there
is a meaning of life" without any evidence, makes both statements
a belief.

Fact is: We don't know. And Atheists should be able to understand
that this is the current fact.

GeeMack

1st September 2007, 05:47 PM

Looks like the latter one is the Atheists fallacy. :rolleyes:

You do understand that your continuing to dishonestly misrepresent the atheist position, after it has been explained to you so clearly so many times, makes you a liar, don't you, Oliver?

Mercutio

1st September 2007, 05:47 PM

If it inspires people to explore these unknown things then
of course this is relevant. After all, that's how we found
todays knowledge about the world and the universe. Out
of the curiosity to find answers to things we don't know.

To say "we know there is no meaning of life" or "we know there
is a meaning of life" without any evidence, makes both statements
a belief.

Fact is: We don't know. And Atheists should be able to understand
that this is the current fact.
Sorry, but this cannot procede until we are in agreement about a definition of "god". Your first paragraph assumes things that do not fit all definitions. Please provide a definition of god so that we can continue.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 05:51 PM

You do understand that your continuing to dishonestly misrepresent the atheist position, after it has been explained to you so clearly so many times, makes you a liar, don't you, Oliver?

No, it doesn't makes me a liar because there is no standard definition
of Atheism. All I say is that we don't know that a supreme being
exists. Therefore: Everything else is a belief. Not a lack of Belief.

Is this so hard to understand? : Atheists don't know if a supreme being exist.
Everything else is a logical fallacy.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 05:54 PM

Sorry, but this cannot procede until we are in agreement about a definition of "god". Your first paragraph assumes things that do not fit all definitions. Please provide a definition of god so that we can continue.

You cannot define "God". There is no shred of evidence that would
explain anything about how a god may look like.

But I guess we can agree that it's no ridiculous white-bearded Fellow
with Angels flying out of his you know where.

Mercutio

1st September 2007, 06:10 PM

You cannot define "God". There is no shred of evidence that would
explain anything about how a god may look like.

But I guess we can agree that it's no ridiculous white-bearded Fellow
with Angels flying out of his you know where.

You have said that this entity inspires, and is responsible for our current knowledge about the world and the universe. Now you are unable to define? Oliver, you are backpedalling. If there is no shred of evidence, how do you dismiss the whitebeard? If there is no shred of evidence, how do you claim the inspiration?

I will not agree to eliminate the whitebeard if you say there is no evidence and no possible definition. If you wish to eliminate some possibilities and keep others, please do not say we cannot define god.

From your posts thus far, god is defined as "what I require god to be in order to avoid pinning myself down, but not anything that can actually require me to take a stand about what I purport to know about god."

I am guessing you have another definition; I'd love to hear it.

balrog666

1st September 2007, 06:21 PM

My point still is: A supreme Being can't be proven or disproven. (today)

Invisible, Pink Unicorns can't be proven or disproven.
Leprechauns can't be prvoen or disproven.
Garden Fairies can't be proven or disproven.
Genies and Afrits cant' be proven or disproven.
Flying Spaghetti Monsters can't be proven or disproven.
Easter Bunny can't be proven or disproven.

And you think that is a POINT??? You are a looney!

Foster Zygote

1st September 2007, 06:23 PM

You have said that this entity inspires, and is responsible for our current knowledge about the world and the universe. Now you are unable to define? Oliver, you are backpedalling. If there is no shred of evidence, how do you dismiss the whitebeard? If there is no shred of evidence, how do you claim the inspiration?

I will not agree to eliminate the whitebeard if you say there is no evidence and no possible definition. If you wish to eliminate some possibilities and keep others, please do not say we cannot define god.

From your posts thus far, god is defined as "what I require god to be in order to avoid pinning myself down, but not anything that can actually require me to take a stand about what I purport to know about god."

I am guessing you have another definition; I'd love to hear it.

True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as the air...

Oliver

1st September 2007, 06:23 PM

Invisible, Pink Unicorns can't be proven or disproven.
Leprechauns can't be prvoen or disproven.
Garden Fairies can't be proven or disproven.
Genies and Afrits cant' be proven or disproven.
Flying Spaghetti Monsters can't be proven or disproven.
Easter Bunny can't be proven or disproven.

And you think that is a POINT??? You are a looney!

Yes, I have a point:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2925970&postcount=84

articulett

1st September 2007, 06:26 PM

No, it doesn't makes me a liar because there is no standard definition
of Atheism. All I say is that we don't know that a supreme being
exists. Therefore: Everything else is a belief. Not a lack of Belief.

Is this so hard to understand? : Atheists don't know if a supreme being exist.
Everything else is a logical fallacy.

Yes, but all atheists have told you that lack of a belief is not a belief-- or at least lots of us. We don't know if leprechauns exist... all I say is that if we don't know if leprechauns exist than per your semantic nuttiness we have a belief there are no leprechauns. Fine. If that makes you feel better Oliver.

However you seem to define yourself as a believer-- you define that how you want-- It would be nice if you let non-believers have the same privilege instead of pinning your goofy definitions on them.

I don't believe in any invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness-- not any of them... It's the default position until one makes a testable claim about one-- your god doesn't do anything except give your life some magical higher meaning or explain away the stuff you can't fathom or you think is unlikely (boy the creationists were clever with these tactics: "scientists think we all got here randomly"; "atheism is a belief"; "religion makes you moral"; Not believing is a leap of faith") You've made a god that is impervious to disproof and then labeled us believers because we can't give evidence to you that he isn't real.

You sound as mired in doublespeak as any theologian all to convince yourself on your already determined conclusion-- "atheism is a belief". Sorry, Oliver-- that IS dishonest. Lying for your beliefs doesn't make you more moral now does it?

By the way, you think you are giving evidence of the things you don't believe in... you aren't. You are giving reasons you don't believe in those things. We have given you outstanding reasons for our non-belief in gods and other invisible entities... we know humans invent these explanations all the time-- heck, I used to think the guy on the t.v. was talking to me directly when I was a kid.

But we grow up. We don't believe the guy isn't talking to us--(or at least it would be awkward and insincere to word it that way) we just no longer believe that he is... we understand how the world works a little more and what is and isn't likely. That is the same for god.

Of course these words are wasted on a guy who has a very tenacious belief that atheism requires a leap of faith and that lack of belief is really a belief. And words and reasons are wasted on the faithful. But it helps to vent since the world is full of Olivers... I just wish there weren't so many on a skeptics forum. :) (kidding) (I think...)

articulett

1st September 2007, 06:31 PM

Just because something can't be proven or disproven, doesn't mean both are equally likely. Provable things tend to be provable after all... eventually. And the invisible forms of consciousness have had eons of belief-- still no data.

At some point the smart conclusion is that things indistinguishable from the imaginary are, themselves, imaginary.

Mercutio

1st September 2007, 06:40 PM

True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as the air...

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

:D

Tanstaafl

1st September 2007, 06:52 PM

I hate to pile on but... I will anyway.

This is a crappy poll, very poorly worded. Probably intentionally.

Tricky

1st September 2007, 07:30 PM

You cannot define "God". There is no shred of evidence that would explain anything about how a god may look like.
So there is no evidence for or against something you can't define. Gosh, we are all flabbergasted by your insight. Jack Handy, step aside.:rolleyes:

CapelDodger

1st September 2007, 07:31 PM

I voted "I Know for a fact that there is no god" because it's the closest to "The anthropogenic nature of superstition is so glaringly frickin' obvious that I wonder why we're still talking about this." Which is how I'd have voted given the option. Life has taught me the benefits of compromise.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 07:42 PM

So there is no evidence for or against something you can't define. Gosh, we are all flabbergasted by your insight. Jack Handy, step aside.:rolleyes:

That's not the point. The point is that life happened...

A. By accident.
B. By creation.

Atheist: "A"
Theist: "B"
Agnostic: "Both false: - C. We don't know".

Hokulele

1st September 2007, 07:44 PM

That's not the point. The point is that life exists...

A. By accident.
B. By creation.

Atheist: "A"
Theist: "B"
Agnostic: "Both false: - C. We don't know".

That is a totally different question to what you have in your poll.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 07:46 PM

That is a totally different question to what you have in your poll.

How? :confused:

Creation includes a "supreme something".
Accident excludes a "supreme something".

Dogdoctor

1st September 2007, 07:58 PM

Here are some questions
Do you believe in god because of scientific evidence showing god exists? (if yes then what evidence?)
Do you believe in god for other reasons? (state them)
Do you not believe in god because there is no scientific evidence that god exists?
Do you not believe in god for other reasons? (state them)
Ask those questions and your problem with the word belief should be clearer.

fishbob

1st September 2007, 08:01 PM

Can I vote for "Yes this is a poorly worded poll"?

None of the poll options get my vote. Lisa's option does.

ynot

1st September 2007, 08:07 PM

Ditto Lisa's option vote.

Hokulele

1st September 2007, 08:14 PM

How? :confused:

Creation includes a "supreme something".
Accident excludes a "supreme something".

Not entirely true. There are many people who believe in a "supreme being", but still see life, the universe, etc. as an "accident". Don't ask me, I am not one of those people, but I have met a few. The ones I have met tend to hold the view that God was around at the start, but has no influence over the direction things have gone since then, nor does God intend to influence anything in the future.

In addition, several polytheistic religions hold that gods were created along with the universe, and are only powerful in their one small area of expertise.

Religion and religious thinking is far more diverse than a Yes/No, True/False, Believe/Don't Believe type view of the world.

RandFan

1st September 2007, 08:16 PM

Bad poll.

fishbob

1st September 2007, 08:22 PM

Bad poll.

No, no, no - you have to rub his nose in it as you tell him. And repeat several times.

RandFan

1st September 2007, 08:27 PM

No, no, no - you have to rub his nose in it as you tell him. And repeat several times.:D

Bad, bad poll.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 08:27 PM

Not entirely true. There are many people who believe in a "supreme being", but still see life, the universe, etc. as an "accident". Don't ask me, I am not one of those people, but I have met a few. The ones I have met tend to hold the view that God was around at the start, but has no influence over the direction things have gone since then, nor does God intend to influence anything in the future.

In addition, several polytheistic religions hold that gods were created along with the universe, and are only powerful in their one small area of expertise.

Religion and religious thinking is far more diverse than a Yes/No, True/False, Believe/Don't Believe type view of the world.

Well but it is indeed very, very easy:

Either:

A. Facts
B. Belief

___________________________

Atheism is B.
Theism is B.
Polytheism is B.
Gnosticism is B.
Agnosticism is A.

Hokulele

1st September 2007, 08:41 PM

Well but it is indeed very, very easy:

Either:

A. Facts
B. Belief

___________________________

Atheism is B.
Theism is B.
Polytheism is B.
Gnosticism is B.
Agnosticism is A.

:bwall

RandFan

1st September 2007, 08:41 PM

Either:

A. Facts
B. Belief

___________________________

Atheism is B.
Theism is B.
Polytheism is B.
Gnosticism is B.
Agnosticism is A. You are still going on with this? No, atheism is NOT a belief. You are still playing semantical games. Words are simply tools to convey meaning. Words and the defnitions of those words are not laws that govern the universe. And your attempt to make this into an aha moment is wrong. Just because I say that I believe that there is no god does not translate into something akin to religious belief.

RandFan

1st September 2007, 08:43 PM

:bwallNo kidding. Sheesh.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 08:50 PM

You are still going on with this? No, atheism is NOT a belief. You are still playing semantical games. Words and the defnitions of those words are not laws of the universe. Just because I say that I believe that there is no god does not translate into something akin to religious belief.

To claim there is a god or no god is no fact whatsoever.
It's an unfounded opinion/faith/theory/woo/believe/assumption/position ....

It doesn't really matter how you call it.

If you claim there is no god, then you're as much ignorant than claiming there is a god.

Fact is: We don't know.
Every other claim is non-factual loony tunes.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 08:52 PM

Well but it is indeed very, very easy:

Either:

A. Facts
B. Belief

___________________________

Atheism is B.
Theism is B.
Polytheism is B.
Gnosticism is B.
Agnosticism is A.

:bwall

Inasmuch :bwall?

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Jimbo07

1st September 2007, 08:58 PM

You are still playing semantical games. Words are simply tools to convey meaning. Words and the defnitions of those words are not laws that govern the universe.

Fine. Have it your way. Words are simply tools to convey meaning:

Infidels dot Org (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html)

Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist)

or

Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm)

From which I'll quote:

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

What a mess... :boggled:

...

I haven't voted in this poll. It won't achieve what I'm interested in knowing (I suggested I was having trouble with the wording).

Slimething

1st September 2007, 09:00 PM

So? What fallacy of the link you posted do I have?

You are equating a null state with a negative state by arguing that the concept of belief necessitates a person to either believe or disbelieve in a deity. A null state is not a -1 or a +1 state. I thought we all knew that.

Then you asked if I had any evidence that god did not exist. That's foolish because that leads to the negative evidence that I referred you to. (Cute to pick only the second example of false argument and skip the one that equates to yours.) I don't need evidence to remain in a null state regarding the existence of any deity, even if you offer evidence.

I would need evidence to believe that your god did not exist. In that you are right. The evidence in that case would be you. Any god who needs people with imbecilic arguments, isn't worth the bother. It really must have better tools.

Looks like the latter one is the Atheists fallacy. :rolleyes:

Nope. It appears so to you because you don't know what an atheist is.

My point still is: A supreme Being can't be proven or disproven. (today)

No, that's not your point. You're being disingenuous. Your point is to trap some unwary atheist into choosing the closest choice in your intentionally stilted poll that would indicate that they believe there is no god. As far as the point you're trying to substitute for that, that is not true either. Merely because there is no evidence for a supreme being at the moment does not mean such evidence does not exist. However, that's another logical flaw from you and, as you completely screwed up the first lesson, you're not ready for the second.

RandFan

1st September 2007, 09:00 PM

To claim there is a god or no god is no fact whatsoever.
It's an unfounded pinion/faith/theory/woo/believe/assumption/position ....

It doesn't really matter how you call it.

If you claim there is no god, then you're as much ignorant than claiming there is a god.

Fact is: We don't know.
Every other claim is non-factual loony tunes.

Then EVERY claim of fact is loony tunes.
There is a limit to human knowledge.
I can't prove that you exist.
I can't prove that I'm not in the matrix.
I can't prove that there isn't a tea pot orbiting the sun.
I can't prove that there are no trolls under your bed.I CAN infer the likelyhood of events and the truth value of propositions.

It's possible that the sun won't come up tomorrow. THAT IS A FACT!

You just aren't getting this.

RandFan

1st September 2007, 09:01 PM

Inasmuch :bwall?

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof So, you hold out hope that Santa Claus will bring you presents this year?

fishkr

1st September 2007, 09:04 PM

Oliver's post is proof there is no God, since He would be too embarrassed by this nonsense to allow it to go on and on, boring the living s***t out of anyone with an above average IQ.

Suggestion: Go into American politics and leave us alone.

Oliver

1st September 2007, 09:15 PM

Then EVERY claim of fact is loony tunes.
There is a limit to human knowledge.
I can't prove that you exist.
I can't prove that I'm not in the matrix.
I can't prove that there isn't a tea pot orbiting the sun.
I can't prove that there are no trolls under your bed.I CAN infer the likelyhood of events and the truth value of propositions.

It's possible that the sun won't come up tomorrow. THAT IS A FACT!

You just aren't getting this.

I don't get it:

An Atheist has no evidence about the non-existence or existence of god.

Can we agree on that? :confused:

Slimething

1st September 2007, 09:21 PM

I don't get it:

An Atheist has no evidence about the non-existence or existence of god.

Can we agree on that? :confused:

Same for a theist. This is what it boils down to? That atheists are human? One of these days, you'll take that lampshade off!

Oliver

1st September 2007, 09:31 PM

Same for a theist. This is what it boils down to? That atheists are human? One of these days, you'll take that lampshade off!

What lampshade?

But at this point your next answer will be highly interesting:

Why are Atheists "Atheists" - and not Agnostics?

RandFan

1st September 2007, 09:56 PM

I don't get it:There really isn't much to get.

There is a limit to human knowledge.
All things are possible.
You might not exist.
The world might be a figment of my imagination.
The sun might not rise tomorrow.Given the limits of human knowledge I can infer the likelyhood of any proposition. Sun not rising tomorrow? Possible but not likely.

Do you KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Do you BELIEVE that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Which is more likely (a) that the sun won't rise tomorrow (b) that the sun will rise tomorrow?An Atheist has no evidence about the non-existence or existence of god.

Can we agree on that? :confused: Can we agree that you have no evidence about the non-existence of a tea pot orbiting the sun?

Given that there is no evidence for god and god is not needed to explain the natural world then parsimony would dictate that there is no more likelyhood that there is a god as an invisible pink unicorn.

I less than three logic

1st September 2007, 10:04 PM

What lampshade?

But at this point your next answer will be highly interesting:

Why are Atheists "Atheists" - and not Agnostics?
One does not need to be one or the other, and most atheists are both. In fact, I've never met a gnostic atheist. The two terms cover different areas.

Theism/Atheism is whether or not one believes a god or gods exist. They are mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories, one must be in one or the other. Theism is the positive belief in a god or gods, and everything else falls into atheism, including being undecided. If you can not claim you believe in a god or gods you're an atheist.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism is whether or not one believes we can have direct knowledge of whether or not a god or gods exist. Once again, they are mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories, one must be in one or the other. Gnosticism is the positive belief that we can have direct knowledge of whether or not a god or gods exist, and everything else falls into agnosticism, including being undecided. If you can not claim you believe we can have direct knowledge of whether or not a god or gods exist you're agnostic.

articulett

1st September 2007, 10:05 PM

There really isn't much to get.

There is a limit to human knowledge.
All things are possible.
You might not exist.
The world might be a figment of my imagination.
The sun might not rise tomorrow.Given the limits of human knowledge I can infer the likelyhood of any proposition. Sun not rising tomorrow? Possible but not likely.

Do you KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Do you BELIEVE that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Which is more likely (a) that the sun won't rise tomorrow (b) that the sun will rise tomorrow? Can we agree that you have no evidence about the non-existence of a tea pot orbiting the sun?

Given that there is no evidence for god and god is not needed to explain the natural world then parsimony would dictate that there is no more likelyhood that there is a god as an invisible pink unicorn.

He can't... if he wins the argument in his head, his favorite delusion stays alive. Must win. Must win. Must convince atheists that their non belief is a belief system too.

Woo always have one of these things that they cannot compute... and that's the thing they need to keep their delusion alive. Oliver cannot and will not concede that atheism is not a belief or a "leap of faith"... no matter what. In fact, I think I can point to the thing ever woo here will not concede no matter what... and the apologists too. After a while it just starts blinking red and they goal becomes transparent. If nothing else they can be used to help others recognize the woo semantic shuffle and goal post toss.

fishkr

1st September 2007, 10:22 PM

I don't get it:

True enough. But I can guess you will forget this fact immediately upon cognition.

Slimething

1st September 2007, 10:45 PM

What lampshade?

This would be perfect for you. The shade is wrapped in what resembles a gentleman's ascot. However, above it, where one would be expecting a head...nothing! Quite apropos for the occasion, don't you agree?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1292446da4c6daf729.jpg

But at this point your next answer will be highly interesting:

Why are Atheists "Atheists" - and not Agnostics?

As I posted earlier, atheists are at a null point, that is, not believing but not disbelieving either. Agnostics are atheists who have not ruled out a deity but have not completely dismissed the idea, despite having met many people like you.

I classify myself as an atheist to gods I've met so far but agnostic to those I haven't. There's a clear difference there. First, any evidence I have been offered for a god so far has been ridiculous. However, there might be other gods that are logically cogent. Those, I haven't met yet. As I'm getting old, I doubt they'll arrive in time.

Also, as I posted earlier, whatever god you have up your sleeve is hereby dismissed. It will have to do much better than using you as a messenger. Nest time you talk to it, tell it that dumb arguments really are not the best method to sway the curious.

Earthborn

1st September 2007, 11:13 PM

Sun not rising tomorrow? Possible but not likely.Rather depends on where you live, doesn't it? There are lands where it is quite likely the sun doesn't rise every day. (They are a bit chilly.)

Can we agree that you have no evidence about the non-existence of a tea pot orbiting the sun?I have evidence about the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun!

What is it with you people that everytime you want to come up with an example of something highly unlikely, you present the example of the "teapot orbiting the sun". Can you give an example of a teapot that is not orbiting the sun?

Given that there is no evidence for god and god is not needed to explain the natural world then parsimony would dictate that there is no more likelyhood that there is a god as an invisible pink unicorn.Not quite true. A god is a largely undefined thing, and you can define it anyway you like. You can present definitions of God that result in God definitely not existing, or definitions of God that result in God definitely existing. An invisible pink unicorn is something that is better defined because it is claimed to have specific properties: invisibility, pinkness and being a unicorn. It is therefore easier to rule out, or should one find an invisible pink unicorn easier prove Her existence.

RandFan

1st September 2007, 11:28 PM

Rather depends on where you live, doesn't it? There are lands where it is quite likely the sun doesn't rise every day. (They are a bit chilly.) Depends on your definition of "rise". To me rise means to orient about the horizon regardless of whether or not it can be seen.

What is it with you people that everytime you want to come up with an example of something highly unlikely, you present the example of the "teapot orbiting the sun". It's just such a damn great example... pedantics aside.

Can you give an example of a teapot that is not orbiting the sun. Are you a fan of Carolyn Porco? I like her too. It's amazing that it took so long for someone to find a flaw in Russel's theory.

It's still a great example.

Not quite true. A god is a largely undefined thing, and you can define it anyway you like. You can present definitions of God that result in God definitely not existing, or definitions of God that result in God definitely existing. An invisible pink unicorn is something that is better defined because it is claimed to have specific properties: invisibility, pinkness and being a unicorn. It is therefore easier to rule out, or should one find an invisible pink unicorn easier prove Her existence. Meh. Those who define god as Spinoza did likely won't take offense at my broad brush strokes.

Still trying to keep me on my toes I see. :)

fishkr

1st September 2007, 11:44 PM

You didn't grasp my point here. If you don't agree with a poll, you're always be free to use Planet X. :

Or instead of the disingenuous "Planet X" option you could have included "has no belief".

Stop wasting our time. You keep repeating yourself ad nauseum and it wasn't worth listening to the first time.

Hokulele

2nd September 2007, 12:05 AM

Call me a masochist, but I am going to make one last (maybe futile) attempt.

Oliver, forget about god for a moment, and just focus on belief. Do you think belief is a black/white, yes/no type thing, or can it have shades of gray? In the other thread, I discussed the difference between supported and unsupported beliefs. For example, consider the following scale.

Un-belief...................Don't Know..............................Belief

-1 ------------------------0-------------------------- +1

Evidence against........No evidence......................Evidence for
................................either way

Does this scale make sense to you?

Here is the problem. You are assuming that atheism and theism represent the ends of the scale, where what you consider the "correct" point is the one in the middle. You seem to be hoping that someone can make a case for either atheism or theism (not both) to occupy the right end.

The problem is, depending on the definition of god, and the definition of evidence, god can exist anywhere on this scale. It is frustrating, but there you have it. For example, some people see the bible and personal experiences as evidence for. Others see the fact that the bible can be proven wrong, and personal experience can be misleading as evidence against. This may be why Mercutio was asking for your definition.

Here is the part that I believe has been confusing you. Many of the atheists on this board do not apply this scale at all to their thoughts on god. Notice I labeled the left end as "un-belief". This probably matches what you have been thinking all along, and here is why it is wrong. The atheists here are talking about non-belief. "Un-belief" is essentially the opposite of belief. "Non-belief" is the absence of belief, not its opposite. Anti-theist may be a better word for people with "un-belief" rather than atheist, although to be honest, this scale represents gnosticism and agnosticism (as has been discussed in the previous posts) better than it representing theism and atheism.

I'm sorry Oliver, but this is really going to be my last try at this. If this doesn't help clear things up, I really cannot think of any other way to describe it.

kellyb

2nd September 2007, 12:06 AM

"Planet X/don't know" comes closest, so that's how I voted.

Bad, bad poll, though.

I strongly suspect there's no god, but I guess there could be, although there's no real reason to think there is.

articulett

2nd September 2007, 12:09 AM

I loved Caroline Porco's comment about teapots in beyond belief.

Mr. Scott

2nd September 2007, 12:35 AM

This condition, not being afflicted with religious beliefs, is atheism.

If atheism is another kind of faith or belief, then health is another kind of disease.

I less than three logic

2nd September 2007, 12:52 AM

I have evidence about the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun!

What is it with you people that everytime you want to come up with an example of something highly unlikely, you present the example of the "teapot orbiting the sun". Can you give an example of a teapot that is not orbiting the sun?
If you're referring to Russell's teapot, ones here on Earth don't count. I think people are misunderstanding what he was talking about. He wasn't just referring to any teapot orbiting the sun, but one in a very special location on its own in the middle of space.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

*emphasis is mine.

Earthborn

2nd September 2007, 01:03 AM

Depends on your definition of "rise". To me rise means to orient about the horizon regardless of whether or not it can be seen.What does "orient about the horizon" mean?

Are you a fan of Carolyn Porco?Never heard of her.

It's amazing that it took so long for someone to find a flaw in Russel's theory.I see nothing wrong with his theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot). Note that Bertrand was a wee bit more careful when he formulated the hypothetical.

Those who define god as Spinoza did likely won't take offense at my broad brush strokes.I guess I didn't write my previous post then. :oldroll:

Earthborn

2nd September 2007, 01:09 AM

If you're referring to Russell's teapot, ones here on Earth don't count.No, I am refering to "those consistently break Russell's teapot"-'s teapot.

I less than three logic

2nd September 2007, 01:11 AM

No, I am refering to "those consistently break Russell's teapot"-'s teapot.
Yeah, I can see that from your previous post as well. Sorry for the confusion. :D

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 01:46 AM

What does "orient about the horizon" mean? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orient&usg=AFQjCNHvLPA_pPOOjiMtVeJJnwpzEjVwdg)

The term the Orient literally refers simply to the rising of the sun, being derived from the Latin word oriens. It is used to mean "the East". Similar terms are the French-derived "Levant" and "Anatolia" from the Greek anatole, two further locations for the direction in which the sun rises.

Orient is the position of the sun above the horizion whether it can be seen or not.

Never heard of her.I hope you will take this opportunity to get to know of her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Porco) no doubt you know of her work.

I guess I didn't write my previous post then. :oldroll:I said likely. I left ample room for the pedantic.

Earthborn

2nd September 2007, 02:35 AM

Orient is the position of the sun above the horizion whether it can be seen or not.When I speak about lands where the sun doesn't rise every day and where it is a bit chilly, I don't mean lands where the sun rises above the horizon every day but cannot be seen. I mean lands where the sun just does not rise above the horizon every day.

And where it is a bit chilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_region).

Oliver

2nd September 2007, 03:25 AM

If atheism is another kind of faith or belief, then health is another kind of disease.

Richard Dawkins: "Atheists are just people who hold another Believe -system". :rolleyes:

kTZONIl546c

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 03:44 AM

Richard Dawkins: "Atheists are just people who hold another Believe -system". :rolleyes:

Yes. What's wrong about calling my strong atheism a belief, I don't know. I positively belief there is no transcendental being whatsoever without thinking about evidence.

Actually, my belief is what it is: a belief. Not a scientific hypothesis. Thus, the word "evidence" is not meaningful in this context anyway, because it belongs to the scientific realm and is not applicable to personal credos. Per definition.

I think that anybody's worldview finally bases upon dogmas unprovable within this worldview. The opposite would lead to an infinite regression of explanations.

herz

plumjam

2nd September 2007, 04:06 AM

I think that anybody's worldview finally bases upon dogmas unprovable within this worldview. The opposite would lead to an infinite regression of explanations.

herz

Absolutely correct, Herz. The problem here is that the 'Skeptics' hold to a belief system in which the concept of belief itself is devalued, and very often scorned and ridiculed.
Therefore they react quite irrationally when anyone suggests that they, too, may be believing some things in an extra-evidential (i.e. faith based) way.
Of course, the whole thing is self-defeating.
One day some of 'em might realise; you never know. :p

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 08:34 AM

Quite frankly, I have the impression that the term "strong atheist/atheism"
is a fallacy on it's own.

Wrong.

So far I met three types of Atheism:

1. Weak Atheism that don't know if a God exists. (That's no Atheism but rather Agnosticism, isn't it?)

That is not weak atheism. That is weak agnosticism. Weak atheism states "I do not have a belief in a god". Weak agnosticism states "I do not know if a god exists".

2. Strong Atheism. (Believing/assuming/guessing/theorizing... that there is no God -> Believing/assuming/guessing/theorizing... = Belief)

Correct. Strong atheism states "I have a belief that no god exists". For the record, strong agnosticism states "it is impossible to know if a god exists".

3. "Fundamentalistic" Atheism. (Being convinced there is no God without any evidence = Strong Faith in a non-existence of God).

This is the same as 2.

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 08:36 AM

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 08:38 AM

Your evidence that God does not exist is .... ? :confused:

That something does not exist is the null hypothesis. This hypothesis must be shown to be incorrect by those trying to prove the existance of that thing. You claim a god exists? Where is your proof?

You need to learn how science works, my friend.

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 08:40 AM

No, it doesn't makes me a liar because there is no standard definition
of Atheism.

There is in the philosophy of religion. Strong and weak atheism are philosophic terms.

All I say is that we don't know that a supreme being
exists.

Therefore you are weakly agnostic.

Therefore: Everything else is a belief. Not a lack of Belief.

Wrong. Strong atheism is a belief. Weak atheism is not.

Is this so hard to understand? : Atheists don't know if a supreme being exist.

Correct. That is why weak atheists do not make any claim relating to the existance of a god.

Everything else is a logical fallacy.

I'd love to hear which fallacy it is.

Oh, and I voted "planet X", because your poll does not include a "weak atheism" option.

Foster Zygote

2nd September 2007, 09:00 AM

Absolutely correct, Herz. The problem here is that the 'Skeptics' hold to a belief system in which the concept of belief itself is devalued, and very often scorned and ridiculed.
Therefore they react quite irrationally when anyone suggests that they, too, may be believing some things in an extra-evidential (i.e. faith based) way.
Actually, most skeptics simply devalue belief as a means of attaining true information about the universe around us. Skeptics do not scorn belief, they are simply particular in its application. When one desires to truly know how and why things work the way they do then belief has shown itself to be a highly unreliable, easily corruptible source of information.

It seems that you have yet to read Descartes. I only mention it again because the argument that you make regarding the possible illusory nature of the universe has been covered centuries ago. And it was not the end point, it was the beginning.

Of course, the whole thing is self-defeating.
Please explain how.

One day some of 'em might realise; you never know. :p
Maybe someday we will give up on this self-defeating foolishness known as the methodology of science. What has it given us anyway? Nothing but dead ends. We're still going around in circles back where we started. After all, we still rely on belief based medicine to cure all of our diseases, don't we?

strathmeyer

2nd September 2007, 09:04 AM

It doesn't really matter unless you would be mentally incapable to answer the poll question.

The poll question didn't exist when I posted. Thanks, though.

strathmeyer

2nd September 2007, 09:07 AM

Your evidence that God does not exist is .... ? :confused:

The lack of any evidence that he does exist?

Or, how's about, the fact that everyone who thinks that a God does exist seems to be unable to explain their belief?

You're confusion is your fault, not ours. You post here, and people ask you questions and you refuse to answer them. People explain things to you, and you act as if you have not read or comprehended the explanations. We are doing all we can, you are doing nothing.

skeptifem

2nd September 2007, 09:08 AM

wow i dont think this argument can go anywhere useful at this point. anything you bring up as a lack of belief will just make oliver say "well i believe it doesnt exsist" and so on, forevar.

Slimething

2nd September 2007, 09:10 AM

Richard Dawkins: "Atheists are just people who hold another Believe -system". :rolleyes:

Quote mining at its best. Dawkins dumbs it down for a TV interview so people like you won't get confused and here's what we get. No research in authoritative philosophy sources. A quote from a TV show. Speaks volumes, Oliver.

Yes. What's wrong about calling my strong atheism a belief, I don't know.

We've been trying to explain it. I'm happy you wrote that sentence because it's a dead givaway for argumentum ad ignoratium. Look itup.

The problem here is that the 'Skeptics' hold to a belief system in which the concept of belief itself is devalued, and very often scorned and ridiculed.

Nope. We're trying to make a subtle point to Oliver here. Where there is no information, a belief either way is unsupported. I know that's not the way you live your life. We have no clue where you get your beliefs but many of us are very afraid of following you down the path of making stuff up just to believe something. Perhaps I've ridiculed your statements in the past but I don't think anyone sane could call what you believe in a "system".

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 09:20 AM

When I speak about lands where the sun doesn't rise every day and where it is a bit chilly, I don't mean lands where the sun rises above the horizon every day but cannot be seen. I mean lands where the sun just does not rise above the horizon every day.

And where it is a bit chilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_region).Fair enough but that doesn't mean that it does not rise for someone, right?

Mercutio

2nd September 2007, 09:21 AM

Quite frankly, I have the impression that the term "strong atheist/atheism"
is a fallacy on it's own.

So far I met three types of Atheism:

1. Weak Atheism that don't know if a God exists. (That's no Atheism but rather Agnosticism, isn't it?)

2. Strong Atheism. (Believing/assuming/guessing/theorizing... that there is no God -> Believing/assuming/guessing/theorizing... = Belief)

3. "Fundamentalistic" Atheism. (Being convinced there is no God without any evidence = Strong Faith in a non-existence of God).

And there may be a group that would describe themselves as being Atheists
by claiming they don't care. But this isn't Atheism - that's Idontcareism.
Please note that this nomenclature, while appropriate for religious views, quickly falls apart when one attempts to apply it to a lack of belief. "Strong" belief (a positive belief in a god, or a positive belief in "no god") applies only to one god at a time; it is silly to think that a "strong believer in god" necessarily believes in all of the thousands of gods that history has recorded. No, they will typically be a strong believer in their god, and a strong disbeliever in all others.

But someone who simply lacks any belief in any god (for whatever reason--lack of exposure, recognition of lack of evidence, whatever) is an utterly different thing. There can be no "strength" to an absence of something. It is not "weak", it is not "strong", it simply is not. And that person does not fall under any of your three categories.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 09:24 AM

Richard Dawkins: "Atheists are just people who hold another Believe -system". :rolleyes:

And here you are playing a SEMANTICS game again.

This has been explained over and over to you Oliver.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 09:27 AM

Absolutely correct, Herz. The problem here is that the 'Skeptics' hold to a belief system in which the concept of belief itself is devalued, and very often scorned and ridiculed.No, what is being "devalued" is blind faith.

Therefore they react quite irrationally when anyone suggests that they, too, may be believing some things in an extra-evidential (i.e. faith based) way. And that would be... what?

Of course, the whole thing is self-defeating.

One day some of 'em might realise; you never know. Realize what?

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 09:28 AM

That something does not exist is the null hypothesis. This hypothesis must be shown to be incorrect by those trying to prove the existance of that thing. You claim a god exists? Where is your proof?

You need to learn how science works, my friend.
From what I read here it's you who needs to review his understanding of science.

Science deliberately excludes any transcendental claims. Existence of whatever god is outside of scientific realm. If you disagree, point me to some contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god". Good luck.

Personal religious credos don't ask for evidence. Please lookup the word "evidence" before you answer.

herz

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 09:37 AM

Yes. What's wrong about calling my strong atheism a belief, I don't know. You miss the point. Of course it is a belief. It isn't a belief the way believing in god is.

As I say on this forum constantly, words are not physical laws that govern the universe. This ISN'T an aha gotcha moment because words are simply the tools humans use to convey meaning from one person to another.

When Dawkins says atheists believe he is does not mean that atheists take a leap of faith to believe something without evidence.

I positively belief there is no transcendental being whatsoever without thinking about evidence. That's all well and good but that is NOT Dawkins' position and it is not mine. He actually has considered the evidence and so have I.

Actually, my belief is what it is: a belief. Not a scientific hypothesis. Thus, the word "evidence" is not meaningful in this context anyway, because it belongs to the scientific realm and is not applicable to personal credos. Per definition. This is just semantics. I believe that the light will come on when I flip the switch based on evidence. My wife doesn't because the last time she flipped the switch the light went out and she didn't bother to tell me.

It is accurate to say, I believe based on evidence. Again, the word is simply used to convey meaning. You are playing a semantical game to paint people into a corner. It doesn't work that way.

I think that anybody's worldview finally bases upon dogmas unprovable within this worldview. The opposite would lead to an infinite regression of explanations. Dawkins says countless times, show me the evidence and I will believe. I am NOT dogmatic. I stand here ready to believe in Zeus, Thor, Mithra, or Yahweh, just show me the evidence.

Until then I BELIEVE that there is no god. AND by believe I mean that I LACK a belief.

Robin

2nd September 2007, 09:38 AM

Can I vote for "Yes this is a poorly worded poll"?

I vote this and ...

Robin

2nd September 2007, 09:40 AM

I voted Planet X since there was no option for "I see no evidence which would lead me to think some god-like being exists."
...also I vote for this.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 09:45 AM

Science deliberately excludes any transcendental claims.So long as those claims remain transcendental. Science excludes anything that can't be scientifically examined.

If it can't be scientifically examined then what is the point in believing that it could exist?

We CAN examine the efficacy of prayer and we know that a god that effected our world the way most people believe god does would render our world quite different than it is today. Physical laws could be violated.

So long as you stick to some mamby pamby do nothing god you are ok. Once you give god attributes that play in the physical world then you bring your god into the realm of science.

Robin

2nd September 2007, 09:45 AM

Science deliberately excludes any transcendental claims. Existence of whatever god is outside of scientific realm. If you disagree, point me to some contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god". Good luck.
Banks deliberately exclude Angels from their employment. If you disagree, point me to some contemporary bank that employs Angels. Good luck.

Slimething

2nd September 2007, 09:48 AM

If you disagree, point me to some contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god". Good luck.

Google "scientific god". Anything else we can do for you?

Personal religious credos don't ask for evidence.

Precisely. Atheism is not a personal religious credo. Thanks for the illustration.

Please lookup the word "evidence" before you answer.

Your arrogance has always mystified me. Is there anything to back it up or is it baseless, like most of your arguments?

Robin

2nd September 2007, 10:03 AM

But then again I remembered that I do have indisputable proof that a god exists.

My friend (who I may have mentioned before) is a dyslexic labrador breeder has several gods tied up in his back yard.

The seats right up high at the back in old theatres are called the "gods", so there is indisputable proof of even more gods.

Now if we just had a workable definition for the poll....

Foster Zygote

2nd September 2007, 11:19 AM

Fair enough but that doesn't mean that it does not rise for someone, right?

Maybe the example should be changed to an expectation that the Earth will continue to rotate on its axis.:D

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 11:27 AM

Maybe the example should be changed to an expectation that the Earth will continue to rotate on its axis.:D :D Yeah, it's beginning to sound like one of those politically correct bedtime stories. Given that the Earth's own axis of rotation is inclined by about 23.5 degrees from the perpendicular (as compared to its orbital plane) and given that one is standing at the equator then the sun will orient torrow.

Come hell or highwater... Nothing stops the postman or the sun except astrological time and change of course.

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 11:41 AM

Google "scientific god". Anything else we can do for you?

You personally, I don't think so. But others might point me to what I was asking for, scientific evidence, instead of esoterical nonsense.

Your arrogance has always mystified me. Is there anything to back it up or is it baseless, like most of your arguments?

What you call arrogance is just scientific standard. I look for scientific evidence, what you personally accept as "evidence" for your standpoint, why should I care?

herz

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 12:01 PM

From what I read here it's you who needs to review his understanding of science.

I have a fairly solid understanding of the scientific method, thanks.

Science deliberately excludes any transcendental claims. Existence of whatever god is outside of scientific realm. If you disagree, point me to some contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god". Good luck.

When did I ever claim otherwise?

Personal religious credos don't ask for evidence. Please lookup the word "evidence" before you answer.

herz

When did I ever claim otherwise?

brodski

2nd September 2007, 12:31 PM

This thread sums up my feelings http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92102

Minarvia

2nd September 2007, 12:47 PM

I voted Planet X since there was no option for "I see no evidence which would lead me to think some god-like being exists."

Bingo. That option should be on there.

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 01:02 PM

When did I ever claim otherwise?

When you requested scientific proof for the "claim" that god existed.

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 01:43 PM

You miss the point. Of course it is a belief. It isn't a belief the way believing in god is.

By saying "I believe there's no gods" I don't miss a point I would care about.

When Dawkins says atheists believe he is does not mean that atheists take a leap of faith to believe something without evidence.

He seems to feel entitled to speak in the name of all atheists. He's not.

That's all well and good but that is NOT Dawkins' position and it is not mine. He actually has considered the evidence and so have I.

This is what you believe. Fine.

It is accurate to say, I believe based on evidence.

There's no accuracy in this statement. It's but an analytical proposition based just upon definition of terms. As such it's useless.

Again, the word is simply used to convey meaning. You are playing a semantical game

You are not? You finished your Kant, btw?

Dawkins says countless times, show me the evidence and I will believe. I am NOT dogmatic. I stand here ready to believe in Zeus, Thor, Mithra, or Yahweh, just show me the evidence.

Well, one of your dogmas is obviously that only evidenced beliefs are useful beliefs. I'm inclined to disagree.

Until then I BELIEVE that there is no god. AND by believe I mean that I LACK a belief.
Now you overplay it. There's a limit to personalizing terms to fit one's worldview, I think. And this limit has been exceeded here in mho.

herz

Elizabeth I

2nd September 2007, 01:54 PM

Atheism is the natural state of all living things. All human children are born completely free of any concept of an Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy. This condition, not being afflicted with religious beliefs, is atheism.

Atheism is consistent with reality. Things that actually do exist always exist at some point in time or space. Things that do not exist in time or space do not exist at all.

A rational person can examine the claims made by those who are afflicted with religious beliefs, and examine in detail the supposed attributes of each Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, and then reach the only available logical conclusion: that this fantasy creature could not possibly exist because the traits it is alleged to have are paradoxical and mutually exclusive.

It is only by defining the prepostrerous claims made about a specific Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy that the internal contradictions that prove it is impossible can be known.

So, in a chronological order, all human beings begin as natural atheists. Unfortunately some human beings are taught fairy tales as if they were true, and many of them fail to hold these claims to a sufficiently critical examination. Thus some atheists, usually because of misguided parents, fall by the wayside and become afflicted with religious beliefs.

But a close examination of any particular set of theistic fantasies always reveals the preposterous nature of that particular set of nonsense, thus producing a group of people who have studied religious fantasies, reached the obvious conclusion, and are now called strong atheists.

To the extent a person has suffered the misfortune of being exposed to religion, and reacted appropriately by noticing the extreme absence of facts, then that person is likely to progress from natural atheism to strong atheism.

As for those who do fall victim to religion, we suggest and try to provide ridicule therapy.

But...I LIKE beards!

Hey, it makes as much sense as Oliver's poll!

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 02:05 PM

So long as those claims remain transcendental. Science excludes anything that can't be scientifically examined.

Yes. But this is kinda self-evident, right? And it misses the key point, I think. Science is restricted to natural explanations of physical observations, for purely pragmatic reasons. Mainly those of efficiency.

If it can't be scientifically examined then what is the point in believing that it could exist?

It does. Science describes what is, not what ought to be. Neither can the latter (morality, ethics) be derived from the former in a unique way.

Once you give god attributes that play in the physical world then you bring your god into the realm of science.

I disagree. You assume the attitudes of creationists here, don't you see? You can believe as much as you like that god created the universe, life and all the rest. As long as you STAY within a religious realm and do NOT dream up scientific relevance - what's the problem?

I think we also disagree on the scope of science. For me, science creates useful theories defined mainly by explantory power and good prediction of measurements. That's it.

Science neither claims that their theories are true nor does it claim a certain "supernatural" explanation is false. What science says is basically

1. our theories are more or less useful

2. religious credos are out of our scope.

herz

tuc0

2nd September 2007, 02:08 PM

I voted #3 because my definition is: "Gods are fictional characters said to have magical powers".
And those surely exist.

Slimething

2nd September 2007, 02:34 PM

But others might point me to what I was asking for, scientific evidence, instead of esoterical nonsense.

Oh, a thousand apologies! I was so mistaken. I thought that when I read the quote from you (see below), you were actually asking for contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god".
If you disagree, point me to some contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god". Good luck.

That is what I gave you. Now, you want evidence, not investigation. That's a bit of silly request, don't you think? (Don't answer that one!)

What you call arrogance is just scientific standard.

Nah, the scientific standard is an objective thingie. One can approach it from a number of different angles. Arrogance is a matter of style and you have chosen it. In my considerable experience in scientific circles, arrogance almost always emerges from insecurity and self-awareness of incompetence. IOW, the most brilliant scientists I know are the most humble. The most arrogant are the ones I've caught cheating and lying. Your choice speaks volumes about you.

I look for scientific evidence, what you personally accept as "evidence" for your standpoint, why should I care?

There you go again. Why should you care what I think is evidence? Cuz I'm a scientist and I parse evidence every workday. So, my opinion of what is evidence and what is not carries official weight. Yours?

articulett

2nd September 2007, 02:46 PM

I voted #3 because my definition is: "Gods are fictional characters said to have magical powers".
And those surely exist.

In the minds of humans--they sure do... boy do they.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 02:59 PM

By saying "I believe there's no gods" I don't miss a point I would care about.

He seems to feel entitled to speak in the name of all atheists. He's not.

This is what you believe. Fine.

There's no accuracy in this statement. It's but an analytical proposition based just upon definition of terms. As such it's useless.

You are not? You finished your Kant, btw?

Well, one of your dogmas is obviously that only evidenced beliefs are useful beliefs. I'm inclined to disagree.

Now you overplay it. There's a limit to personalizing terms to fit one's worldview, I think. And this limit has been exceeded here in mho.

You miss the point, a valid one BTW. That's all that matters. What you care about is neither here nor there.
What Dawkins' feels entitled to is irrelevant. That is NOT the point.
Yes, and it is NOT a leap of faith.
You simply assert there is no accuracy. You are just engaging in rhetoric.
No, I'm not. Clearly not. The word can be used for different purposes. That Dawkins' uses the word belief does not give anyone license to mischaracterize Dawkins' intent.
I don't pretend to speak for Dawkins'. I doubt he would chose you as his spokesperson. I don't agree with your characterization of his thoughts and feelings. However that is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Not a clue on the overplay rhetoric bit. I stand by the statement and you have not rebutted it with any reason or logic. Rhetoric is not really compelling.As long as you are spewing rhetoric I will continue with my so-called kant. Fair enough? And you can skip any claim of humility, it doesn't become you.

articulett

2nd September 2007, 03:14 PM

Wow, randfan, you seem to be able to pull more meaning out Herz's rants than anyone else. I've had him on ignore since day one-- and when he pops up in your posts, I am reminded as to why. I have no idea what he's saying much of the time. I know he's supposedly a non-believer, but quite the apologist with a rabid hatred for anyone who calls religion bad or who is an outspoken atheist (Dawkins, Harris, etc.). He seems to have come to this forum to tell people how bad they are for something or other (being sane?)...

ETA-- good job slimething too-- a pleasure to read the disemboweling of hubris.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 03:15 PM

Yes. But this is kinda self-evident, right? And it misses the key point, I think. Science is restricted to natural explanations of physical observations, for purely pragmatic reasons. Mainly those of efficiency. "Efficiency"? Yes, if looking in a cows utter for diamonds is inefficient then I would have to agree. I prefer to call it a waste of time.

It does. It does what?

Science describes what is, not what ought to be.It can give us help in deciding what ought to be. What this has to do with the transcendental is beyond me though.

Neither can the latter (morality, ethics) be derived from the former in a unique way. "Unique"? We can reason morality and ethics. What does this have to do with the transcendental? Do you believe that morality and ethics are transcendental?

I disagree. By all means but give us a reason to do so if you want us to agree with you.

You assume the attitudes of creationists here, don't you see?No, clearly not. Whenever you make a scientific claim about god I suggest we test that claim. Is that a problem?

You can believe as much as you like that god created the universe, life and all the rest. As long as you STAY within a religious realm and do NOT dream up scientific relevance - what's the problem? Like I said, as long as you don't make scientific statements then believe what ever you want. Just don't demand that science not consider scientific statements made by the religious.

I think we also disagree on the scope of science. For me, science creates useful theories defined mainly by explantory power and good prediction of measurements. That's it. "That's it"? That's a perfectly fine position, just as fine as solipsism. If that's what science is to you then I don't have any complaint. You are welcome to it.

Science neither claims that their theories are true...This is a bit disengenous. Science doesn't hold absolute the truth value of any proposition. However, it still uses words like "fact" and "truth".

Careful here herz, you are treading on thin ice (my own rhetorical flourish).

...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

...nor does it claim a certain "supernatural" explanation is false.When people claim that god can interact with the physical world in a supernatural way science says that is false. End of story.

1. our theories are more or less useful"More or less useful"?

Do you use a car?
Do you use a computer?
Do you use a phone?
Do you use medicine?
Do you believe the mapping of the human genome useful?
Would you prefer a life before or after technology?

2. religious credos are out of our scope.?

What use are they?

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 03:20 PM

Wow, randfan, you seem to be able to pull more meaning out Herz's rants than anyone else. I've had him on ignore since day one-- and when he pops up in your posts, I am reminded as to why. I have no idea what he's saying much of the time. I know he's supposedly a non-believer, but quite the apologist with a rabid hatred for anyone who calls religion bad or who is an outspoken atheist (Dawkins, Harris, etc.). He seems to have come to this forum to tell people how bad they are for something or other (being sane?)...There are three like herz, Bri and ceo_esq. I don't get them. That's fine.

Thanks

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 03:34 PM

I thought that when I read the quote from you (see below), you were actually asking for contemporary scientific investigations dealing with the existence of "god".

Correct. With the understanding that scientific work is published in peer-reviewed science magazines, conference reports etc. Papers investigating e.g. the existence of Allah from a physical pov must be regarded as highly interesting. Chances are good, the paper or least its abstract will be available online.

I wonder why I have to explain this to you.

That is what I gave you.

No. You didn't give anything but told me to seek scientific material on my own. Forget it.

Arrogance is a matter of style and you have chosen it.

Evidence? I mean something like this:

Cuz I'm a scientist and I parse evidence every workday. So, my opinion of what is evidence and what is not carries official weight.

Got it?

There you go again. Why should you care what I think is evidence?

That's your perception of what I said. Perception is not the same as reality.

Cuz I'm a scientist and I parse evidence every workday. So, my opinion of what is evidence and what is not carries official weight. Yours?

Science does not know "officials" telling how the real, official truth looks like. A pretty absurd idea.

So, just provide what you think are the best evidences available for your claims, then we can discuss.

herz

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 03:57 PM

You miss the point, a valid one BTW. That's all that matters. What you care about is neither here nor there.Regarding my view of the world what I care about is all that matters for me.
What Dawkins' feels entitled to is irrelevant. That is NOT the point.Not for me. You can only declare what's relevant for yourself, for nobody else. Especially not for me. Why don't you just stop it?
Yes, and it is NOT a leap of faith.
You simply assert there is no accuracy. You are just engaging in rhetoric.No. I am actually justifying my judgment. If you knew Kant you would have understood very well the line of my argument.
No, I'm not. Clearly not. The word can be used for different purposes. That Dawkins' uses the word belief does not give anyone license to mischaracterize Dawkins' intent.I take him by his words.
I don't pretend to speak for Dawkins'. I doubt he would chose you as his spokesperson. I don't agree with your characterization of his thoughts and feelings. However that is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand.I agree to that with the spokesman. :D
Not a clue on the overplay rhetoric bit. I stand by the statement and you have not rebutted it with any reason or logic. Rhetoric is not really compelling.You said "Until then I BELIEVE that there is no god. AND by believe I mean that I LACK a belief." The second sentence is dubious because if you believe in a lack of another belief, you have just substituted one belief by another.

As long as you are spewing rhetoric I will continue with my so-called kant. Fair enough?

Your choice. This method of self-immunizing a position basically looks like any other.

And you can skip any claim of humility, it doesn't become you.
I added my comments in red, sorry for messing up your enumeration.

herz

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 04:12 PM

When you requested scientific proof for the "claim" that god existed.

And I'm prefectly right to. If one is to employ a requiest for evidence of a negative, one has made it a scientific matter. If the question of god's existence is to be assessed scientifically, using proper scientific procedure is required. I merely pointed this out.

articulett

2nd September 2007, 04:22 PM

It's time for Herzblut to play Name that Fallacy:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive082007.html#08302007

Pope130

2nd September 2007, 04:55 PM

Richard Dawkins: "Atheists are just people who hold another Believe -system". :rolleyes:

kTZONIl546c

Oliver,
If this quote is accurate you have discovered that Richard Dawkins does not (just as you apparently do not) know the difference between a verb and a noun. Please learn to use the words "believe" and "belief" correctly.

Oh, and: Bad poll. Bad bad poll.

Robert Klaus

Slimething

2nd September 2007, 05:40 PM

Correct. With the understanding that scientific work is published in peer-reviewed science magazines, conference reports etc.

You are beginning to disclose your ignorance of science. First, only major scientific research and postulates are published through peer review. There is plenty of science that goes unreported and used only for circulation among the few scientists who are involved in the same field of work. Peer review is for scientists who think they have got hold of something really significant and, therefore, want to make claim to it in an authoritative forum.

That's why most of us really only pay much attention to the peer-reviewed literature. We don't have the time to read articles with grandiose titles that merely rehash stuff we already know. And, BTW, they're called "journals", not "magazines".

I am of the opinion that almost everyone does science every day. That is, they use the scientific method to discover something they didn't know previously. None of that gets published but it's still science. That is a topic for a different day.

I wonder why I have to explain this to you.

Splain what? That you don't know much about real science? You needn't have bothered.

No. You didn't give anything but told me to seek scientific material on my own. Forget it.

You expect me to do your legwork? The Goog search spat out too many URLs for me to post them for you. Write your elected officials and complain.

Evidence? I mean something like this:

Got it?

What? Telling you what I do for a living is arrogance? That's a laugh. You're what we consider a techno-bully who starts whining as soon as they meet someone with the appropriate credentials to give them the bitch-slapping they deserve. Cry me a river.

That's your perception of what I said. Perception is not the same as reality.

Hmm. There's a pattern developing here. First, I provide you the means with obtaining the information you asked for but, then, you change it around and tell me that's not what you asked for. Now, I've completely misunderstood something else you wrote? Methinks thou doth protest too much. Learn how to write.

Science does not know "officials" telling how the real, official truth looks like. A pretty absurd idea.

Well, again I get an education from you. All this time I believed that those science "magazines" you so admired have editors on staff and science experts available to peer review submissions. I guess I must have been deluded. Also, I should tell my boss (and my peers) that we no longer have to worry about the quality of the work generated by our reports because Herzblut has deemed that all data are acceptable. Where have you been? We've all been working too damned hard! :rolleyes:

So, just provide what you think are the best evidences available for your claims, then we can discuss.

I've made no claims. If I had, I don't respect you enough to accept anything you have to say regarding the existence or quality of evidence toward any scientific hypothesis or theory. Thanks anyway just the same.

Taffer

2nd September 2007, 06:19 PM

Well, again I get an education from you. All this time I believed that those science "magazines" you so admired have editors on staff and science experts available to peer review submissions. I guess I must have been deluded. Also, I should tell my boss (and my peers) that we no longer have to worry about the quality of the work generated by our reports because Herzblut has deemed that all data are acceptable. Where have you been? We've all been working too damned hard! :rolleyes:

This made me chuckle. :D

HghrSymmetry

2nd September 2007, 06:33 PM

Poll Options
Do you believe there is >no< god?
Yes, that's what I believe.
No, I believe there is a god.
No, I know for fact that there is a god.
No, I know for fact that there is >no< god.
Planet X/I don't know/I don't care

Option #6: Meaningless question due to undefinable concept.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 07:00 PM

I added my comments in red, sorry for messing up your enumeration.No problem.

But of course. It's just that your world view has no bearing on the discussion. If you like chocolate then cool. Tell the world. That's your right. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand though.
By all means, I guess this is now simply all about you. So, end of discussion.
Kant has been dead these many years. I do know of him though.
Cool, still doesn't give you license to mischarachterize his intent.
No, one more time, it's just semantics. Words are not laws that govern the universe. What you would like people to mean and what they do, in reality, mean are not always the same thing.
No self-imunizing (whatever that means). Just a simple argument. The word "believe" like many other words is simply a means to convey an idea. It doesn't mean the same thing every time it is used. To try and force meaning that is not there is intelectually dishonest.

Apathia

2nd September 2007, 08:04 PM

I know I'm way late here, but I just wanted to say this poll stinks more than a polecat.

Loss Leader

2nd September 2007, 08:12 PM

I *believe* there is no God but I do not *know* it.

I am open to learning that my belief is wrong.

Incidentally, this is exactly the same as I feel regarding Lindsey Lohan's acting ability.

On a related note, vote for me in the Pith Poll (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92011).

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 08:44 PM

"Efficiency"? Yes, if looking in a cows utter for diamonds is inefficient then I would have to agree. I prefer to call it a waste of time.

You miss the point. There's an uncounted infinite number of potential supernatural beliefs, and man is creative in making up more and more of those. Non of those will be scientifically investigated. Scientists are paid for doing other things.

It can give us help in deciding what ought to be. What this has to do with the transcendental is beyond me though.

"Unique"? We can reason morality and ethics. What does this have to do with the transcendental? Do you believe that morality and ethics are transcendental?

Not so fast. Science excludes

(1) all supernaturalism
(2) any "ought-to" judgments.

Point (2) eliminates science as a valid source for morality or ethics.

No, clearly not. Whenever you make a scientific claim about god I suggest we test that claim. Is that a problem?

Yes. No scientific claim can be made about supernatural entities. Lack of falsifiability is a key aspect. Science will never waist a second testing such claims.

"That's it"? That's a perfectly fine position, just as fine as solipsism. If that's what science is to you then I don't have any complaint. You are welcome to it.

That's what science is. If you think you can add further features to it, don't hesitate.

This is a bit disengenous. Science doesn't hold absolute the truth value of any proposition. However, it still uses words like "fact" and "truth".

Truth in an abstract mathematical context maybe, but never in an empirical realm. Scientific theories can only be falsified, but not verified. Would you mind to have a look at a guy called Karl Popper and what he says about the nature of scientific epistemology? I think it will give you some interesting insight.

When people claim that god can interact with the physical world in a supernatural way science says that is false. End of story.

No, sorry. You are simply wrong.

What use are they?

For whom? Are you the one deciding what's useful for somebody and what isn't? No, you're not.

herz

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 08:56 PM

You miss the point. There's an uncounted infinite number of potential supernatural beliefs, and man is creative in making up more and more of those. Non of those will be scientifically investigated. Scientists are paid for doing other things.?

How do I miss the point? I said that investigating them is a waste of time. You say that it is a waste of time. If we both agree that it is a waste of time then how do I miss the point?

(1) all supernaturalism
(2) any "ought-to" judgments.

Point (2) eliminates science as a valid source for morality or ethics. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Science can inform us why we make moral and ethical choices.

You DIDN'T answer the question. How can we proceed if you dance around the subject? What does ethics have to do with the discussion?

Yes.How is it a problem? If you make a scientific claim science can test it. BTW, it HAS tested it.

No scientific claim can be made about supernatural entities. Lack of falsifiability is a key aspect. Science will never waist a second testing such claims. {sigh} One more time, when religion makes scientific claims then science can and does test them. It does so all of the time. Stop saying that it can't when it demonstrably does.

That's what science is. If you think you can add further features to it, don't hesitate. I don't need to add any features. I just need to pull my head out of a hole in the ground, reject solipsism and assume the empirical world is as it seems.

Truth in an abstract mathematical context maybe, but never in an empirical realm. Scientific theories can only be falsified, but not verified. Would you mind to have a look at a guy called Karl Popper and what he says about the nature of scientific epistemology? I agree with Karl Popper 100%. That doesn't change on iota of my point or the quote from Talk Origins.

You either stick your head in the ground or you accept reality and don't pretend that apples might actually float in the air on Tuesdays just because, hey, it's possible.

No, sorry. You are simply wrong. Wow, devestating agument.

No, I'm simply right.

For whom? Are you the one deciding what's useful for somebody and what isn't? No, you're not.?

I'M ASKING A QUESTION....

logical muse

2nd September 2007, 09:23 PM

Well, obviously the answer is Planet X (http://www.xplanetx.com/).

Their latest CD has two of the greatest Guitar Gods ever to grace the universe, Brett Garsed (http://www.brettgarsed.com/)and Allan Holdsworth (http://www.therealallanholdsworth.com/).

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 09:32 PM

How do I miss the point? I said that investigating them is a waste of time.

Contradicting yourself by claiming as well that science investigates areas including supernaturalism.

Resolve this obvious fallacy.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Science can inform us why we make moral and ethical choices.

We are discussing the scope of science. My true statement of facts is that science describes what is, but says absolutely nothing about what ought to be.

Ignoring this established fact drives you right into problems well-known under "is-ought" and "naturalistic fallacy".

What does ethics have to do with the discussion?

Last time: providing ethical codes is outside of the scope of science.

{sigh} One more time, when religion makes scientific claims then science can and does test them. It does so all of the time. Stop saying that it can't when it demonstrably does.

(1) You're slipping away from a "claim about god" to a "religious claim", probably assuming I don't see your jumping around. Pretty funny!

(2) Even your drastically weakoned assertion is dubious, if not false. Religion DOES NOT make scientific claims. You know why? Because religion is not science! It's religion! Only science is science!

But OK - just show me some of those ..er.. "religio-supernatural-scientific" claims you theorize about.

This is called "providing evidence". *

I don't need to add any features.

Of course you need to. You make an empirical claim about alleged features of science and blatantly refuse to give evidence. **

Know what: you go on like this, and it's EOD.

Wow, devestating agument.

No, I'm simply right.

You make a positive, empirical claim. Provide evidence, please! ***

Waiting for your evidence *, ** and ***.

herz

Robin

2nd September 2007, 09:53 PM

logical muse

2nd September 2007, 10:19 PM

Suppose a bunch of angels appeared all over the world.

Would scientists show no curiousity about them at all? Just say "not our department" and ignore them?

Hardly. Science would study the supernatural if there were anything there to study.

Umm, but if they appeared they wouldn't actually be supernatural, would they? Or would they? In any case, if something appears in such a way that we can actually observe it, then of course it would be studied. How would we know if it was supernatural or not without conducting the tests? ;)

Robin

2nd September 2007, 10:27 PM

Umm, but if they appeared they wouldn't actually be supernatural, would they? Or would they? In any case, if something appears in such a way that we can actually observe it, then of course it would be studied. How would we know if it was supernatural or not without conducting the tests? ;)
I am just trying to work out why somebody would think that the supernatural was outside of the realm of science. Seems to me if something supernatural occurred scientists would be more interested in that than anything else.

I mean if something occurred that clearly contradicted known laws of physics the physicists would be lining up to study it.

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 11:02 PM

Contradicting yourself by claiming as well that science investigates areas including supernaturalism.You are not making any sense. Asserting that I'm contradicting myself doesn't make it so.

We are discussing the scope of science. My true statement of facts is that science describes what is, but says absolutely nothing about what ought to be. Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's a red herring.

Last time: providing ethical codes is outside of the scope of science.Which has what to do with the issue at hand?

(2) Even your drastically weakoned assertion is dubious, if not false. Religion DOES NOT make scientific claims. You know why? Because religion is not science! It's religion! Only science is science! This is silly. If religion claims that god answers prayers then that is a scientific statement.

But OK - just show me some of those ..er.. "religio-supernatural-scientific" claims you theorize about. When religous people claim that god answers prayers that is a scientific statement. It can and has been tested.

Of course you need to. You make an empirical claim about alleged features of science and blatantly refuse to give evidence. ** What is this claim? What are you talking about?

You make a positive, empirical claim. What claim?

Provide evidence, please! ***Evidence for what?

Waiting for your evidence *, ** and ***.What is this claim? Evidence for what?

I'll answer your question but tell me what the hell you want?

logical muse

2nd September 2007, 11:15 PM

I am just trying to work out why somebody would think that the supernatural was outside of the realm of science. Seems to me if something supernatural occurred scientists would be more interested in that than anything else.

I mean if something occurred that clearly contradicted known laws of physics the physicists would be lining up to study it.

Ahh ok.

It's not so much that the supernatural is outside the realm of science, it's more that science does not seek supernatural explanations. There's a difference.

If something occurred that clearly contradicted known laws of physics, science would look for a natural, not a supernatural, explanation. It's no explanation to say "It's a miracle".

Hokulele

2nd September 2007, 11:24 PM

(2) Even your drastically weakoned assertion is dubious, if not false. Religion DOES NOT make scientific claims. You know why? Because religion is not science! It's religion! Only science is science!

Faith healing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing).

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 11:40 PM

Religion DOES NOT make scientific claims. You know why? Because religion is not science! It's religion!
Faith healing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing).

Sorry Houke,

You just DON'T GET IT!!!!

Galileo wasn't in fact tried for heresy because the Church wasn't making a scientific claim that the Earth was at the center of the universe. It couldn't do that because the Catholic Church was a religion. So Galileo was never tried and never put under house arrest.

Oh, and Bruno wasn't burnt at the stake either. Wicked scientific rumor. He couldn't have been. Bruno was making scientific claims. How could he have been in conflict with the church if religion doesn't make scientific claims?

Please.....

Hokulele

2nd September 2007, 11:49 PM

Sorry Houke,

You just DON'T GET IT!!!!

*Sigh* I never do.

;)

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 11:49 PM

Oh Huouke,

To further my proof against you.

Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) doesn't make scientific claims. He doesn't state that the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago. Duh. How could he? Dr. Hovind is a Young Earth Creationist. Dr. Hovind preaches the word of god. That's religion.

Religion CAN'T make scientific claims. Heeeellloooooooooooo.......

RandFan

2nd September 2007, 11:53 PM

*Sigh* I never do.

;):) To soon. I posted another example.

This is so stupid. I can't believe someone who has any understanding of history can come on a forum and make such a declaration.

Perhaps religion can't make scientific claims. Religion isn't even a conscious entity. However, that doesn't keep ministers, preachers, rabbis, monks, Buddhists, bishops and idiots like Kent Hovind from trying.

And as soon as these religious idiots make scientific claims like god answers prayers, heals people, raises people from the dead, turns water into wine, etc., etc., etc. then science will be there to tell them they are full of B.S.

And you can be sure that some nut case will be there to say they never made such a claim. It's all imaginary.

Herzblut

2nd September 2007, 11:59 PM

Faith healing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing).
So?

Hokulele

3rd September 2007, 12:03 AM

So?

Do you consider the Christian healing by "laying on of hands" to be a claim that can be tested scientifically?

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 12:03 AM

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 12:14 AM

Do you consider the Christian healing by "laying on of hands" to be a claim that can be tested scientifically?
The scientific religious claim you refer to

"God heals people through the power of the Holy Spirit, often involving the laying on of hands" (1)

can of course not be investigated scientifically. Why you're asking?

Oh - if you disagree, just propose a scientific experiment to provide evidence for (1).

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 12:15 AM

I understand. You say YEC is a scientific theory and should be part of scientific school education.

How good we talked about it.

Oh yes, because that's exactly what he said. :rolleyes:

You are an idiot.

Hokulele

3rd September 2007, 12:32 AM

The scientific religious claim you refer to

"God heals people through the power of the Holy Spirit, often involving the laying on of hands" (1)

can of course not be investigated scientifically. Why you're asking?

Oh - if you disagree, just propose a scientific experiment to provide evidence for (1).

Sure, any one of the studies listed in the footnotes from this article (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/faith.html). Of course, none of them are evidence for (1), because there is no evidence for (1). On the other hand, there is a good deal of evidence against (1).

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 12:38 AM

Sure, any one of the studies listed in the footnotes from this article (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/faith.html). Of course, none of them are evidence for (1), because there is no evidence for (1). On the other hand, there is a good deal of evidence against (1).
Not at all. God might have decided to heal people involving other means based upon sapient advice from the Holy Spirit. Jesus might also have been involved in this discussion.

There is absolutely no way to falsify (1).

Hokulele

3rd September 2007, 12:44 AM

Not at all. God might have decided to heal people involving other means more often. That's obviously compliant to the religious claim (1).

There is absolutely no way to falsify (1).

Have you watched a faith healing episode? In each case, the direct laying on of hands, or the act of praying is what initiates the healing. As far as the claim goes, the act must precede the healing. In a cited cancer study (note, I cannot find a link to the actual study), there were no differences in spontaneous remission rates between the prayed for group and the non-prayed for group. This would indicate that the specific claim that prayer/laying-on-of hands can heal can be scientifically disproven.

Please note, you are trying to shift the discussion to a general claim of "god heals". I am only referring to the specific claim that religious intercession heals.

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 12:56 AM

I understand. You say YEC is a scientific theory and should be part of scientific school education.How do you go from a scientific claim to scientiric theory and part of a scientific school education?

The earth is 6,000 years old is a scientific statment.
It can it be tested.
It failed the test.
Just because it is a failed and deeply flawed theory doesn't mean it isn't a scientific statement or that it should be taught in school.
:) Don't want to discuss Galileo or Bruno?

Cardinal Bellarmine's letter (http://www.spaceship-earth.org/OrigLit/Bellarm.htm)

And if Your Reverence would read not only all their works but the commentaries of modem writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua, you would find that all agree in expounding literally that the sun is in the heavens and travels swiftly around the earth, while the earth is far from the heavens and remains motionless in the centre of the world. Now consider whether, in all prudence, the Church could support the giving to Scripture of a sense contrary to the holy fathers and all the Greek and Latin expositors. Nor may it be replied that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not so with regard to the subject matter, it is with regard to those who have spoken. Thus that man would be just as much a heretic who denied that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as one who denied the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

No scientific claim?

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 01:00 AM

Please note, you are trying to shift the discussion to a general claim of "god heals". I am only referring to the specific claim that religious intercession heals. Which IS a scientific claim.

Herz doesn't know the rules of holes. When you are in one stop digging.

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 01:06 AM

Please note, you are trying to shift the discussion to a general claim of "god heals".

What is? You asked me to consider the Christian healing by "laying on of hands". And I just copied the corresponding religious claim from our own source! Namely

"God heals people through the power of the Holy Spirit, often involving the laying on of hands" (1)

This is the claim.

You now start talking about another claim. Please cite this claim exactly and provide the source for that religious claim.

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 01:23 AM

Please cite this claim exactly and provide the source for that religious claim.?

Benny Hinn.
Jeff Ansley.
John of God.All claim to heal. All conduct healing sessions. Are you now just being obtuse?

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 01:26 AM

Here is Benny Hinn healing a boy with Cistic Fibrosis.

bQftnekCv8U

Is this an act that science can examine? Yes? No?
Is it religious? Yes? No?

Do you only respond when you believe that you have an opportunity to be obtuse?

Hokulele

3rd September 2007, 01:26 AM

What is? You asked me to consider the Christian healing by "laying on of hands". And I just copied the corresponding religious claim from our own source! Namely

"God heals people through the power of the Holy Spirit, often involving the laying on of hands" (1)

This is the claim.

You now start talking about another claim. Please cite this claim exactly and provide the source for that religious claim.

Ah, but you carefully chose the section of the source that implies that the intercession is optional ("often involving"). Of course if you leave out the intercession, "god heals" is impossible to test. However, based on a reading of the entire wiki article that does discuss intercessory actions, please re-read and answer my original question to you.

Do you consider the Christian healing by "laying on of hands" to be a claim that can be tested scientifically?

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 01:29 AM

Here is Benny Hinn healing a boy with Cistic Fibrosis.

bQftnekCv8U

BTW, Benny Hinn is one of the biggest pricks on earth.

Are skeptics really supposed to ignore this ass who CLAIMS to heal people because he does so in the name of religion?

Herz? Are you still out there?

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 01:47 AM

Religion DOES NOT make scientific claims. You know why? Because religion is not science! It's religion! Only science is science!

Which is why Cardinal Bellarmine never stated that the Bible makes clear that the sun travels around the earth. That would be a scientific statement. An impossibility for a man of religion.

Cardinal Bellarmine's letter (http://www.spaceship-earth.org/OrigLit/Bellarm.htm)

And if Your Reverence would read not only all their works but the commentaries of modem writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua, you would find that all agree in expounding literally that the sun is in the heavens and travels swiftly around the earth, while the earth is far from the heavens and remains motionless in the centre of the world. Now consider whether, in all prudence, the Church could support the giving to Scripture of a sense contrary to the holy fathers and all the Greek and Latin expositors. Nor may it be replied that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not so with regard to the subject matter, it is with regard to those who have spoken. Thus that man would be just as much a heretic who denied that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as one who denied the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 02:31 AM

?
Benny Hinn.
Jeff Ansley.
John of God.All claim to heal. All conduct healing sessions. Are you now just being obtuse?
Hmm. Without knowing any of those creatures I wonder why they haven't holed up in the deepest and darkest abyss mother earth can provide after Randi has debunked this ratass named Popoff or whatever his name was.

I regard them as a bunch of criminals of the worst kind. Abusing the most vulnerable by ruthlessly exploiting their state of desperation and darkest despair to make money that's literally oozing with people's blood. I spit on them.

To put my stake in the ground here, so you're not mistaken where I stand.

herz

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 03:03 AM

How do you go from a scientific claim to scientiric theory and part of a scientific school education?
The earth is 6,000 years old is a scientific statment.
It can it be tested.
It failed the test.
Just because it is a failed and deeply flawed theory doesn't mean it isn't a scientific statement or that it should be taught in school.
YEC has nothing scientific, it's pseudo-scientifical nonsense. When creationism claims it has anything to do with science it's lying. I wonder why you don't see this.

But when you leave YEC where is exclusively belongs, namely in the religious arena, it is simply a pretty stupid belief, but anybody may adhere to it if he wants, I don't care. Science would not try to disprove the freaky belief that God created earth 6.000 years ago, because it cannot. But it'll be allowed to remark that this belief is against scientific evidence, which never turned out well for a belief in the past.

Again: there is absolutely no way for science to disprove that God has created earth and whatever 6.000 years ago in such a way that the earth appears much older than it really is.

Sciene can neither disprove that the whole universe, including our faked memories and everything, has been created exactly 5 minutes ago by a god called quitzlipotzli. (Russell) Can you prove the opposite?

Do you see the point now?

herz

blobru

3rd September 2007, 03:53 AM

...
We are discussing the scope of science. My true statement of facts is that science describes what is, but says absolutely nothing about what ought to be.

Ignoring this established fact drives you right into problems well-known under "is-ought" and "naturalistic fallacy".
...

I agree the is-ought gap precludes a "science" of ethics. But I don't think faith is the only other choice. Philosophy tries to bridge the gap between is & ought; hypothesizing an ethics, deducing likely outcomes from our scientific knowledge of the world (at least that's one way to do it, there is also faith-based philosophy which derives ethics from the logic of scripture); so I won't say the is-ought problem separates reason and ethics, just science and ethics. Of course reason can draw on the best available evidence (tentatively, one assumes it's the best method and tests it) and one's own experience; the point is faith isn't the default option once one transcends science. I don't see a necessity for "faith" -- belief irrespective of evidence -- in anything except religion: maybe I'm missing something?

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 08:43 AM

Hmm. Without knowing any of those creatures I wonder why they haven't holed up in the deepest and darkest abyss mother earth can provide after Randi has debunked this ratass named Popoff or whatever his name was.

I regard them as a bunch of criminals of the worst kind. Abusing the most vulnerable by ruthlessly exploiting their state of desperation and darkest despair to make money that's literally oozing with people's blood. I spit on them.

To put my stake in the ground here, so you're not mistaken where I stand.

herzWhich has what to do with the issue at hand?

Religion isn't a conscious entity that can do anything. To say religion doesn't make scientific claims is nonsense unless you mean that religious people make don't make scientfic claims.

Well, they do, I've demonstrated that they do, so what are you talking about?

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 08:48 AM

Sciene can neither disprove that the whole universe, including our faked memories and everything, has been created exactly 5 minutes ago by a god called quitzlipotzli. (Russell) Can you prove the opposite?

Do you see the point now? No.

You said religion can't make scientific claims. The fact that science ultimately can't prove anything does not prove your claim. By your logic, science doesn't make scientific claims.

You can't have it both ways. Either the age of the earth is a testable statement or it is not. Now, you can reject science, that's fine from a philosophical POV. If you want to accept solipsism that's fine but you can't reasonably claim that science can do something one moment and can't the next.

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 09:57 AM

You can't have it both ways. Either the age of the earth is a testable statement or it is not.
The age of the earth is testable when you restrict yourself to scientific methods and their natural descriptions.

If you believe in god quitlipotzli instead, you might as well assume the earth's age is just 5 minutes, see above.

You know, to be honest, you're a little slow and I'm getting tired explaining the same point over & over again. It's not my problem that you simply don't understand certain concepts, you know?

Just read a little bit of Karl Popper instead, won't you?

herz

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 10:19 AM

The age of the earth is testable when you restrict yourself to scientific methods and their natural descriptions.

If you believe in god quitlipotzli instead, you might as well assume the earth's age is just 5 minutes, see above.

You know, to be honest, you're a little slow and I'm getting tired explaining the same point over & over again. It's not my problem that you simply don't understand certain concepts, you know?

Just read a little bit of Karl Popper instead, won't you?

herzI'm pissed at your dishonesty.

If you want to reject science then fine. Either the world works as it seems or it doesn't. If it works as it seems then it's nonsense to say god could have made it all up a few minutes ago.

Not all religions reject science. In fact, most don't. Most accept that the world is as it appears. Kent Hovind isn't making the argument you are. The Catholic Church isn't making the arugment that you are.

Question: If they are not then why are you?

You can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest.

Make a choice.

Slimething

3rd September 2007, 10:43 AM

You know, to be honest, you're a little slow and I'm getting tired explaining the same point over & over again. It's not my problem that you simply don't understand certain concepts, you know?

:hb: RandFan isn't slow. You don't know what you're writing about. As I've pointed out before, you have very poor communication skills. You also lack a little something in the logic department.

It's already been established in this thread that you have no discernable understanding of science. Your arguments regarding religion and science are circular. (I know what you're trying to say but it's so amazingly sophomoric that I choose not to help you out.)

Just read a little bit of Karl Popper instead, won't you?

What RandFan and Hokulele have written to you is correct. You just don't see it because you can't grasp concepts easily. I conclude, therefore, that you have misunderstood Popper. You have somehow read something he wrote and twisted it to attain the lofty status of a nincompoop.

Perhaps if you quote the section of Popper that you believe denies that religion makes scientific claims, kind and patient people like RandFan and Hokulele will help explain it to you. I have no patience for the intentionally obtuse so, for me, you are so yesterday.

Take my word for it, unless you understand science, don't write about it. It's not a complex subject but it does take rationality and intelligence to avoid blundering as badly as you have.

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 11:21 AM

I have to say, I find it extremely difficult to understand what Herzblut's point actually is (perhaps I'm an idiot, which is more than likely :D).

After all, there are clear examples of religion attempting to prove itself through science (ID and the whole Creation Science movement being pretty obvious ones) - even though their science was awful, it was still an attempt to prove the hypothesis 'God Exists' with the scientific method, specifically by attempting to find evidence for the biblical creation. Except, I suppose if you define God (or the supernatural) as essentially being 'anything undiscoverable by empirical means', it truly is impossible for science to say anything about those things - as an empty truism. Whether such truisms relate even remotely to reality is another thing entirely, though...

Doubtless he'll tell me I've misunderstood. Perhaps, Herzblut, you would care to lay down your position more clearly? I actually quite want to grasp what you're saying. :)

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 11:28 AM

Do you consider the Christian healing by "laying on of hands" to be a claim that can be tested scientifically?

You would have to be more accurate to get a useful response from me. Not being familiar with this crap I cannot simply reconcile sloppy wording.

What you say is, that healing is a claim. That does not make sense to me. Is xyz healing a scientific claim, is what you mainly ask.

Hmmm, what you mean by that is currently the only answer I can give.

herz

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 11:28 AM

Oliver,
If this quote is accurate you have discovered that Richard Dawkins does not (just as you apparently do not) know the difference between a verb and a noun. Please learn to use the words "believe" and "belief" correctly.

Oh, and: Bad poll. Bad bad poll.

Robert Klaus

It doesn't really matter if he meant "Believe-System" or "Belief-System".
Both are woo because believing and Belief are pretty much the same
thing: "Holding an Opinion based on Imagination - instead of Facts."

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 11:28 AM

Apathia

3rd September 2007, 11:31 AM

Is Herz trying to say that "Religion doesn't do, and Science doesn't do Religion," the usual separate spheres thing? He seems to agree that some religionsts make unscientific and incorrect statements about the world. Maybe that's not his point of contention. But maybe I haven't followed the thread close enough, and this is really sad.

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 11:33 AM

"Holding an Opinion based on Imagination - instead of Facts."

This is what kills me about you. No amount of logic and reason will sway you.

RandFan: I believe the sun will rise tomorrow based on the emperical fact that it has come up since recorded history and the use of inductive logic.

Oliver: No, you based your belief on imagination.

Right Oliver, right, sure...

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 11:48 AM

Not believing in God is woo?

That's one I haven't heard before. Even if atheism is a belief, it is also true that some beliefs are more justified than others, I'm sure you agree?

Otherwise (by Oliver's criteria) it's 'woo' to eat the dinner that I'm about to; because there's no evidence that it isn't poisoned.

Alternatively, on the absence of evidence that it is, I could just assume that it isn't. This is sensible, because it requires more assumptions to assume that it is poisoned (i.e., someone hates me, he's in the house, he wants to kill me, and he's managed to poison my food without anyone noticing) than the alternate view, which simply requires that my dinner be in its default state.

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 11:56 AM

This is what kills me about you. No amount of logic and reason will sway you.

RandFan: I believe the sun will rise tomorrow based on the emperical fact that it has come up since recorded history and the use of inductive logic.

Oliver: No, you based your belief on imagination.

Right Oliver, right, sure...

Are you intentionally missing my point?

THERE IS NO WAY TO PROOF OR DISPROOF GOD.

That means that you're honest about the lack of evidence if you say that
you're an agnostic. Atheism is the fallacy to deny a god based on no facts
whatsoever.

There is no proof for any side of the story. So Atheists and Theists are
logically wrong - once you understand the concept of a god... :boggled:

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 12:00 PM

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 12:03 PM

Are you intentionally missing my point?

No.

YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY MISSING MINE.

You are being dishonest with your use of the word "believe". You want to make Dawkins' use of the word mean something he didn't mean for it to mean.

What did Dawkins' mean when he said "believe"?
What do I mean when I use the word "believe"?

We are talking about your spurious notion that the word "believe" must mean something that it doesn't necassarily mean.

Please pay attention.

I've demonstrated you wrong.

RandFan

3rd September 2007, 12:07 PM

Atheism is the fallacy to deny a god based on no facts whatsoever. If denying Thor is a fallacy. If denying wootan is a fallacy. If denying invisible unicorns is a fallacy.

Anything is possible and Dawkins' concedes that it is possible. All atheists concede that god is possible. That's NOT the point. The point is that it is so unlikely that we can dispense with the notion just as we can dispense with the notion that we all live in the matrix. That IS possible BTW.

articulett

3rd September 2007, 12:20 PM

There is no proof for any side of the story. So Atheists and Theists are
logically wrong - once you understand the concept of a god... :boggled:

And the same goes for Leprechauns.

So those who believe in leprechauns and those who don't (rather than being agnostic about Leprechauns) are logically wrong per your analogy. There is no valid proof of leprechauns... and we cannot prove they do not exist. We know they are part of folklore. The same is true of gods.

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 12:20 PM

Are you intentionally missing my point?

THERE IS NO WAY TO PROOF OR DISPROOF GOD.
Does this mean you finally have a working definition of god? Earlier you did not--which ought to imply that you could not know whether you could prove or disprove god. You are making a bold statement here, so I can only assume you now have a definition to work with.

Mind sharing it?

That means that you're honest about the lack of evidence if you say that
you're an agnostic. Atheism is the fallacy to deny a god based on no facts
whatsoever.
An earlier post (post 80)presented (from the websites of atheist organizations) a different definition of atheism, in which a god is not "denied", but simply not believed in. "Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief." This is not agnosticism, but atheism, and it calls your definition of atheism into question.

See why definitions are so important?

There is no proof for any side of the story. So Atheists and Theists are
logically wrong - once you understand the concept of a god... :boggled:Ah, yes, the concept of a god. What definition are you using again? It is quite possible for a particular theist to define a god in such a manner that evidence exists for one. It is quite possible for an atheist not to actively deny the existence of a god--in fact, post 80 implies that most atheists fit this description.

I will grant you that there are definitions of god that are unprovable, and I would imagine that many (perhaps most, perhaps even all) people who believe in a god of that definition also actively disbelieve in other gods.

Bad poll, bad definitions, bad logic.

Slimething

3rd September 2007, 12:22 PM

The "atheism is a religion" fallacy has been done to death here in the USA. There's even a court ruling that atheism is not a religion. This is the choice fallacy of IDiots who try to get ID taught as science. So far, it hasn't worked. Thankfully, we insist our judges be better educated than Oliver and Herzblut.

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 12:25 PM

11 People in this Poll stated they know for FACT that God does or does
not exists. That's a lie - because we could get rid of all the wrong religions
once we know that for fact.

So because we have no facts - Agnosticism is the way of choice for real skeptics, I presume.
I don't think anybody said that. It's just that most people here think it more reasonable to assume God does not exist until somebody gives a reason why we should assume that he does.

I disagree with you that 'I don't know' is the more logical position, because it seems to me that God is the ultimate anthropomorphic fallacy. This is my reason for suspecting that the chances of his existance are staggeringly unlikely (after all, since when did the universe conform to what we want to be true?), and until someone can demonstrate that I am wrong, I continue to hold this view. Nothing unreasonable, surely?

As my point above showed, not all beliefs are equal. You should keep that in mind, Oliver.

Anything is possible and Dawkins' concedes that it is possible. All atheists concede that god is possible. That's NOT the point. The point is that it is so unlikely that we can dispense with the notion just as we can dispense with the notion that we all live in the matrix. That IS possible BTW.
Good postings

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 12:38 PM

I'm pissed at your dishonesty.

Since you mention it let's turn to my original claim, away from your funny strawman.

My assertion is basically:

- supernaturalism is outside the scope of sciene
- science describes elements of reality in natural terms without refering to the supernatural
- this has prooved to be the best method to gain and maintain stable knowledge

This proves some of your naive statements wrong you had made, like:

"Whenever you make a scientific claim about god I suggest we test that claim."

or

"When religous people claim that god answers prayers that is a scientific statement."

But I see you have learned from this discussion. Your strawman "religion makes sci claims" / "religious claims can be scientific", is generally quite interesting indeed, but it relies on a too vague definition of terms to be useful.

herz

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 12:52 PM

My assertion is basically:

- supernaturalism is outside the scope of sciene
- science describes elements of reality in natural terms without refering to the supernatural
- this has prooved to be the best method to gain and maintain stable knowledge
Can you please explain what you mean? Are you saying that supernaturalism by definition is outside the scope of science? Would you not say that this is a truism? What if God turns out to be - by this definition - natural? If you are defining 'supernatural' in such a way, how do we know what is 'supernatural' and what is 'natural'?

Or are you saying something totally different? In what way is supernaturalism necessarily outside the scope of science?

Oh, me, I be but a poor confused lad, lar. Be not angry! ;)

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 12:54 PM

No.

YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY MISSING MINE.

You are being dishonest with your use of the word "believe". You want to make Dawkins' use of the word mean something he didn't mean for it to mean.

What did Dawkins' mean when he said "believe"?
What do I mean when I use the word "believe"?

We are talking about your spurious notion that the word "believe" must mean something that it doesn't necassarily mean.

Please pay attention.

I've demonstrated you wrong.

I don't know what "Belief" means in your world. In the psychological world
the term "Belief" describes the neurological definition of believing.

Therefore: Believing = Belief. It's your fallacy to take both terms apart based on your emotions.

If denying Thor is a fallacy. If denying wootan is a fallacy. If denying invisible unicorns is a fallacy.

Anything is possible and Dawkins' concedes that it is possible. All atheists concede that god is possible. That's NOT the point. The point is that it is so unlikely that we can dispense with the notion just as we can dispense with the notion that we all live in the matrix. That IS possible BTW.

So? What's the difference between Atheists and Agnostics at all if "Dawkins
concedes that as possibility"?

Don't you see that once you "concede the possibility", that you're an
Agnostic, not an Atheist? :boggled:

And the same goes for Leprechauns.

So those who believe in leprechauns and those who don't (rather than being agnostic about Leprechauns) are logically wrong per your analogy. There is no valid proof of leprechauns... and we cannot prove they do not exist. We know they are part of folklore. The same is true of gods.

No. Leprechauns are debunkable. The meaning of life is not.
You understand that "Meaning of life" isn't comparable to pink unicorns,
do you?

Does this mean you finally have a working definition of god? Earlier you did not--which ought to imply that you could not know whether you could prove or disprove god. You are making a bold statement here, so I can only assume you now have a definition to work with.

Mind sharing it?
An earlier post (post 80)presented (from the websites of atheist organizations) a different definition of atheism, in which a god is not "denied", but simply not believed in. "Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief." This is not agnosticism, but atheism, and it calls your definition of atheism into question.

See why definitions are so important?
Ah, yes, the concept of a god. What definition are you using again? It is quite possible for a particular theist to define a god in such a manner that evidence exists for one. It is quite possible for an atheist not to actively deny the existence of a god--in fact, post 80 implies that most atheists fit this description.

I will grant you that there are definitions of god that are unprovable, and I would imagine that many (perhaps most, perhaps even all) people who believe in a god of that definition also actively disbelieve in other gods.

Bad poll, bad definitions, bad logic.

No, psychologically it's a good poll. If you "believe" than you prefer
to choose one of the "Believe"-Options. Once you strongly disagree
with these options, you would choose the "Planet X" or "I know for fact".

It's that simple to check out "beliefs" - because a real Atheist would
choose "Planet X".

And I hold no position or concrete concept of a god. But I can't
deny it because the lacking evidence. It's very simple.

The "atheism is a religion" fallacy has been done to death here in the USA. There's even a court ruling that atheism is not a religion. This is the choice fallacy of IDiots who try to get ID taught as science. So far, it hasn't worked. Thankfully, we insist our judges be better educated than Oliver and Herzblut.

I don't think anybody said that. It's just that most people here think it more reasonable to assume God does not exist until somebody gives a reason why we should assume that he does.

I disagree with you that 'I don't know' is the more logical position, because it seems to me that God is the ultimate anthropomorphic fallacy. This is my reason for suspecting that the chances of his existance are staggeringly unlikely (after all, since when did the universe conform to what we want to be true?), and until someone can demonstrate that I am wrong, I continue to hold this view. Nothing unreasonable, surely?

As my point above showed, not all beliefs are equal. You should keep that in mind, Oliver.

Good postings

I never said that Atheism is a religion - all I say is that it is a belief
based on no evidence. If Atheists would use their logic, they would
accept that they are Agnostics because they don't know if a supreme
being exists or not.

Since you mention it let's turn to my original claim, away from your funny strawman.

My assertion is basically:

- supernaturalism is outside the scope of sciene
- science describes elements of reality in natural terms without refering to the supernatural.
- this has prooved to be the best method to gain and maintain stable knowledge

This proves some of your naive statements wrong like:

"Whenever you make a scientific claim about god I suggest we test that claim."

or

"When religous people claim that god answers prayers that is a scientific statement."

The problem with your strawman "religion makes sci claims", is generally quite interesting but relies on vague definition of terms which makes it useless for a forum like this.

herz

No, supernaturalism would be out of science once there are facts.
Science means to be open to every assumable possibility.

Hyperviolet

3rd September 2007, 12:59 PM

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 01:06 PM

I never said that Atheism is a religion - all I say is that it is a belief
based on no evidence. If Atheists would use their logic, they would
accept that they are Agnostics because they don't know if a supreme
being exists or not.
Lord, do we really have to get into questions of epistemology? People have actually pointed out to you many times that by your own impossible criteria we cannot know anything, and therefore should be totally agnostic on all matters, including the existance of reality. You reject this, for some reason I can't fathom. Yes, we do not know for 100% certain that God does not exist, but we can see it is rather unlikely. Therefore, atheism is not irrational, but a statement of default; i.e., enough doubt has been introduced that until someone can show me God exists, I will assume that he does not. Understand?

No. Leprechauns are debunkable. The meaning of life is not.
You understand that "Meaning of life" isn't comparable to pink unicorns,
do you?
What reason do you have for assuming that there is a 'meaning of life' that humans can comprehend? Why should this be so?

And why are leprechauns debunkable? Leprechauns exist. There's one on my shoulder right now. If you can't prove that there isn't, then I demand you be leprechaun agnostic! By your own logic, you are hanged!

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 01:18 PM

The OP is cleverly worded to make the atheist commit to a so-called 'belief.'

Not endorsing a position for lack of evidence is no belief, in the faith based sense of the word. To tie the two as one is to be inexact at best, astucious at worst.

The 'belief' the skeptic holds is no more 'faithful' than your belief in gravity. It is not an article of faith, it is a well informed opinion supported by a body of scientific (and falsifible) evidence.
Belief of this kind, therefore, is no dirty word seen as it is supported by evidence. This God could show his hand tomorrow, such an action would be sufficient to rock my current stance. Such an action would be evidence. Until then, i'll reserve my belief in God and choose the scientific method. Which is tried, tested and true, demanding evidence for any 'belief' before it is accepted.

No, the poll is clearly worded to give you a chance to choose your
emotional favored "Poll-Option". If you fail to do so - you either don't
feel strongly enough or you choose "Planet X".

Belief and believe describe the same neurological behavior to fill
blanks with theories, assumptions, Beliefs or whatever you wanna
call it - no factbased conclusion at all. And yes, I see that you try
to differ these things out of the fallacy that Belief MUST be religious.

That is wrong.

ETA: Faith and religion are two pairs of shoes. While Belief and Faith are the
basis of religion, it doesn't have to involve a religion to have a "Faith" or "Belief".

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 01:29 PM

It doesn't really matter if he meant "Believe-System" or "Belief-System".

I believe he was referring to your use of grammar. This is a belief system, however. ;)

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 01:31 PM

Are you intentionally missing my point?

THERE IS NO WAY TO PROOF OR DISPROOF GOD.

That means that you're honest about the lack of evidence if you say that
you're an agnostic. Atheism is the fallacy to deny a god based on no facts
whatsoever.

Have you simply ignored all definitions of atheism given to you?

I am an atheist. I lack a belief in a god. This statement makes no claim about the existance or non-existance of a god.

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 01:33 PM

So? What's the difference between Atheists and Agnostics at all if "Dawkins
concedes that as possibility"?

Don't you see that once you "concede the possibility", that you're an
Agnostic, not an Atheist? :boggled:

I never said that Atheism is a religion - all I say is that it is a belief
based on no evidence. If Atheists would use their logic, they would
accept that they are Agnostics because they don't know if a supreme
being exists or not.

Are you intentionally ignoring everything we're telling you? Atheism and agnosticism are two different things. Atheism deals with your belief or lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a god. Agnosticism deals with your ability to know of the existance of god.

Mashuna

3rd September 2007, 01:33 PM

Since you mention it let's turn to my original claim, away from your funny strawman.

My assertion is basically:

- supernaturalism is outside the scope of sciene
- science describes elements of reality in natural terms without refering to the supernatural
- this has prooved to be the best method to gain and maintain stable knowledge

What do you consider to be supernatural? From your definitions so far, you're using it like a get out of jail free card - Your argument seems to be that anything that you call religious or supernatural can't be testable, because science doesn't concern itself with religion or the supernatural.

I say that anything that you claim has an effect on the physical world is theoretically testable, by definition (although there may be practical issues).

This proves some of your naive statements wrong you had made, like:

"Whenever you make a scientific claim about god I suggest we test that claim."

or

"When religous people claim that god answers prayers that is a scientific statement."

I have no idea why you think you've proved the above two statements wrong. They are testable claims. You've already been shown studies where prayer was tested for possible healing effect. This is a religious claim, with a testable outcome.

But I see you have learned from this discussion. Your strawman "religion makes sci claims" / "religious claims can be scientific", is generally quite interesting indeed, but it relies on a too vague definition of terms to be useful.

herz

If you're concerned that terms are too vaguely defined, what definitions would you suggest?

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 01:33 PM

Have you simply ignored all definitions of atheism given to you?

I am an atheist. I lack a belief in a god. This statement makes no claim about the existance or non-existance of a god.

Do you know what a God/supreme being/supreme energy/supreme plan/meaning of life is?

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 01:36 PM

Do you know what a God/supreme being/supreme energy/supreme plan/meaning of life is?

I understand what is generally ment by those terms, yes. What is your point?

Mashuna

3rd September 2007, 01:37 PM

Do you know what a God/supreme being/supreme energy/supreme plan/meaning of life is?

Do you have any evidence for the existence of any of the above?

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 01:42 PM

I understand what is generally ment by those terms, yes. What is your point?

The point is that Atheism holds nothing new to me. It's just another fallacy.

Do you have any evidence for the existence of any of the above?

No. Do you have evidence that the existence of any of the above does not exist?
No.

See? You're an Agnostic - not an Atheist.

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 01:46 PM

The point is that Atheism holds nothing new to me. It's just another fallacy.

And you have ignored or do not understand the different forms of atheism, more specifically those which make no claim about a god's existance.

See? You're not an Agnostic - not an Atheist.

Wrong. Go away, learn some Philosophy of Religion, then come back when you understand the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

bignickel

3rd September 2007, 01:48 PM

Oliver, I must say that you seem to be missing that when people here are saying "there is no X", they are speaking pragmatically. They are not saying this in the meaning of "I have searched every nick and corner inside and outside the universe simultaneously, and X wasn't there."

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 01:49 PM

No. Do you have evidence that the existence of any of the above does not exist?
No.

See? You're not an Agnostic - not an Atheist.
Are you intentionally ignoring everything we're telling you? Atheism and agnosticism are two different things. Atheism deals with your belief or lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a god. Agnosticism deals with your ability to know of the existance of god.
So, yeah. Any response, Oliver?

Also, would you mind reading and replying to post #215, please Oliver? Thankyou.

Mashuna

3rd September 2007, 01:50 PM

No. Do you have evidence that the existence of any of the above does not exist?
No.

See, you're not an Atheist - you're an Agnostic.

Well, that depends. If you know (i.e. have a definition for) what a God/supreme being/supreme energy/supreme plan/meaning of life is then we can decide if I have any evidence that they don't exist.

If you're taking a deist position, of a kick-start to the universe and nothing else, then I guess I'm agnostic, and also don't care, as it has no possible impact on me. If you'd care to define a different type of God/etc, one that interacts with the world, then we can take a look at the evidence.

At this point, I can say 'based on your definition of an interventionist God, I would expect to see the following. . .' If I don't see what I expect, based on your claim, I can adjust the likelihood of your God existing. Examples such as intercessionary prayer have already been given. Once we have the definition, we can examine it. For the various claims made by disparate religions, I have done this, and found the evidence to be lacking. I can therefore say that I do not see any evidence for God, and will live my life as though God does not exist, although I am open to the possibility that such evidence could be presented to me which would change my mind.

This makes me a weak atheist.

fishbob

3rd September 2007, 01:50 PM

Absolutely correct, Herz. The problem here is that the 'Skeptics' hold to a belief system in which the concept of belief itself is devalued, and very often scorned and ridiculed.

I think this is a very apt description of skepticism, except for the part about 'belief system'. I would reword: 'Skeptics' have found through experience and reason that the concept of belief is without value in dealing with reality.

Belief has a very poor track record in applications regarding reality. Belief has been demonstrated to be not particularly useful in that regard, and therefore devaluation and ridicule and scorn are appropriate.

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 01:51 PM

And you have ignored or do not understand the different forms of atheism, more specifically those which make no claim about a god's existance.

Wrong. Go away, learn some Philosophy of Religion, then come back when you understand the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

I don't know if God exists - neither do you. Therefore - and according
to the common definitions of Agnosticism and Atheism, you must be an
Agnostic if you know the facts. (Which is: Sorry, no facts available)

There is no other way around this issue.

Otherwise there would be no distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism.

The so called "Lack of Belief" is psychologically a "Belief" as well.

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 02:06 PM

Poor Oliver... trying to argue against so many people... and nobody getting anywhere at all! Poor the rest of us, for that matter.

But nevermind. Oliver, do you perhaps have a response to my post #215? One which doesn't ignore the points? Though I'm not holding my breath... you've so far seemed unable to see your own fallacies, stare you in the face though they might...

Rasmus

3rd September 2007, 02:08 PM

Otherwise there would be no distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism.

That may have to do with the incovenient fact that there is no continuous scale holding atheism-agnosticism-theism on it.

gnosticism and agnosticism is about what we can and cannot know.
theism and atheism is about what we do and do not belive.

The terms are answered to different and separate questions.

"Do you belive in a god?" - The answer here is "yes" or "no". There is no third option. The answer either states that you are a theist or that you are an atheist. There simply is no middle ground.

"I is it possible to have knoweldge about a god?" - The answers here can be more complex I suppose. How you answer the question determines if you are gnostic or agnostic.

It is possible, both possible, to be

a) an agnostic atheist and
b) an agnostic theist

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 02:10 PM

I don't know what "Belief" means in your world. In the psychological world
the term "Belief" describes the neurological definition of believing.

Therefore: Believing = Belief. It's your fallacy to take both terms apart based on your emotions.
In which psychological world does it mean that? As you may know, I am a psychologist. I am trying really hard to come up with an interpretation of what you say here that makes sense...but I do not think it does.

So? What's the difference between Atheists and Agnostics at all if "Dawkins
concedes that as possibility"?

Don't you see that once you "concede the possibility", that you're an
Agnostic, not an Atheist? :boggled:
Please listen to what people have been telling you about the difference between atheism and agnosticism. You are quite wrong here.

No. Leprechauns are debunkable. The meaning of life is not.
You understand that "Meaning of life" isn't comparable to pink unicorns,
do you?
Sorry--are you suggesting that the "meaning of life" is now something supernatural? Godly? What exactly is your point here.

No, psychologically it's a good poll. If you "believe" than you prefer
to choose one of the "Believe"-Options. Once you strongly disagree
with these options, you would choose the "Planet X" or "I know for fact".
No, it is a terribly worded poll, for reasons which have been pointed out to you before this. A good poll will not include an inherent bias, where one of the legitimate choices is thrown in with "no answer/did not understand/does not apply/planet X".

It's that simple to check out "beliefs" - because a real Atheist would
choose "Planet X".
I suspect that a "real atheist" would simply not vote. I know I did not vote, and I see many write-in votes for "bad poll". A good pollster will recognise that the poll is flawed, and that it will not return meaningful data.

And I hold no position or concrete concept of a god. But I can't
deny it because the lacking evidence. It's very simple.
If you hold no position (that is not what I asked, of course--I asked for your definition of god) you also can't deny it because you don't know what you are denying.

In Social Psychology, there were two different lines of research on "social facilitation". They occasionally found contradicting results. Turns out, they were separate but overlapping concepts, such that one could not give one definition that covered all facets of social facilitation. Once that was sorted out, much more good research could be done. Now...the definitions of god may well be overlapping, but may also be separate. Your refusal--or inability--to take a stand on god, is in part determined by your refusal to define it. So please... which god? What god? What definition are you using in your poll? In your arguments?
I never said that Atheism is a religion - all I say is that it is a belief
based on no evidence. If Atheists would use their logic, they would
accept that they are Agnostics because they don't know if a supreme
being exists or not.
No, again. You are quite simply wrong. For the majority of atheists, it is not a belief based on no evidence, but simply a lack of belief. Search the forum for "privative" and you will find discussion of this.

And please.... learn the difference between "don't know" and "don't believe". (and the agnosticism question is more a "can't know" than "don't know", but baby steps...)
No, supernaturalism would be out of science once there are facts.
Science means to be open to every assumable possibility.

*sigh*

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 02:16 PM

The so called "Lack of Belief" is psychologically a "Belief" as well.

No. And please stop using the term "psychologically" in this context.

As I said before, search for "privative". (A simple example--Cold is simply the lack of Heat. You can, if you wish, heat something by aiming infrared radiation at it. You can reflect this beam off a mirror, you can measure its properties. There is no such thing as a "cold beam", outside of bad movies. Cold is the absence of heat, not a thing in itself. The absence of a belief is not a belief. You are quite simply wrong.)

You might also wish to look into what psychologists actually do when they measure attitudes and beliefs.

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 02:16 PM

I don't know if God exists - neither do you. Therefore - and according
to the common definitions of Agnosticism and Atheism, you must be an
Agnostic if you know the facts. (Which is: Sorry, no facts available)

Correct, I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive, as they deal with different questions.

There is no other way around this issue.

Well, it seems like your way around uncomfortable truths is to ignore it.

Otherwise there would be no distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism.

Atheism is not to agnosticism what it is to theism.

The so called "Lack of Belief" is psychologically a "Belief" as well.

You are quite wrong. Consider the following:

If I lack any oranges, do I have any oranges?

Herzblut

3rd September 2007, 02:17 PM

No, supernaturalism would be out of science once there are facts.
Science means to be open to every assumable possibility.
Not really, science rules out everything that does not perform.

And I'm afraid religious reasoning has not produced a iota of empirical knowledge in the last 2.000 years.

:cool:

herz

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 02:20 PM

You are quite wrong. Consider the following:

If I lack any oranges, do I have any oranges?

well....geee.....doesn't that depend on how many oranges you lack? I mean, someone who lacks a dozen oranges must lack more strongly than someone who merely lacks two oranges, don't you think?

Oliver--as you can see, while beliefs can vary in strength (as do numbers of oranges), lack of belief does not vary. It is Zero. It is the lack, the absence, the want of, belief. Or oranges.

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 02:23 PM

And I'm afraid religious reasoning has not produced a iota of empirical knowledge in the last 2.000 years.

herz

Perhaps, but there have been many attempts to scientifically study religious topics. Most notably in my field is the Spiritualism movement of a century ago, succinctly described as "the scientific search for the soul". Results? Enough to convince William James... but not a lot of others.

Oliver

3rd September 2007, 02:24 PM

No. And please stop using the term "psychologically" in this context.

As I said before, search for "privative". (A simple example--Cold is simply the lack of Heat. You can, if you wish, heat something by aiming infrared radiation at it. You can reflect this beam off a mirror, you can measure its properties. There is no such thing as a "cold beam", outside of bad movies. Cold is the absence of heat, not a thing in itself. The absence of a belief is not a belief. You are quite simply wrong.)

You might also wish to look into what psychologists actually do when they measure attitudes and beliefs.

This is BS. If you believe there is something like heat, you might
argue that there is cold as well. You don't argue in terms of
"cold" = "Lack of heat".

You argue: "Cold is the opposite of heat" - based on facts. (molecular kinetics)

The phrase "Lack of God" does not make sense - Of course - unless you
can proof it.

And concerning psychology: Everything you cannot explain but you
prefer to name "I believe - don't believe" is no fact whatsoever. Non-Believe,
Non-Believing, Belief and believing are the same thing - replacing facts with
believing - non-believing.

Don't you grasp that in a logical way? (Besides emotionally distinction?)

Taffer

3rd September 2007, 02:29 PM

Boy do you need to get an education, Oliver. So far, I can cound Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion, and definately Empistemology.

Slimething

3rd September 2007, 02:53 PM

Boy do you need to get an education, Oliver. So far, I can cound Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion, and definately Empistemology.

Don't forget Thermodynamics, as well. He's just set us back centuries in his response to Mercutio.

Is nothing sacred? :D

Foster Zygote

3rd September 2007, 03:05 PM

No. And please stop using the term "psychologically" in this context.

As I said before, search for "privative". (A simple example--Cold is simply the lack of Heat. You can, if you wish, heat something by aiming infrared radiation at it. You can reflect this beam off a mirror, you can measure its properties. There is no such thing as a "cold beam", outside of bad movies. Cold is the absence of heat, not a thing in itself. The absence of a belief is not a belief. You are quite simply wrong.)

You might also wish to look into what psychologists actually do when they measure attitudes and beliefs.

Years ago Joobz and I had a discussion with someone along these lines. This fellow was trying to sound deep by stating something about the "speed of darkness". He got a bit flustered when be both immediately shot him down. I vaguely remember saying something like "Darkness in not the opposite of light, it's the absence of light. Hell, even the Beastie Boys know that".

Reinhard

3rd September 2007, 03:11 PM

This is BS. If you believe there is something like heat, you might argue that there is cold as well.
ROFLCOPTER

Man, this is classic... even fundamental scientific facts are not immune to Oliver's random assertions!

"Darkness in not the opposite of light, it's the absence of light. Hell, even the Beastie Boys know that".
No, but, if you believe there is something like light, you might argue that there is darkness as well.

SEE HOW I REFUTE THEE!

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 03:15 PM

This is BS. If you believe there is something like heat, you might
argue that there is cold as well. You don't argue in terms of
"cold" = "Lack of heat".
Yes, actually, you do. At least your ignorance is consistent.

You argue: "Cold is the opposite of heat" - based on facts. (molecular kinetics)
No. It is the absence of heat. Based on facts. This one is easy, Oliver--ask your nearest physics teacher.

The phrase "Lack of God" does not make sense - Of course - unless you
can proof it.
That is why atheism does not believe in the lack of god. Atheism describes the lack of belief in god.

And concerning psychology: Everything you cannot explain but you
prefer to name "I believe - don't believe" is no fact whatsoever. Non-Believe,
Non-Believing, Belief and believing are the same thing - replacing facts with
believing - non-believing.
:notm

Don't you grasp that in a logical way? (Besides emotionally distinction?)I do grasp the logic. I am waiting for you to.

Seriously, do a bit of googling about the physics of heat and cold.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/8/8/1/c88669len1g.jpg

Foster Zygote

3rd September 2007, 03:16 PM

You argue: "Cold is the opposite of heat" - based on facts. (molecular kinetics)
We need to start some sort of archive of the many and varied ways that thermodynamics has been butchered on this forum.

Don't you grasp that in a logical way? (Besides emotionally distinction?)
You keep using that word "logical". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hyperviolet

3rd September 2007, 03:33 PM

No, the poll is clearly worded to give you a chance to choose your
emotional favored "Poll-Option". If you fail to do so - you either don't
feel strongly enough or you choose "Planet X".

Belief and believe describe the same neurological behavior to fill
blanks with theories, assumptions, Beliefs or whatever you wanna
call it - no factbased conclusion at all. And yes, I see that you try
to differ these things out of the fallacy that Belief MUST be religious.

That is wrong.

ETA: Faith and religion are two pairs of shoes. While Belief and Faith are the
basis of religion, it doesn't have to involve a religion to have a "Faith" or "Belief".

Where did i say belief must be religious? Point me to that quote, please.

There are different categories of 'belief.'

1) Certainty. An example being
I believe the earth to be spherical, not flat.
There is a body of evidence to support this is as proven.
This is rational, evidence-based belief.
I'd go to far to say i 'know' the earth is not flat, not so much a 'belief.'

2) Reasonable belief.
This could be a speculation like :
I believe there to be other life forms somewhere in the universe as we do know life does exist, we are evidence of it, and gauging the magnitude of the universe it would seem improbable that life is confined to our miniscule sector of the universe.
This is belief based on evidence (we know life exists) and reasonable speculation (probability). This is a term where i would use the term 'believe.'

3) Blind faith. No evidence at all. You just believe something based on gut feeling, intuition, or your own incredulity. This could be God, ghosts, guardian angels, anything. This kind of belief is very different from 1) and 2).
As it stand completely unsupported by any kind of evidence.

It seems you are trying to merge these 3 very distinct definitions.

If we had a conversation:

Me: Do you believe in ghosts?
You: I do not believe in ghosts as i've seen no evidence of them. Therefore i'm not going to walk around under that assumption.
Me: There you don't believe in ghosts. You have a belief, without evidence, that there is no such thing as ghosts.
You:That's not my position. I'm not making a positive claim here.

Would you think i was being reasonable?

The poll isn't poorly worded because I try to find out if strong Atheism is a Belief (=believing in something) as well.
To be convinced (without any evidence) that there is no supreme being or meaning of life sounds pretty similar to fundamentalism.

It seems to me, that you've worded this as to make the Atheist give the positive claim. I believe there is no god. Thus, trying to dovetail and categorise this 'belief' as the same at that of theists. When, the position is simple.
I have a lack of belief in God(s).

Absence of belief, not belief of absence.

Undesired Walrus

3rd September 2007, 03:41 PM

Is it just me, or is the title of this thread unquestionably annoying and frustrating to read?

I feel like I'm trying to swim with my limbs stuck in four vending machines when I see it.

KoihimeNakamura

3rd September 2007, 04:09 PM

... I am just going to back away from this thread and hope it makes sense tommorow.

Mercutio

3rd September 2007, 06:35 PM

Just in case someone else's words will work... (http://imalegalalien.blogspot.com/2006/06/question-seemingly-as-old-as-belief-or.html)

Excerpt:Atheism, as a concept, is also a privative. This means that it is a concept that only exists in order to express the lack or absense of something.

A great example, for those who are having problems with the idea, is hot and cold. Cold is simply defined as "the absence of heat", nothing more. We, as warm creatures, define cold as the privative.

Now, the very first time that a human on this planet decided that there was a god (or gods), he (or she) immediately made everyone else on the planet an atheist by default.

What's interesting is that the example of hot and cold is especially apt, because the ground state of the universe is pretty damn cold. In the same way, the ground state of a human being is to be atheist. Only once we've been exposed to concept of gods - indoctrinated, educated, converted, call it what you will - does a human become a theist or, if they reject the concept, remain an atheist.

[snip]

Ask anyone to name ten things that defines a religion and none of those things will apply to atheism, even if you twist their definitions. Faith, belief, commandments, worship, churches, temples, synagogues, priests, scriptures, prayers, holidays, ceremonies, sermons, none of these has anything to do with atheism. None of these even has a parallel in atheism.

And just as the definition of atheism does not fit into religion, the definition of religion does not fit into atheism, no matter how you try to turn either of them.

Even if we take a more esoteric approach to defining religion, such as defining it as something like "a worldview based upon one's beliefs" (which is one definition I've heard) or "a philosophy of life" (ditto, but c'mon, that's just ********), atheism does not fit in. Atheism is a lack of belief. And, even though I reject that second definition, atheism is also the lack of anything that could be defined as a philosophy.