Tribe.net. Local Connections Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e78fd666-1fda-4cd7-8534-07d6dfd8e088 2009-04-27T04:41:34Z 2009-04-27T04:41:34Z

How so? I tried to use small words. I'm not frustrated in the least. And, I'm not expecting just "anyone to understand" what I'm saying. It does take a modicum of intelligence to understand the differences between the two concepts. Some who call themselves religious, agnostic, or whatever most certainly do. You? Perhaps not.

Erik 2009-04-27T04:41:34Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#04b13b5c-f6c3-4cbe-915a-9aee237d2f31 2009-04-27T04:08:15Z 2009-04-27T04:08:15Z

My belief: you are misusing the English language and should only be angry at yourself for expecting anyone to understand what you're trying to say and getting frustrated when they don't.

Chris 2009-04-27T04:08:15Z Erik http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#798331f0-cf9e-4b16-b162-595e35e71b5e 2009-04-26T09:10:16Z 2009-04-26T09:10:16Z

Agnostics piss me off because they keep insisting atheism is a belief. It is a lack thereof. Please stop telling me what I believe.

Erik 2009-04-26T09:10:16Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e926d6a2-b3eb-4dea-845f-44f32a8fe6c0 2009-04-26T05:38:20Z 2009-04-26T05:38:20Z

ditto

Chris 2009-04-26T05:38:20Z Chris http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#af19990b-8ee2-4f20-9e6e-f1c97d0cf716 2009-04-26T05:30:55Z 2009-04-26T05:30:55Z

i'm agnostic. i became so after years of thoughtful consideration of religion, supersticion, science, duality, and even atheism. i hold no grudge against anyone other than fanatics and even then i don't waste much energy on them as they usually create their own demise. in answer to the question, i believe atheists are troubled by agnostics for the same reason i'm troubled by my own agnosticism- agnosts appear to have no 'beliefs'. we seem to straddle between 1 and -1. what belief system and categorization can you ascribe to one who doesn't appear to have made their minds up regarding 'god'? We do seem indecisive by definition but it's not quite so when you're in our shoes. We simply acknowledge the limits of science and appreciate room for advancements. We're likely to side with science and have this in common with atheists, but we must say honestly that all questions haven't been answered. The bigger thing which many agnosts might assume is our connection between god and religious texts. Religious followers would assume the same. I can't speak for all agnosts but I can say that an omnipotent being in any form does not depend upon the written, spoken or symbolic representation by man to exist- thus i discredit religious texts as proof but do not discredit their value in offering some moral code in lieu of none. But then my question is can our moral codes stand against the reality of finite resources and infinite wants?

Chris 2009-04-26T05:30:55Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#3f7264b9-ba68-4089-b34e-956adf807f55 2006-07-07T13:55:53Z 2006-07-07T13:55:53Z

I vasilate between the agnostic and atheist label. I know there is no way to disprove the god theory, I just plain don't buy it. I have had people tell me that they know with out a doubt that their god exists. People have also told me (with a straight face) that aliens abducted them. Now I have been told that one should not doubt somebody's own personal expierence. That it is some way not politically correct to do so. Well If somebody reports an alien abduction I have no problem telling then that I do not believe it happened. Just like I doubt (in this case I mock) the likes of Rev. Robertson who say that their god speaks to them. Anyway, even though I cannot disprove god (label me Agnostic) I live my life as if there is not a god (lebel me Atheist)

$item.owner.firstName 2006-07-07T13:55:53Z Brandon http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#f0ced3e1-4007-4ea0-a591-d367172e85ce 2006-07-07T08:30:02Z 2006-07-07T08:30:02Z

philosophy* I suppose I should proofread things before actually posting them....

Brandon 2006-07-07T08:30:02Z Brandon http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ed785acd-c9d7-4494-ac75-64c257a5ed99 2006-07-07T08:27:35Z 2006-07-07T08:27:35Z

Because of my education in philsophy, I've been trained to never say never (for the most part). That's really the only thing that keeps me from being an ATHEIST. I've thought about simply calling myself atheist with an astericks denoting it shouldn't be taken in the absolute sense found in the Abrahamic religions. I think I can call myself atheist and still say that can change someday. I guess I'm talking myself into being an atheist. Lol.

Brandon 2006-07-07T08:27:35Z Bo http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a674d5af-4f73-4d74-ae2c-e0e709bd6e3c 2006-06-16T10:37:59Z 2006-06-16T10:37:59Z

Rene and gang, Welcome to the land of Logic. atheists own trauma and victimhood. We, Agnostics, OWN Logic.

Bo 2006-06-16T10:37:59Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#fb7fe7ed-c520-4a96-b23b-392436222175 2006-06-11T02:21:43Z 2006-06-11T02:21:43Z

>>"people who I've talked to who label themselves as atheists seem to come from religious upbringings, whereas people who label themselves as agnostics seem to come from families where religion was absent or not taken all that seriously"<< ...many good points, as always, Geoff. I want to address the last one first and then address the "burden of proof" issue. I think your "hunch" probably has some truth to it. And I would appear to be example of this- atheists tending to come from religious upbringings. However it is not quite accurate in my case, because for most of my post-Catholic life I probably would have said I was an agnostic, if anyone asked me. Basically, I never gave much thought to the issue of God because it seemed of no importance. It was really only the events of 9-11-2001 that made me revisit this issue. Those events made it plain that people actually take this God stuff seriously; seriously enough to die for. This is when I looked at all the questions and issues more seriously myself and concluded that there is no logical reason anyone should believe in God. Nothing about the idea makes any sense. If there is no valid evidence for a theory and nothing about it makes sense- the only thing that makes sense is to not believe the theory. There is no reason to think the theory might be true, no reason to keep it as one of many multiple working hypotheses to explain any observations of the world that I have made or will make. In other words, the theory can be completely dismissed from our thinking, unless some other data or observation lends the idea some credence or plausibility. This is what not believing means to me. I fail to see how anyone can twist this into being a "claim"- negative, positive, or neutral. The claim is that God exists and is necessary to explain something about the universe (theist claim). Another claim is that God might exist and might explain something about the universe (agnostic claim). I don't believe either of these claims because there is no valid evidence or logical reason to suppose they might be true. Logically, the negative is assumed for any claim and the one making the claim bears the burden of proof. The idea of a “negative claim” does not even appear to me to meaningful. People do not have a crazy dream wake up and make the claim- I do not believe in left-handed, singing lice, they can’t exist. First, someone claims there are left-handed, singing lice and then those who hear the claim will usually respond that they do not believe the claim and give the idea no credence, unless some evidence for left-handed, singing lice is presented. Not believing in left-handed, singing lice is not a negative claim, just as not believing in an omnipotent creator is not a negative claim. No one is saying there cannot, under any imaginable circumstances be left-handed, singing lice, or omnipotent creators, only that that they are very improbable because they contradict all our experiences. Being improbable means we should not believe these propositions. They are not worthy of any consideration and we should not waste any time on them. I am not making the "claim" that God cannot exist, only that there is no reason or evidence to suppose that he might and therefore we should not believe it. All I am saying is that there is no logical reason to think that God might exist. Being logically correct does not mean that something must be right, as we all must know; logic can fail. It fails most often when we lack good evidence to base our conclusions on. When we have more data and evidence, then we can do a better job and have a better chance of being correct. Without data there is literally no chance to come to meaningful conclusions or build models that correspond to any reality. Although our reasoning and logic can fail us, it happens to be, in my estimation, the only tool we have to unravel the mystery that lies before us. If we do not rely on it, then there is no chance to unravel that mystery. So when I say there is no logical reason to believe some claim, to me that means that there is no reason to believe it. Knowing that reason is fallible, and there is much beyond our reach, this is not a claim that something or anything cannot be; only that we should not believe it, not give it any credence, not think it might be or that the idea is viable in any degree- unless there is valid evidence or reason to do so. Now let us talk more about the burden of proof issue, using your ESP example. You say; "this says plainly that a negative claim bears the burden of proof, just like a positive claim." regarding whether ESP exists. If ESP did not exist, how would your "prove" it does not exist. You can't. For any non-existent thing there can never be any proof on its non-existence. Even if you tested for ESP every second of every day for every human that ever existed; this does not prove that ESP does not exist, only that you failed to observe it in all those seconds for all those people. They may have had the power and not expressed it. They may be about to express it at any moment. Your observations may have been faulty. You cannot prove it does not exist. This is true for all non-existent things. Therefore you can either say that we cannot make any "negative claims" or that asking for proof of a "negative claim" is absurd, because the negative can never be proven. If there were no evidence for ESP, if there were no phenomena we hoped to explain by this theory, then we should not believe the theory- this is not a negative claim- it does not say ESP cannot exist, only that it is improbable and therefore not worthy of consideration. Actually, as far as ESP is concerned, there may be some evidence for its existence and some phenomena that this theory can explain better than others. Because of this I am agnostic about ESP- I am willing to say it might exist. The same cannot be said about the God theory in my estimation. It lacks all the characteristics of a useful and meaningful theory and can easily be dismissed as the ultimate expression of the human imagination. I can see three guys sitting around a campfire and asking themselves, “What is the biggest, craziest, most incredible thing you can imagine? Here would be their answer: an all-knowing, omnipotent entity that cares deeply about our well-being and created us and the universe out of nothing. There is no more reason to accept that this idea might correspond to some reality than if they asked themselves, “What is the scariest thing you can imagine?” and they came up with the idea of giant, seven-headed, tentacled, 10-armed, black dragons wear a suit of armor, breathing fire, and carrying 7000 poison-tipped spears. Neither idea has any real chance of corresponding to any reality and should be disbelieved. Well, thanks for the ride on the “merry-go-round”. Who is ready for another round; round and round, up and down. I will be riding the purple horse with the yellow spots. You will be riding the invisible horse. Anthony was afraid. Geoff was brave, but he did not fall off- he did real well. It is only three tickets. Just one more time… Please…

Rene 2006-06-11T02:21:43Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#57673411-1fa5-431b-bb07-261ce13e82c4 2006-06-10T04:09:39Z 2006-06-10T04:09:39Z

Rene, believe it or not I agree with many of the points you're making. We both seem to understand knowledge as something that requires feedback from the environment, and are skeptical of any claim for which we cannot get adequate (or any) feedback from the environment. But I wonder about what you say about the burden of proof. <"Positive claims logically bear the burden of proof, since there are an infinite number of false claims that one might make- the negative is assumed until the positive claim is demonstrated by logic or proven by evidence. Every positive claim has a negative claim opposing it, so trying to reframe the negation of a positive claim as a different positive claim is simply absurd and this is what you do when you assert that not believing the positive claim that God exists is in some way a positive claim bearing the burden of proof. Put simply- it isn’t."> I have heard this said before, but only by atheists arguing with agnostics. I kid you not! I wanted to offer something above and beyond my own opinion so I looked in the 5 logic textbooks I own. I was a little surprised that 3 of them had no entry in the index for "burden of proof," or "proof, burden of" but then these are basically formal logic books, and the issue of burnen of proof never has a chance to arise in formal logic. Formal logic works like math - garbage in, garbage out. There is a clear standard--your computation either logically entails the conclusion by the rules of the formal system or it does not. Informal logic has much fuzzier rules and takes into account the pragmatics of argumentation, learning, and drawing conclusion with less than total information - the state of mixed knowledge and ignorance we normally find ourselves in. So there is some wiggle room here relating to values, and intelligent people can disagree on interpretations of the "laws of rationality" or whatever we want to call this enterprise. Burden of Proof falls squarely under informal logic, so the 2 entries I found were in the 2 books that focused on informal logic. The first was the Damer that I quoted earlier and I'll repeat it so nobody has to go fish, Damer says <"Another possible name for this fallacy is the "fallacy of shifting the burden of proof," because it violates a standard methodological principle that the burden of proof for any claim generally rests upon the person who sets forth the claim."> He doesn’t say a positive claim or a negative claim, just a claim. From a logician's perspective this makes perfect sense. Modus Ponens goes: If P then Q P Therefore Q Modus Tollens goes: If P then Q Not Q Therefore not P In both cases the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Whether the conclusion is a positive like Q or a negative like not P is irrelevant. Both are subject to the same laws of proof. The other book I found that discusses burden of proof is “How To Think About Weird Things” by Schick and Vaughan. They say: “It’s not only true believers who commit this fallacy of appeal to ignorance, however. Skeptics often take this approach: No one has proven that ESP exists, therefore it doesn’t. This, too, is fallacious reasoning; it’s an attempt to get something for nothing…So even if there is no good evidence for ESP, we can’t claim that it doesn’t exist. We can claim that there is no compelling reason for thinking that it does exist.” This says plainly that a negative claim bears the burden of proof, just like a positive claim. And that unwillingness to assert a claim is not the same as asserting a negative claim (declining to assert P is not equivalent to asserting not P). Here again I think the atheist and the agnostic can agree – both see no compelling reason to believe that God exists. This agreement opposes them to about 80-95% of all domesticated primates (depending on which study you read). I speculate that beyond this fundamentally important agreement, the difference between people who call themselves atheists and people who label themselves agnostics is largely a matter of what semantics appeal to a given person's temperment. I don't exactly have an adequate statistical sample for this hunch, but I've noticed a pattern - people who I've talked to who label themselves as atheists seem to come from religious upbringings, whereas people who label themselves as agnostics seem to come from families where religion was absent or not taken all that seriouly. In my family religion was totally absent, I learned of its existence from having friends who were religious. I'd be curious whether other peoples' experience confirms or refutes this hypothesis.

VoodooChild 2006-06-10T04:09:39Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e207dee3-ec1d-4a35-8e20-6638cac2654c 2006-06-09T20:11:24Z 2006-06-09T20:11:24Z

>>"We're going in circles "<< Yes, maybe even square circles... but it is so much fun... it is only three tickets- can't we go round one more time. I will take the purple horse and you can take the invisible horse; now don't fall off; it is hard to hold on to that invisible horse. What! You don't believe in the invisible horse, but you can't disbelieve it. There is no proof it is not there. Just hop up and take a ride. It might be there, give it a try, riding an invisible horse can be a lot of fun. Just hop up there, there is nothing to lose. What? You think there is something to lose- you might break your neck? Certainly not as much to lose as there is thinking there might be an invisible father guy in the sky. You might waste your entire life trying to test this worthless proposition, but it will only take you a few seconds to check out the idea of my invisible horse. Come on, let's go for a ride!

Rene 2006-06-09T20:11:24Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#5ddd3731-63c6-4ac5-b3a1-a1a8137e5c7b 2006-06-09T14:32:56Z 2006-06-09T14:32:56Z

We're going in circles Rene. This is no longer worth my time

Anthony 2006-06-09T14:32:56Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6d40a933-fe7f-4296-822e-c7e3f2ef6b30 2006-06-09T14:07:32Z 2006-06-09T14:07:32Z

>>”Rene that just ignores my previous arguments as if they didn't exist”<< That is because for all practical purposes, they don’t exist- I have already addressed each and every viable argument that you have presented many times already. In contrast, there are many of my arguments which you simply ignored. I list a couple below: R: “The only assessment we can really make about anything is that it is probable or improbable. We should believe in probable things, like the sun rising tomorrow and disbelieve improbable things, like there is an invisible father guy in the sky watching over us and act according to our beliefs. The only way to assess what is probable or what is improbable is to gather data and information. If none is available, the idea is not worth considering; it is improbable it corresponds to reality- particularly our reality which is the only one that actually makes a difference to us.” A: No answer R: “There is no doubt that reason is fallible; there might be a God. But, reason is the only tool we have to unravel the mystery before us, to abandon reason is to abandon all hope of unraveling that mystery. Our reason appears to me to be nothing more than a sophisticated computer program. Such a program cannot generate viable models without data. The quality of the input determines the quality of the output. If there is no input, then whatever model is output can only be gibberish- all it might reflect is some aspects of the original program. God is an output model for which there has been no data input. Without data no output model has any real chance of corresponding to reality. The only way a viable model could be output by our reason without any valid input data, is if our reason is something entirely different than a sophisticated computer program. Is this what you are arguing?” A: No answer Then there are some arguments of mine that you did answer with completely ineffective responses which in no way countered or refuted my argument. Two examples: R: “The same argument that you apply to alligators can be applied to God: "I can make a reasonable subjective judgment that the claim was unlikely to be true, and in fact is rather extraordinary, based on my otherwise universal experience to the contrary." No entity that you have encountered has the ability to create something from nothing, or is omnipotent and omniscient, just like you have not encountered any alligator-like beasts that can fly. >>”For me at least, the claim "alligators can fly" is ridiculous not because there is no evidence that they can, but because there is plenty of evidence that they can't.”<< R:” How is my claim to godhood different in any respect from Sister Mary’s claim that there is an invisible God watching over us? Why would you assume my claim to be false and not hers? There is no legitimate reason.” A:”I already said that if you claimed to be a god, I would judge that to be implausible. But my judgment of that is not because of lack of evidence. On the contrary. It's because first, an inductive judgment can be made based on the fact that people who have claimed to be someone really extraordinary, such as Jesus or Napoleon or God, are universally discovered in my past experience to be delusional.”<< For these types of responses there was no need to offer any refutation. Anyone but you reading them would clearly see that they fail to address the real issues. As far as “rules that you concocted ad hoc as to burdens of proof”- sorry but these are simply the rules of logic; too bad you failed to learn and understand them. I will review them one more time for you: Positive claims logically bear the burden of proof, since there are an infinite number of false claims that one might make- the negative is assumed until the positive claim is demonstrated by logic or proven by evidence. Every positive claim has a negative claim opposing it, so trying to reframe the negation of a positive claim as a different positive claim is simply absurd and this is what you do when you assert that not believing the positive claim that God exists is in some way a positive claim bearing the burden of proof. Put simply- it isn’t.

Rene 2006-06-09T14:07:32Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#2a06b181-ff8b-4ba1-99b9-334b079f7274 2006-06-08T19:50:04Z 2006-06-08T19:50:04Z

This last post of yours is just vacuous rhetoric Rene that just ignores my previous arguments as if they didn't exist (very convenient), in addition to some made up rules that you concocted ad hoc as to burdens of proof. I think this thread is done.

Anthony 2006-06-08T19:50:04Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6cdb983c-8845-4886-881c-6a19a430638f 2006-06-08T19:28:10Z 2006-06-08T19:28:10Z

>>"I'm also familiar with Orwellian logic"<< ...and quite adept at it. Labeling my non-belief as belief. Labeling your semi-belief as non-belief, saying "I don't have a belief whether God might possibly exist" which can only be interpreted to mean that you think God might exist. You can try to twist it and turn it all you like, but this is a positive claim that bears the burden of proof. Not believing someone's extraordinary claim cannot in any way be logically construed to be a positive claim. I will give you clue how you can determine if a claim is positive or its negation. The negation of positive claims conatans negative terms such as non-belief, disbelief, or no belief. Positive claims lack these terms. It is not so hard to understand- I am sure you can manage it, if you just keep trying.

Rene 2006-06-08T19:28:10Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#136877dd-fe2b-40f6-b599-0e82aac7050e 2006-06-08T14:32:19Z 2006-06-08T14:15:01Z

"I am not making any positive claim. A positive claim would be, for instance, if someone says they saw a 12 foot tall human." This is ridiculous again. You seem to think that positive claims are only claims that you personally find implausible. A positive claim is any claim with truth value (can be true or false) that someone else has no reason to believe unless it's justified. The propositions "God is improbable" or "God probably doesn't exist", which you assert, both have truth values. No one has any reason then to believe them to be true unless some reason is given for them to believe them. That's what burdens of proof issues are all about. Is any reason given for someone to believe some affirmative claim (i.e. a claim with truth value)? The claimant has the burden to provide reason why someone else should accept his/her claim as true if he/she expects someone else to believe the claim. If no reason is given, then the burden of proof is not met, and no one else has any reason to believe that claim. You have claimed that God is improbable. That claim is true or false. Hence, if you expect someone to believe it to be true, you have a burden of proof to provide reasons to believe it. You may think you have reasons to believe it, but you still have a burden of proof. It frankly mystifies me how some atheists think they can claim anything they want but never think they ever have any burden of proof to justify their claims. As for me, I make no claim about God's existence, or even if the concept of God is coherent at all. Hence, I have no burden of proof regarding God's existence. "You keep claiming that your claim to not know anything about God’s existence is not a claim, but you are asserting that God *might* exist, but you are not sure." No, you are putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I've been repeatedly and explicitly saying, apparently because what I actually am saying doesn't fit the strawman you find it easier to attack. For the (at least) third time, I have no idea whether the concept of God is ultimately coherent or not, so I DON'T assert that God is possible. Repeat, I DON'T assert that God is possible, so stop claiming that I am. I have no idea if God possibly exists, or actually exists. Again, I claim NOTHING about God's existence. Hence, I have no burden of proof regarding the possible or actual existence of God. If you claim that the concept of God is impossible, another claim with truth value, then YOU have a burden of proof to justify why anyone should believe your claim. We've already gone over your omnipotence/omniscience/etc. arguments, and none of those arguments were persuasive for reasons I already stated. So you still haven't provided any good reason why I or anyone should accept your claim as true. "If you do not think that he *might* exist, then you do not think he exists and you are an atheist." Nope. "I don't have a belief whether God might possibly exist" is not equivalent with "I believe that it is impossible for God to exist." There is no belief or claim associated with the former whereas there is with the latter. A human being is born into this world with no beliefs about God. That human being at that point is agnostic, since s/he has no reason to believe in God or believe that God doesn't exist. But a newborn infant doesn't believe that God cannot possibly exist. S/he has no beliefs one way or the other. As s/he grows older, maybe some persuasive reason is one day given to him/her for him/her to believe that a God could possibly or actually exist or not exist, but until that day, s/he has no reasons to believe anything regarding the possibility or actuality of God. If someone wants him/her to adopt some belief about God's actuality or possibility, that other person has a burden to provide some reason to that agnostic to adopt their beliefs about God's existence or possibility. "This is logic; sorry it makes you dizzy- unfamiliar things sometimes do this to people" I'm perfectly familiar with logic. I'm also familiar with Orwellian logic, such as claiming that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and having no belief about God's existence entails having a belief about God's existence. Orwellian logic is not logical, and neither are your arguments.

Anthony 2006-06-08T14:15:01Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#5ac91d3f-e3c3-496c-9210-9af58ff126de 2006-06-06T15:29:11Z 2006-06-06T15:29:11Z

I have seen the banana thing before. One would think it would have to be a joke, but the guys doing it are so smug about it, it is hard to believe they might be acting. I don't like bananas. One thought I had about the banana is if it is so perfectly designed by God for humans, why don't some of us even like bananas? Why did God design the banana for them and not for me? Another thought: that banana probably is the result of genetic manipulation by humans and not originally "designed" in that way at all. It is actually better evidence that organic forms are fluid and constantly changing under the pressures of the environment exactly as Darwin imagined, rather than evidence for "intelligent design".

Rene 2006-06-06T15:29:11Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#181d5fd0-1557-4b53-940c-2cbac91f3f8f 2006-06-06T03:45:40Z 2006-06-06T03:45:40Z

>>”I make no claim. You claim that the concept of God is improbable, and yet I have a burden of proof but you don't, even though you're making an affirmative claim and i'm not? Your ilogic is dizzying…<< I am not making any positive claim. A positive claim would be, for instance, if someone says they saw a 12 foot tall human. I would say I do not believe this claim because in my experience, humans are never this tall and it seems unlikely that one would be. My not believing is not a positive claim and does not bear the burden of proof. It would be a positive claim if someone said humans might be 12 feet tall (an agnostic position). I would say I do not believe that humans might be 12 feet tall. I do not believe this is a viable possibility because nothing in my experience indicates humans of this size might exist. The agnostic claim that it is possible would need further evidence in order to change my mind from the default negative position for extraordinary claims. The claim that an omnipotent creator exists is extraordinary claim almost exactly like the claim of seeing of 10 foot tall human and everything said above about the tall human claim applies to the omnipotent creator claim. The only difference between the two claims might be that some making the omnipotent creator claim might also claim the omnipotent creator might always be outside of our experience and so no one could ever investigate this claim. This secondary claim actually makes the claim less believable rather than more believable. It is like catching a thief in the act of stealing something and he makes the claim that the owner gave it to him. Of course, the owner left town last Thursday, he says, so you cannot check that out, but believe me, he really did and I just came by to pick it up. You say: “Since I make no claim about God's existence, I have no burden of proof regarding God's existence.”<< You keep claiming that your claim to not know anything about God’s existence is not a claim, but you are asserting that God *might* exist, but you are not sure. I say show me the evidence. Show me how God *might* exist. Show me some evidence such a being *might* exist. Show me how anything *might* be omnipotent. Show me how it *might* be possible to create something from nothing. Show me how a human might be 12 feet tall. If you do not think that he *might* exist, then you do not think he exists and you are an atheist. If you make the positive claim that such an absurd concept might correspond to reality, then the burden of proof is on you. This is logic; sorry it makes you dizzy- unfamiliar things sometimes do this to people.

Rene 2006-06-06T03:45:40Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#440b3804-8e11-4d71-b8dd-9f63cdd495f6 2006-06-01T19:56:57Z 2006-06-01T19:56:57Z

Behold, the atheists nightmare: the banana! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk&search=atheist%20banana

VoodooChild 2006-06-01T19:56:57Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7b1d3d60-654c-459e-b79b-0a81111f96f4 2006-06-01T19:49:59Z 2006-06-01T19:49:59Z

"If you are willing to admit that your position is not based on reason" I'm not in the habit of "admitting" false things.

Anthony 2006-06-01T19:49:59Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7c277819-4c0e-4a5e-ad94-49cadd5662b8 2006-06-01T19:46:55Z 2006-06-01T19:46:55Z

"Ridiculous nonsense- if you do not disbelieve a concept, it means you think it must at least be possible and not extremely improbable." Nope. I do consider it possible that the concept is fundamentally incoherent, so I take no position on whether it's actually possible or not, as well as whether it instantiates in reality or not. What's ridiculous nonsense is you inferring that taking no position on a concept entails taking a position on a concept. "Whether you want to admit it or not, yours and the theists claim is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof." Wow, this is absurd. I make no claim. You claim that the concept of God is improbable, and yet I have a burden of proof but you don't, even though you're making an affirmative claim and i'm not? Your ilogic is dizzying. Theists claim that the existence of God is probable or certain. Athiests like you assert that the existence of God is improbable or impossible. Both of you guys have burdens of proof, since both of you are making affirmative claims of fact. Agnostics like myself are not. We're just in a position of being undecided until convinced otherwise. Whether you like it or not, if you affirm that the existence of God is implausible/ridiculous/improbable, etc., then by making that affirmative claim you assume a burden of proof. Since I make no claim about God's existence, I have no burden of proof regarding God's existence.

Anthony 2006-06-01T19:46:55Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#62794366-b743-48a1-b642-4dc07dea5205 2006-06-01T18:28:22Z 2006-06-01T18:28:22Z

>>"No I didn't. I explicitly stated I have no idea if it's probable, improbable, possible, or impossible. You're the one making the positive claim, not me. Since you're making an affirmative claim, then you assume a burden of proof. "<< Ridiculous nonsense- if you do not disbelieve a concept, it means you think it must at least be possible and not extremely improbable. Whether you want to admit it or not, yours and the theists claim is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof.

Rene 2006-06-01T18:28:22Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7a2103a2-6ecc-4359-867c-de0f0e625357 2006-06-01T18:18:05Z 2006-06-01T18:18:05Z

"No, because they could play hide and seek being all-powerful, just like the God you fail to disbelieve. " I'm either aware of them or I'm not. If I'm aware of them, then I'm aware of how they behave (to some degree at least), and so I can assess whether they behave like the gods they claim to be. And I'm also aware that they act just like many others who turned out to be delusional. Hence I have evidence with which to make a probalistic judgment. If they were by hypothesis completely invisible to me and unlike anything in my experience (like the standard God hypothesis), then I would have no way of assessing the probability of their existence. "The same arguement you apply to blue, invisible fairies can be applied to the God you fail to disbelieve. " Not really. First of all, "invisible blue fairies" is self contradictory, since you can't be any color if you're invisible. I haven't in contrast seen any sound effort that demonstrates that the concept of God is self-contradictory. Second, I know what causes flowers to bloom, so I can dismiss proposed superfluous causes of blooming flowers. In contrast, I don't know all that was sufficient to cause the creation of the physical universe, assuming it was caused at all, nor do I know for certain what entirely caused human beings to exist, though I know evolution played a fundamental role. I just don't know if evolution is entirely sufficient to explain everything about human beings. If it is eventually proven that physical processes entirely explain everything that a God is purported to be the creator of, i would find that to be evidence against the existence of a creator God. "The same arguement that you apply to alligators can be applied to God: "I can make a reasonable subjective judgment that the claim was unlikely to be true, and in fact is rather extraordinary, based on my otherwise universal experience to the contrary." No entity that you have encountered has the ability to create something from nothing, or is omnipotent and omniscient, just like you have not encountered any alligator-like beasts that can fly." Incorrect. First of all, I know alligators can't fly because I know how alligators are designed (metaphorically speaking), and they aren't designed for flight. In contrast, I don't know how a god, if one existed, would be designed. And all that follows from the fact that nothing in my experience can create something from nothing is that God, if he/she/it existed, is entirely unlike anything in my experience, which would be expected anyway since the purported God is supposedly the ultimate creator of evevrything in my experience, and there's no reason to assume that the creator is just like the creation. You can't, for example, rationally conclude that a painter is made of oil paint just because his creation contains oil paint. What's true of the creation isn't necessarily true of the creator. So I have no rational basis to make any inference about a God that hypothetically existed, based on anything in my experience. "Extraordinary means outside of our experience." I see. On its face, that seems fair. Though that would mean that all new information would be extraordinary and should be assumed to be false by your reasoning until proven otherwise. Maybe that's reasonable. I'd have to think about it.

Anthony 2006-06-01T18:18:05Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#bbaf0eb9-d28f-4de5-bef5-02b7cf1199a8 2006-06-01T18:14:30Z 2006-06-01T18:14:30Z

>>"you like making audacious claims like "what reason demands""<< Yes, because that is the essence of what we are arguing about. You say reason demands that we not make a judgement about propositions for which there is no evidence. My claim is no more audacious than yours. I say that if there is no evidence for a proposition it is not reasonable, in fact it is stupid, to give it any credence whatsoever. If you are willing to admit that your position is not based on reason, but on a personal prejudice to not make judgements about "God" issues, then the arguement is over. I would never try to convince a theist that his personal prejudice that there is a God is wrong, only that there is no rational reason to believe it. Likewise, I would not try to convince an agnostic that their personal prejudice that God is possible and not improbable is wrong, only that there is no rational reason to believe this. Saying this I am not prnouncing that reason is infallible; that I must be right. There is no doubt that reason is fallible; there might be a God. But, reason is the only tool we have to unravel the mystery before us, to abandon reason is to abandon all hope of unraveling that mystery. Our reason appears to me to be nothing more than a sophisticated computer program. Such a program cannot generate viable models without data. The quality of the input determines the quality of the output. If there is no input, then whatever model is output can only be gibberish- all it might reflect is some aspects of the original program. God is an output model for which there has been no data input. Without data no ouput model has any real chance of corresponding to reality. The only way a viable model could be ouput by our reason without any valid input data, is if our reason is something entirely different than a sophisticated computer program. Is this what you are arguing? If so, what evidence do you have that it is something entirely different and exactly what is the model you are employing?

Rene 2006-06-01T18:14:30Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#27c46ffa-fd06-44cc-ad96-a3b5888de6b9 2006-06-01T18:01:04Z 2006-06-01T18:00:06Z

"You make a positive claim: that it is possible and not improbable that God exists. " No I didn't. I explicitly stated I have no idea if it's probable, improbable, possible, or impossible. You're the one making the positive claim, not me. Since you're making an affirmative claim, then you assume a burden of proof. "I am not inferring anything to be false. I am inferring that it is improbable." Which is the same thing as affirming it to be probably false, which is an affirmative claim. Aside from that meaning that you assume a burden of proof, you're also making a fallacious inference from ignorance.

Anthony 2006-06-01T18:00:06Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a2e12af7-26e8-47c8-bcb9-e1e5a1c23c1a 2006-06-01T14:04:33Z 2006-06-01T14:04:33Z

>>"Wrong again. I make no claim about anything, so I have no burden to shift. if you claim that God likely doesn't exist, which you seem to, then you properly have a burden to demonstrate it."<< You make a positive claim: that it is possible and not improbable that God exists. This is a positive claim and logicaly bears the burden of proof. Negative claims do not logically bear this burden. If this were not true the burden of proof would be a moot point since every positive assertion has a negative assertion opposing it. >>"What that means is that you're inferring a proposition to be false from the fact that you haven't seen evidence for its truth, which is the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. "<< I am not inferring anything to be false. I am inferring that it is improbable. The only assessment we can really make about anything is that it is probable or improbable. We should believe in probable things, like the sun rising tomorrow and disbelieve improbable things, like there is an invisible father guy in the sky watching over us and act according to our beliefs. The only way to assess what is probable or what is improbable is to gather data and information. If none is available, the idea is not worth considering; it is improbable it corresponds to reality- particularly our reality which is the only one that actually makes a difference to us.

Rene 2006-06-01T14:04:33Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4cd8e224-b410-46bb-becf-de94b310971d 2006-06-01T13:43:51Z 2006-06-01T13:43:51Z

>>"There's plenty of background evidence of them not being a god. "<<| No, because they could play hide and seek being all-powerful, just like the God you fail to disbelieve. >>"Superfluous causation is not causation."<< The same arguement you apply to blue, invisible fairies can be applied to the God you fail to disbelieve. >>'he claim "alligators can fly" is ridiculous" The same arguement that you apply to alligators can be applied to God: "I can make a reasonable subjective judgment that the claim was unlikely to be true, and in fact is rather extraordinary, based on my otherwise universal experience to the contrary." No entity that you have encountered has the ability to create something from nothing, or is omnipotent and omniscient, just like you have not encountered any alligator-like beasts that can fly. The central point of our disagreement is illustrated by this question: "...how do you assess whether a claim is "extraordinary" unless you're able to make some initial probability assignment?" Extraordinary means outside of our experience. How does one assess the likelihood that any idea or theory might correspond to reality.? The only way to do it is to see if there are any data or observations that show the theory corresponds to reality. If there is no data or observations the only possible assessment is that the probability is near zero.

Rene 2006-06-01T13:43:51Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#3fd9dc27-c7e4-4c7d-b27a-115bd7e6bd84 2006-06-01T07:07:30Z 2006-06-01T07:02:51Z

"you cannot assume to be false any ridiculous, extraordinary claim" You've gotten into a question begging habit of late. The only way you can rationally judge a claim to be "ridiculous" is if you have evidence of its ridiculousness. I already said that if you claimed to be a god, I would judge that to be implausible. But my judgment of that is not because of lack of evidence. On the contrary. It's because first, an inductive judgment can be made based on the fact that people who have claimed to be someone really extraordinary, such as Jesus or Napoleon or God, are universally discovered in my past experience to be delusional. Hence if any particular person claimed to be god, there's a high correlation of that claim to being delusional. Second, a person making such a claim is unlikely to behave as the type of person they are claiming. If you claim to be a god, then I would expect to see extraordinary things from you consistent with what a god is. If I don't see that, then it's more likely that you're just an ordinary, delusional person. Come on. If someone claimed to be a god and you said that that claim was ridiculous and someone asked why, saying "Well, they presented no evidence of being a god" would be pretty weak. There's plenty of background evidence of them not being a god. "alligators can fly" For me at least, the claim "alligators can fly" is ridiculous not because there is no evidence that they can, but because there is plenty of evidence that they can't. Alligators aren't designed to fly. If someone said to you, "there are mammals that lay eggs" without providing evidence, and you knew nothing about biology, would it be logical to just assume that that claim was false just because you know nothing about the platypus? No. If however I knew something about biology but was only exposed to mammals that gave birth to live young and heard for the first time the claim about mammals (the platypus) that lay eggs, I can make a reasonable subjective judgment that the claim was unlikely to be true, and in fact is rather extraordinary, based on my otherwise universal experience to the contrary. So the judgment of such a claim being extraordinary is based on background evidence, not on lack of evidence. "invisible blue fairies make flowers bloom." Well, that's impossible on its face because if it's invisible, it can't be blue. And I would want to know what a "fairy" is to assess its plausibility. If it's an entirely superfluous concept, which it seems to be since there are other adequate reasons for flowers blooming that I know about, then I would have no reason to accept the existence of flower bloom causing fairies. In fact, what sense would it make to say that the fairies cause flowers to bloom when I know what causes flowers to bloom, and it doesn't look like fairies? Superfluous causation is not causation. "What reason and logic actually demands" Rene, you like making audacious claims like "what reason demands" or what "rational people believe" or that people who disagree with you are fools, etc. I'm not impressed with such bloviating, and I don't know who is. if it's an exercise in ego, so be it, but it adds zilch to support your reasoning and is simply tiresome. If you have an argument to make, make it. The rest is just hot air. "extraordinary claims that lack evidence should be disbelieved unless and until evidence for them is found." Not because you say so, no matter how much you claim what "reason" demands. And how do you assess whether a claim is "extraordinary" unless you're able to make some initial probability assignment? Once again you beg the question, since you initially dismiss a claim as "extraordinary" - i.e. improbable - and then conclude that such claim should thus be rejected as false unless there's evidence for its truth. Well, if you initially assume that a claim is implausible, then of course it's not much of a leap to conclude that the claim is implausible. But that's question begging. "when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true" Reread what you wrote, because I see no difference between those two propositions. How is asserting that something is false because it hasn't been proved true different than assuming it's false until it has been proved true? Both amount to making inferences of falsefood from lack of evidence for truth. "In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty." That's a poor analogy since the legal assignment of the burden of proof is a policy decision. It isn't a requirement of logic. In some other countries, the burden of proof is instead on the defense to prove innocence. The presumption of innocence in our system merely says that it's the state's burden to prove their cause to a level beyond reasonable doubt (which is an arbitrary standard), and if they don't, then they haven't proven their case. But if they haven't, there is no inference as a matter of law that the person is innocent. It's just concluded that the person has not been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which is the legal standard of proof that needed to be reached. For example, if being acquitted meant that a person should legally be considered innocent, then OJ couldn never have been found liable in a civil case for wrongful death, which he was. But it was perfectly consistent to find that he was probably (lower standard of proof) guilty of wrongful death at the same time as that there wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. But I digress. The short answer is that legal presumptions are just policy decisions to assign particular burdens of proof to parties. They're not requirements of logic. "What I have done is assume something is false until there is evidence for it." What that means is that you're inferring a proposition to be false from the fact that you haven't seen evidence for its truth, which is the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. "which is exactly what you have done by requiring that there must be evidence of falsehood before extraordinary claims can be disbelieved. " Wrong again. I make no claim about anything, so I have no burden to shift. if you claim that God likely doesn't exist, which you seem to, then you properly have a burden to demonstrate it. Inferring the truth of that belief (that God likely doesn't exist) from the lack of evidence is a case of fallacious Appeal to Ignorance.

Anthony 2006-06-01T07:02:51Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8535ca61-4dfe-484b-adaa-41c4a6674282 2006-06-01T04:21:29Z 2006-06-01T04:21:29Z

>>"I don’t see much difference between atheism and agnosticism. They both seem like words used to describe why one does not model the world using a supreme anthropomorphic intelligent being model like the one rednecks call “Gawd.” Given such profound similarity I've never understood why atheists and agnostics piss each other off so much."<< Once again, I find I pretty much agree with you and actually this discussion has given me a better understanding and respect for the agnostic viewpoint, although I am sure this has not been apparent as I fight to make my points. So now to make one more point: you say: "thank you for generously volunteering your time to test my theory that this debate can be carried on ad infinitum" There is a lack of evidence about the ad infinitum part since we have only been doing this for a finite time (although I am sure it seems infinite) Thus this is an extraordinary claim that lacks evidence, so following my earlier logic, I should disbelieve it. Anthony, however, should have non-disbelief (semi-belief in English) for this theory. But, oh my, I am going to be inconsistent here- I believe your theory is correct. Does this make me a religious person? Do I have to go to church now? Please don't make me go. I hate the kneeling in the pews. That incense makes me cough. I have to pee...

Rene 2006-06-01T04:21:29Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#fdd0a6ee-23de-49dc-9d5b-863a39d990f9 2006-06-01T03:53:07Z 2006-06-01T03:53:07Z

>>R: "I might claim that I am a god, as many men have throughout the ages. Would you assume this to be false and disbelieve it until I provided evidence?" A: I wouldn't assume it."<< So let us sum up your position: you cannot assume to be false any ridiculous, extraordinary claim anyone might make including that he/she is God, that there is a spiritual sun that allows for conciousness to exist on Earth, that Sister Mary's imagined watchdog God is real, that alligators can fly, but only when we are not looking, invisible blue fairies make flowers bloom... and an infinite number more. This, according to you is what reason demands. What reason and logic actually demands is that extraordinary claims that lack evidence should be disbelieved unless and until evidence for them is found. You claim that this is "the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance." Quoting from this website: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting: "Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty." What I have done is assume something is false until there is evidence for it. I did not say it *must be* false because it has not been proved true. More from the website above: "The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion." which is exactly what you have done by requiring that there must be evidence of falsehood before extraordinary claims can be disbelieved.

Rene 2006-06-01T03:53:07Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ef0ab8b5-58ef-4b4e-93d6-f6775c272eaa 2006-06-01T03:49:12Z 2006-06-01T03:49:12Z

Since the fallacy of "arguing from ignorance" or "negative proof" keeps coming up, I decided to consult my informal logic Bible "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T Edward Damer (the textbook for my intro to logic class). Damer defines the fallacy as: <"This fallacy consists in assuming that a claim is true because there is no evidence or proof that it is false or because of the inability or refusal of an opponent to present convincing evidence against it. Conversely, it consists in assuming that a claim is false because there is no evidence or proof that it is true or because of the refusal or inability of an opponent to present convincing evidence for it."> Later he says: <"Another possible name for this fallacy is the "fallacy of shifting the burden of proof," because it violates a standard methodological principle that the burden of proof for any claim generally rests upon the person who sets forth the claim."> But obviously a person's inability to support a claim may have more to do with that person's inability than the claim itself. Another juicy morsel from Damer: <"This fallacy probably gains its appearance as a good argument from a legitimate way of arguing that appears to be similar to it in form. If methods of proof are available and they have been used in a sincere effort to prove or disprove the claim in question and have failed, then the contrary claim can usually be legitimately inferred."> You guys can hash out how all of this supports only your arguments. Maybe you can eventually come to an agreement over who has the more rational non-belief in God. I’ll just point out something that never occurred to me when I read Damer as a freshman. His view of logic and reason comes from a long tradition of western philosophers and logicians who saw the mind as essentially a sentence-cruncher. If we think of the nervous system as more of a model builder, then the sentential logic game starts to seem silly. By having to classify every statement as true or false, we can miss the big picture. Would you consider Copernicus’s heliocentric solar system model true or false? Well, it needed some serious tweaking, but by and large it represents one of the most profound revolutions in human thought. We don’t have to call it true or false. We can think of it as a cognitive prototype that bears some degree of isomorphism to our experience. Applying this line of thinking to the debate at hand, how much difference do we really see between the model of the atheist and the model of the agnostic? I see nothing in the disagreement that we could check against any actual experience or empirical data point. Perhaps the atheist and the agnostic have found one of the strange loops in the linguistic framework of sentential logic – an issue that they can debate ad infinitum because the system yields more than one internally coherent position, but gives no obvious way for observation or experience to decide between them. From a cognitive perspective, I don’t see much difference between atheism and agnosticism. They both seem like words used to describe why one does not model the world using a supreme anthropomorphic intelligent being model like the one rednecks call “Gawd.” Given such profound similarity I've never understood why atheists and agnostics piss each other off so much. Rene and Anthony, thank you for generously volunteering your time to test my theory that this debate can be carried on ad infinitum. Posterity awaits our conclusion.

VoodooChild 2006-06-01T03:49:12Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#abe5d912-9204-47ac-bc0f-f1cc070c325e 2006-06-01T01:26:36Z 2006-06-01T01:26:36Z

"Let us continue to explain why it is fallacious to assert that “absence of evidence” is not sufficient reason to disbelieve an extraordinary claim." You're misusing the term "fallacious." You may believe that what I assert is false, but just being false (even assuming it is) is not the same thing as being a fallacy. As it stands,f or reasons I've already addressed, it is you who is embracing the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. "I might claim that I am a god, as many men have throughout the ages. Would you assume this to be false and disbelieve it until I provided evidence?" I wouldn't assume it. I would say that there's good evidence that you're not a god, depending on what you meant by a "god." If you mean an all powerful, all knowing being, you certainly don't act like one. Why are you on the Internet trying to convince me of your beliefs if you're all powerful and superwise? That's the problem with people who claim to be gods. Their behavior is much more consistent with normal delusional mortals than the types of beings they're describing, which leads one to conclude that it's much more reasonable to conclude that they're nothing really special. "How is my claim to godhood different in any respect from Sister Mary’s claim that there is an invisible God watching over us?" Because I can see you and what you do, and your behavior doesn't look like the behavior of what you (hypothetically) claim to be, and looks more consistent with the behavior of people who delusionally claim to be God or Napoleon or whatever. "If oxygen were a nebulous, poorly defined concept like God, not observing it would certainly be a valid reason to disbelieve it." You have that backwards. If a concept is sufficiently nebulous, we would have no basis for assessing whether it existed or not. Furthermore, not observing it would only justify disbelieving it if we had reason to believe that we should be able to observe oxygen, regardless of how vague the description. But of course we don't. The remainder of your post simply repeats claims you've made previously and that I've already addressed, so there's no point in my repeating my counterarguments, since arguments (for either of us) don't improve with repetition.

Anthony 2006-06-01T01:26:36Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4260aaa0-907f-4e15-b6be-3fac184e3e2a 2006-06-01T00:46:47Z 2006-06-01T00:46:47Z

I'm willing to disbelieve things that I have evidence are false. You're "spiritual sun" sounds like many versions of God or the spiritual, and given that I'm an agnostic, I have no idea whether they're real or not.

Anthony 2006-06-01T00:46:47Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#71560349-ef30-4560-aaf8-bec6b40b793b 2006-05-31T22:58:40Z 2006-05-31T22:58:40Z

>>"Since I also would have little idea what you're talking about, I would also be in a poor position to assert that what you're claiming is false, particularly because I have no reason to believe whatever you're precisely claiming is false. <<" I think you are saying that you do not disbelieve in my spiritual "second sun". You have proven yourself a true agnostic. Congratulations, now the second sun will fill you with its divine energy, since you have not denied it. Unimaginable spiritual energy will begin to fill you with life, bringing a fearsome glow to your world. Do you semi_believe this? Or should I speak your language and say do you non-disbelieve this? Exactly how deep does your non-disbelief go? What are you willing to disbelieve?

Rene 2006-05-31T22:58:40Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#41f52509-f1e6-4fab-8527-a41b20be4583 2006-05-31T22:33:33Z 2006-05-31T22:33:33Z

>>R:"The fallacy you are employing is that lack of evidence cannot be taken as an indicator of the probability of a concept corresponding to any reality." A:That's not a fallacy."<< Let us continue to explain why it is fallacious to assert that “absence of evidence” is not sufficient reason to disbelieve an extraordinary claim. You seem to be failing to grasp that logic demands when a claim is asserted, the one making the claim bears the burden of proof and until proof is forthcoming we should assume the claim is false. Here are more examples: I might claim that I am a god, as many men have throughout the ages. Would you assume this to be false and disbelieve it until I provided evidence? I feel certain that you would. You would not be agnostic about my godhood. You would disbelieve it. How is my claim to godhood different in any respect from Sister Mary’s claim that there is an invisible God watching over us? Why would you assume my claim to be false and not hers? There is no legitimate reason. I am actually more likely to be a real god than the one that Sister Mary’s imagines because at least there is some evidence that I exist, whereas there is no evidence that Sister Mary’s God exists. As an existent being, who can say what powers I might possess? Surely the utter profundity of my writing here is indicative of potential godhood? You have discussed the invisible oxygen in the air as an example of something we do not normally observe, saying that our not observing it is not a valid reason to disbelieve in oxygen. This is quite misleading and actually wrong. If oxygen were a nebulous, poorly defined concept like God, not observing it would certainly be a valid reason to disbelieve it. Oxygen after all is just a word that represents a model of the world that we believe to be accurate because the model is based on a wide variety of data and observations. If it were based on no data or observations and someone simply said; I believe there is a magical, invisible substance in the air which I will call oxygen- any rational person would disbelieve this claim until some observations and data to support the assertion were provided. Without any data or observations the chance of any model corresponding to any reality are near zero and the model should be given no credence. Our oxygen model is supported by a wide variety of data and observations, but it still might not be a completely accurate model of reality. The probability it is correct increases towards one as more data accumulates and approaches zero when there is no data. I do not believe that any amount of data can make the probability of a model being correct equal to one, nor is there zero chance for any particular model being correct. Total certainty is not required to believe or disbelieve in something. All that is required is a high or low degree of probability and the degree of probability is a function of the quality and amount of data available to test the validity of the model. Believing or disbelieving some idea simply means that we have sufficient confidence in our analysis of an idea to act on it. Life does not allow us to know anything with 100% certainty, but we still have to act. Requiring 100% certainty before believing or disbelieving in anything; before being willing to act, is not an effective way to navigate life, or to gain a greater understanding of the universe. We have to make decisions, choose paths to investigate that offer promise. There is a road to heaven, toward ultimate power and knowledge- it is marked by what we can observe, outside of this road is a wasteland where many have and will become lost. God is the ghost in that wasteland, drawing many out, but as they wander there, the ghost disappears when they touch it, it was only an illusion; offering them no comfort as the sand slides from their hands and their tears wet the barren ground, the sadness overwhelming them as they finally understand they wasted their lives pursuing nothing.

Rene 2006-05-31T22:33:33Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#114eb1cc-6c1a-460a-addb-f11e9eaed240 2006-05-31T18:27:16Z 2006-05-31T18:27:16Z

"The fallacy you are employing is that lack of evidence cannot be taken as an indicator of the probability of a concept corresponding to any reality." That's not a fallacy. In fact, quite the opposite, as the opposite of the above, "Absence of evidence being evidence of absence", which you appear to be assuming, is the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance. "No evidence" does not entail anything existential to be true, and hence "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a fallacy, since the conclusion does not follow the premise . "Basically what you seem to believe that if one tells a big enough lie" Begs the question, since a "lie" is by definition false, and I have no reason to believe that "God exists" is false. You repeat this question begging every subsequent time you referred to a "lie." "It would seem the opposite should be true- the bigger lie" Well, obviously if it's a lie it should be disbelieved, since a lie is by definition false. You're really begging the question here Rene. "It does make sense to assign probabilities to claims when there is no evidence" Sorry, but I don't really accept your personal authority on this point. "but the claim of a God has many background assumptions- there is time and space outside of our time and space, omnipotence is possible, omniscience is possible, creation from nothing is possible, and more." Right, and we've gone over these subjects, and you haven't presented any persuasive reason which such characteristics are unlikely. And as to existing in space and time, it's not necessary that if a god existed it would exist outside of time and space. I just don't see any reason why it would have to exist in time and space. "Because it is possible for us to imagine an infintite number of things, or concepts, but without anything to base our concept on the probability it might correspond to reality is remotely small." This argument is self-refuting. For every proposition there exists a negation of that proposition. So for every proposed state of affairs X there exists a proposed state of affairs constituting the negation of X. So if lacking any evidence for the truth of proposition X means that we should consider the proposition to be highly unlikely true, then we should also consider the negation of such a proposition to be high unlikely true without supporting evidence. Which means that for any proposition for which there is no evidence that it's true or false, we should simultaneously conclude that the propostion is both highly unlikely to be true and highly unlikely to be false. But that's self-contradictory. Hence, you're reasoning is unsound. The more rational position is to not assign probability assessments one way or another until one has evidence pushing probability one way or another. "The simple fact is that without data, without evidence it is not possible to construct any accurate picture of any possible aspect of the universe and any model we construct in this way would have a remotely small probability of corresponding to any reality." Then a universe with God is just as unlikely as a universe without God, by this reasoning. Hence, a wash.

Anthony 2006-05-31T18:27:16Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ae6dbc59-4f8f-4cd1-96cd-b11b82777c48 2006-05-31T18:12:17Z 2006-05-31T18:12:17Z

"Sorry, but you cannot legitimately claim non-belief. This is what I and most atheists have" Sure I can, since that's the definition of "agnostic", and accurately reflects my lacking of beliefs regarding God's purported existence.. "What you have is the belief that it is possible there is a God even though there appears to be no valid evidence for this concept" I don't even know if the concept is possible. I just see no persuasive reason why it's possible or impossible, exists or doesn't exist. I have no existential beliefs on the subject. "What I have in non-belief that such a concept can be a viable model without observational evidence." That's a tortured way of getting around saying that you believe that the concept is impossible, or at least unlikely. So you do have a belief about God's existence. I in contrast don't. "Yes I know semi-belief/semi-disbelief sounds bad, but really agnostic sound worse to my ear" Nothing personal, but I frankly don't care how it sounds to your ear. I care about accuracy, and since I have zero belief in God's existence, I don't have semi-belief in God's existence. "Better yet, give up your semi-belief and recognize that no rational person accepts the possiblilty that far-fetched, ridiculous, absurd, extaordinary concepts such as God have a near zero probability of corresponding to any realtiy" Tiresome, self-satisfied, vacuous rhetoric Rene. Do you have some kind of emotional need to repeat comments like this, since it adds zero to the discussion? Seriously.

Anthony 2006-05-31T18:12:17Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#888e50d2-ddce-4b8e-a715-624bf066e22f 2006-05-31T18:01:34Z 2006-05-31T17:59:10Z

"You appear to be totally lost here." This kind of rhetoric, which you frankly have a habit of Rene, comes off as smug and is completely unconstructive. "Without any evidence, no one would be considering the idea because the probability that it might correspond to any reality would be remotely small and they would know that they would be wasting their time." You have that backwards. You can't discover that there's no evidence for something until you look for it. "Good science begins with good observations and ends with theories that are able to explain those observations...." I agree with this paragraph, but I don't see how it contradicts me in any way. "so you even bringing this up seems a bit silly" Calling it "silly" is frankly childish. Ambiguity in language is the source of too many disputes in philosophy and elsewhere. We were talking about the existence of God. There have been attempts to produce deductive proofs both for and against the existence of God, and you can theoretically prove something to absolute certainty with a successful deductive proof, so this kind of proof is certainly relevant to the issue of the existence of a God. So when you said that "nothing" could be known to 100% certainty, in the context of this discussion, you were wrong. if you want to clarify what you meant, fine. But it's absurd and frankly philosophically ignorant to claim that it's "silly" to point out the possibility of absolute proofs regarding the existence of God. "But since we are being silly; can you know with 100% certainty that Jones is male? Can you know that any entity is mortal? Not knowing either of these things with 100% certainty makes your statement that Jones is mortal highly uncertain." This is a sloppy reading of what I wrote, but a common logical error. A valid inference doesn't say that the conclusion is 100% certain. It says that the inference is 100% certain. I didn't say that it's certain that Jones was mortal. I said that it's absolutely certain that IF all males were mortal and IF Jones was male, then Jones is mortal. That inference is certain, but of course it's not certain that the premises are true and hence the conclusion is. "You apparently have not thought very deeply about what it means to exist." Yes I have Mr. Pompous. Your arrogance is really starting to get irritating. I've studied philosophy for many years and I don't need to be talked down to like this, if you're at all interested in continuing a conversation. That you can't conceive of something existing outside of our spatio-temporal manifold is just a failure of your imagination, unless you can produce some deductive proof that existence requires spatial location. "What I am saying is that the concept of existence is not meaningful without the concepts of space and time in which existence takes place." Well, you may feel that way, but until you demonstrate that to be true, your hunches are not particularly useful. "So if there is an existing God, he must exist in some space and time. " Since you haven't demonstrated that to be true and are only assuming it, any argument that subsequently follows employing this as a premise is question begging. "Any observation entails an interaction and any interaction should leave a trace." I can see my treadmill right now. Do you think anyone can find evidence that at 10:35 I looked at my treadmill? Seeing or experiencing something does not necessarily entail that the seeing/experiencing is going to leave some telltale evidentiary trace. "Also, if something is “all-powerful” is that not kind of like nuclear bombs going off all the time at a prodigious rate." No. All-powerful just means you can do anything, not that you're in fact doing everything. "Using such power should have massive, observable consequences." Well, thesists do claim that God created the physical universe. If anything's an act of omnipotence, that is. But I don't know what kind of telltale evidence of a God that that should leave for us to find, since we have no experience of how other Gods (if any existed) behave in order to make comparisons. That's a big problem here. Since we're talking about an entity which is by most theist's conception unique, we have nothing to compare it to in order to make inferences about what to expect. We know the kinds of evidentiary traces that human creators leave when humans create. Would a God leave the same kind of traces? I have no idea, and I don't see how you do. "he must exist in our space, since there is interaction inferred by your definition" You've just assumed that to interact requires all interactors to occupy space, which begs the question. "If there is an all-powerful God wandering the forest of Earth, even if he does not use his rifle he would be noticed." You have an unnecessarily crude anthopomorphic view of what a god would be like if it existed. You seem to imagine some giant, clumsy, elephantine physical entity crashing through existence leaving loads of evidence. Who the hell knows what a God would be like if it existed? I dont' see any reason why it would necessarly stomp through existence leaving some crude evidentiary trail for all to see. Again, a point you have consistently ignored is that if it's omniscient and omnipotent, then it would be fully aware of any evidentiary trail itr left and fully capable of controlling what if any evidence it left. So for it to leave an evidentiary trail, it would have to want to. Why would it? I have no idea, and you don't either. "Many faiths predict that we will detect God, if we simply pray to him." That's true. " I have not been able to validate this prediction. Have you?" No. "Is this a valid observation?" I don't know, and I don't know how to invaidate the claim. Maybe people who think that they're experiencing God are, maybe they're not. I have no idea how to assess their claims, though i'm inclined to think that at least some of them are likely wrong, since different people seem to have contradictory experiences. But if a God was accessible through prayer, what kind of evidentiary trail would such a being leave? I have no idea, and neither do you. "Perhaps this is true now, but certainly I was prejudiced in the other direction as I grew up attending Catholic school and praying at mass every morning. I failed to detect even the faintest whisper of God. " Well, that could just mean that you failed to experience god. Your failure to experience something certainly doesn't entail that no one else experiences it. "You suggest that having no valid evidence is no reason to disbelieve a theory. In that case it would be quite impossible to evaluate any theory." Absolutely wrong. You evaluate a theory based upon disconfirming and confirming evidence, not by lack of evidence. "Going back to the second sun theory; I forgot to tell you the second sun does not produce heat and light; it has no mass. It is a sun that produces spiritual energy" I would say then that you're using the word "sun" wrong then, since a sun by definition produces heat, light, and has mass. If you're claiming that there exists some spiritual phenomenon, then i would ask why you believe it to be true? If you have no persuasive evidence, then I would not be inclined to believe it. Since I also would have little idea what you're talking about, I would also be in a poor position to assert that what you're claiming is false, particularly because I have no reason to believe whatever you're precisely claiming is false. "has almost zero probability of corresponding to reality, just like all God concepts." Well, that last clause is just rhetoric, as you've provided no convincing reason to believe it.

Anthony 2006-05-31T17:59:10Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#535ad5ae-34e0-4115-abdf-653470c8e96d 2006-05-31T17:15:33Z 2006-05-31T17:15:33Z

"Wrong. Disbelief means that you do not believe some claim. Non-belief means the same thing" If you're claiming that that's the only meaning, then you're wrong. That may be one meaning, but the other meaning for disbelief (and more common in my experience) is the following one identified by Merriam-Webster, and is the understanding I was employing: ": the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue" If to "disbelieve" a proposition meant the exact same thing as "not believe", then what word would describe believing that the proposition was false? I know of no better word than "disbelieve". "Two negative equal a positive in English" Only if the negatives are equivalent, and "non" is not necessarily identical with "dis". "you do not want to admit that what you have is semi-belief in God." I don't "admit" it because it's false. I hold no belief in a god or gods. Is such a concept possible? I hold no belief in that as well, though I've seen no persuasive reasoning leading me to conclude that such a being either probably doesn't exist or that such a concept is impossible.

Anthony 2006-05-31T17:15:33Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8bbfdc1f-6e5b-4d5b-bba0-99d61b3c3d30 2006-05-31T13:32:55Z 2006-05-31T13:32:55Z

>>"but "non-disbelief" just means that you don't have a disbelief."<< Wrong. Disbelief means that you do not believe some claim. Non-belief means the same thing- you do not believe some claim. Two negative equal a positive in English, but even though you are not speaking English, we still understand what you are trying to say. It is just funny that you choose this word because you do not want to admit that what you have is semi-belief in God.

Rene 2006-05-31T13:32:55Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#36688ad1-2f3f-4f4e-bc8a-d8fa25993029 2006-05-31T07:38:40Z 2006-05-31T07:38:40Z

"Also note: "non-disbelief" is a double negative which equals a positive, meaning, at least in English that you have a belief" Incorrect. I'll try to get some time to address the rest of your posts, but "non-disbelief" just means that you don't have a disbelief. To disbelieve is to believe that something is not the case. If you have no beliefs one way or the other, then you have a non-disbelief. It's not really a double negative because "non" is not equivalent with "dis". What you're thinking of would be "non-nonbelief" which would equal a belief.

Anthony 2006-05-31T07:38:40Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#0e6d741e-e991-42d6-9e9e-1263159142ed 2006-05-31T04:30:38Z 2006-05-31T04:30:38Z

Also note: "non-disbelief" is a double negative which equals a positive, meaning, at least in English that you have a belief- which of course you true; you have a belief in the possiblilty that "God" is a viable concept. Now if you were a Russian speaker, the double negative is allowed and sometimes required for negative statements and is used to simply emphasize the negative; so we could translate something like this: absolute disbelief- if this is the proper translation congratulations, you have finally allowed reason to prevail over nonsense.

Rene 2006-05-31T04:30:38Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#804daed2-b5ee-4069-aace-76014ab91864 2006-05-31T04:21:55Z 2006-05-31T04:21:55Z

>>"Non-belief and non-disbelief. "Semi" implies a little."<< Sorry, but you cannot legitimately claim non-belief. This is what I and most atheists have. What you have is the belief that it is possible there is a God even though there appears to be no valid evidence for this concept (This is certainly a "semi-belief in the concept.) What I have in non-belief that such a concept can be a viable model without observational evidence. Yes I know semi-belief/semi-disbelief sounds bad, but really agnostic sound worse to my ear. Semi-belief/semi-disbelief is the most accurate description of your position; keep saying the words over and over and maybe you will get used to them and they won't sound so bad anymore. Better yet, give up your semi-belief and recognize that no rational person accepts the possiblilty that far-fetched, ridiculous, absurd, extaordinary concepts such as God have a near zero probability of corresponding to any realtiy, unless there is some very strong evidence supporting their validity.

Rene 2006-05-31T04:21:55Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a98284fa-af6a-4a2d-a5fa-541e6e9b068d 2006-05-30T16:52:16Z 2006-05-30T16:52:16Z

<"I forgot to tell you the second sun does not produce heat and light; it has no mass. It is a sun that produces spiritual energy- it allows for consciousness to exist, without it conscious beings cannot come into existence. No other physical effects are related to it- it cannot be observed."> Hey, I like this! Nice example Rene.

VoodooChild 2006-05-30T16:52:16Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6617a134-c6d7-4321-a40b-ef95b695e4b2 2006-05-30T16:21:14Z 2006-05-30T16:21:14Z

>>” Well, that's how science works, in the hope that some alleys explored are not so blind. Science doesn't learn about the universe by declaring "Well, none of my colleagues have provided any evidence about some proposition, so we can conclude that the proposition is probably false." They make judgements about the world by evaluating available evidence and doing experiments, not because their collagues have failed to offer evidence.”<< You appear to be totally lost here. Scientists, as you said; “make judgements about the world by evaluating available evidence and doing experiments. Without any evidence, no one would be considering the idea because the probability that it might correspond to any reality would be remotely small and they would know that they would be wasting their time. Good science begins with good observations and ends with theories that are able to explain those observations. Sometimes more deductive approaches are tried when current theories seem inadequate to explain some disparate set of data. String theory is an example of this. People have been using this deductive approach for 25 or 30 years now to try to come up with a model to explain the “particle zoo” of modern physics in a more fundamental way. Much interesting work has been done, but they are now at impasse because the math of string theory allows for many different solutions and only some observational data will allow them to choose which model or if any string model might be valid. This problem only helps to illustrate that without data it is impossible to build models that correspond to reality. Some had hoped that the math alone would provide a viable string theory; that there would be only one mathematically valid solution, but this was always forlorn hope; there will always be an infinite number of possible models and only observation can allow us to determine models that are valid. >>”Well, some things can be known for 100% certainty. Deductive proofs can be so known. I know for 100% certainty that if Jones is male and all males are mortal, then Jones is mortal.”<< When I said “nothing” can be known with 100% certainty I thought it obvious that I was referring to the models we use to explain the universe that we experience. I was not referring to 1+1=2, or logically consistent statements, such as your example, so you even bringing this up seems a bit silly. But since we are being silly; can you know with 100% certainty that Jones is male? Can you know that any entity is mortal? Not knowing either of these things with 100% certainty makes your statement that Jones is mortal highly uncertain. >>”"where" implies spatial location. I don't know if a God existed it would exist in space. And it is possible to have other dimensions.”<< You apparently have not thought very deeply about what it means to exist. I think if you do that you will discover that for existence to mean anything one must have a “where” a space to exist in. Additionally, I think existence to be meaningful must entail the concept of time, even if that time is stationary. Remember that space and time are simply concepts, just like existence. What I am saying is that the concept of existence is not meaningful without the concepts of space and time in which existence takes place. So if there is an existing God, he must exist in some space and time. So now let us discuss space and time. How can we define space? It is simply where we exist. So how can we define the limits, if any, of our space? The limits can be defined as the area where interaction can occur between any objects or entities in the space. If no interaction can occur, then one meaningfully can be said to be existing in a separate space. If any interaction can occur then it is not meaningful to say two things exist in separate spaces. Therefore, via your definition of God, i.e. all-knowing, all powerful creator; he must exist in our space, since there is interaction inferred by your definition. Knowing requires interaction, being able to exert infinite power requires interaction, and creation requires interaction. Let us talk now about this statement of yours: “You claim that God, if such existed, would leave "much" evidence but you've provided no reason why.” It seems obvious to me, but perhaps it isn’t to you that to know something about something, particularly to be “all-knowing”, you would have to observe your subject in some way. Any observation entails an interaction and any interaction should leave a trace. Also, if something is “all-powerful” is that not kind of like nuclear bombs going off all the time at a prodigious rate. Using such power should have massive, observable consequences. Even one man walking through a forest will have a ripple of consequences observable in all the animals living there, even if he fails to use his powerful rifle. Such consequences cannot be hidden. If there is an all-powerful God wandering the forest of Earth, even if he does not use his rifle he would be noticed. If he uses it, evidence would then become even more abundant. Now if he never uses it, why would we even consider that he might be all- powerful? Why give an attribute to some theoretical entity which apparently has no effect on this Earth? Now let’s talk about this: >>R:"Each and every observation that fails to uncover a given phenomena reduces the probability of that phenomena existing." A:”Not quite. First of all, the above is only true with respect to phenomena that predict that you would detect it in the manner that you are trying to detect it”<< Many faiths predict that we will detect God, if we simply pray to him. I have not been able to validate this prediction. Have you? Is this a valid observation? Perhaps you think my method of observation is faulty; perhaps I am prejudiced in my sampling. Perhaps this is true now, but certainly I was prejudiced in the other direction as I grew up attending Catholic school and praying at mass every morning. I failed to detect even the faintest whisper of God. Additionally, the effects cited as evidence of God- apparent design in the universe, men having a sense of morals and ethics etc. don’t appear to be evidence in my estimation. You suggest that having no valid evidence is no reason to disbelieve a theory. In that case it would be quite impossible to evaluate any theory. Going back to the second sun theory; I forgot to tell you the second sun does not produce heat and light; it has no mass. It is a sun that produces spiritual energy- it allows for consciousness to exist, without it conscious beings cannot come into existence. No other physical effects are related to it- it cannot be observed. Do you disbelieve in the second sun? If so, why- only because I proposed it perhaps; but it is just as good an idea as any idea of God and absence of evidence (according to you) is not evidence of absence? You should be agnostic about the second sun, even though it is an absurd, ridiculous, extraordinary idea that has almost zero probability of corresponding to reality, just like all God concepts.

Rene 2006-05-30T16:21:14Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#da4f74ad-60e3-43be-9211-8ff464012e48 2006-05-28T17:14:42Z 2006-05-28T17:14:42Z

Which fallacy would that be? Simply asserting that doesn't demonstrate anything. The fallacy you are employing is that lack of evidence cannot be taken as an indicator of the probability of a concept corresponding to any reality. Basically what you seem to believe that if one tells a big enough lie, one that no one has the means to evaluate, then it should be given credence and we should not disbelieve it. It would seem the opposite should be true- the bigger lie, the more extraordinary the claim, the more we should require valid evidence. What could possibly be a bigger lie, a more extraordinary claim than that there is some entity that is all-powerful and all-knowing that created the universe out of nothing. Usually more lies are added. The entity cares for us, has a plan for our life, will take care of us after we die (if we have faith and love him). You say; "Bayesian theory tells us that it makes no sense to necessarily assign any particular probability to a claim until there's evidence (including background assumptions) presented one way or the other." It does make sense to assign probabilities to claims when there is no evidence, but the claim of a God has many background assumptions- there is time and space outside of our time and space, omnipotence is possible, omniscience is possible, creation from nothing is possible, and more. I would dispute all of the background assumptions, and assign a near zero probability based on this. But even if they were possible without any evidence we can assign a near zero possibility to this claim or any other claim that similarly lacks evidence. Why? Because it is possible for us to imagine an infintite number of things, or concepts, but without anything to base our concept on the probability it might correspond to reality is remotely small. You can test this. Build a computer program that can generate geometric forms and build complex objects. Give it no data to base the complex objects on, other than simple geometric forms. What are the odds the program will generate any objects truly resembling anything real. I would guess they would be remotely small. Another example. We know there are elephants in Africa. What would be the odds that anyone having never seen an elephant could imagine a beast like this with no evidence. The odds are remotely small. The simple fact is that without data, without evidence it is not possible to construct any accurate picture of any possible aspect of the universe and any model we construct in this way would have a remotely small probability of corresponding to any reality. The concept of God is such a model and there is a only a remotely small probability it might correspond to any reality. As such, no rational person can fail to disbelieve it.

Rene 2006-05-28T17:14:42Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d7e22d1f-68eb-4ed2-9fc7-7fcfcdf92b66 2006-05-27T21:36:43Z 2006-05-27T21:35:45Z

"You are the one employing a fallacy." Which fallacy would that be? Simply asserting that doesn't demonstrate anything. "Any rational person would say that they do not believe in the second sun, unless some evidence for it is found. " Right. It would not be rational to believe it, but if I know nothing about atrophysics at all, it's not rational for be to disbelieve it until someone presented the evidence to me that a second sun is unlikely, which in fact it is (we'd know about it given its gravitational pull). "Without any evidence the probablity any theory might be correct is so low that disbelief is the only rational option. " No, that doesn't work. I talked to a philosophy professor friend of mine who works in probability theory and apparently Bayesian theory tells us that it makes no sense to necessarily assign any particular probability to a claim until there's evidence (including background assumptions) presented one way or the other.

Anthony 2006-05-27T21:35:45Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8845ea43-3318-4559-ac36-20fcd6fc7c65 2006-05-27T21:30:39Z 2006-05-27T21:29:30Z

Non-belief and non-disbelief. "Semi" implies a little. But I don't believe either claim (God exists or God doesn't exist) at all until I have reason to believe one or the other at all. "Does this apply to everything we might know" It applies to every claim. If there's no reason to accept a proposition as true, then I decline to believe it, but I don't disbelieve it. "one with the inabilty to know anything" Nonsense. There are plenty of things I have good reason to believe. "hoplelessly agnostic category" I think that's called a complete skeptic, but I'm not one of them. Again, there are plenty of things I think it's reasonable to believe.

Anthony 2006-05-27T21:29:30Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ab65c094-1685-48a4-beaf-e299a5c0bcf8 2006-05-27T21:26:43Z 2006-05-27T21:26:02Z

They may believe that they have empirical evidence to prove that their moral values, but they're wrong. You can't empirically prove moral values to be correct, or even probably correct. You can't get past the fact/value gap. Emprical evidence supports a posteriori factual matters. But "what is" doesn't entail "what ought to be".

Anthony 2006-05-27T21:26:02Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#93756a36-ce4b-43ac-bf29-18f50ba50446 2006-05-27T19:54:26Z 2006-05-27T19:54:26Z

>>"People reasonably believe plenty of things they can't empirically support. Moral values are an example. Political values are an example."<< I disagree. People may have bad reasons for their political or moral choices, but they look to find sound empircal reasons or believe they are following someone who has sound empirical reasons for these choices. Likewise, most people do not consider that they are believing in God with no evidence, so they are not fools. They believe there is evidence. The problem is what they take to be valid evidence and their tendency to accept the ideas of those in authority without trying to examine the evidence for themselves. But if you know there is no valid evidence for something and chose to believe it, or fail to disbelieve it, then you are a fool because the only way we can determine the validity of any idea or concept is by examining the evidence and if you give the evidence or lack of it no importance, you could literally give credence to any crazy idea, which is not an effective way to learn and grow our knowledge.

Rene 2006-05-27T19:54:26Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#f2f60d49-ac4b-4aad-b389-afbe05aaaaeb 2006-05-27T19:33:36Z 2006-05-27T19:33:36Z

>>"Declining to believe it makes you an agnostic at best."<< I think you must have meant to say "at worst". So would you call your "declining to believe" semi-belief or semi-disbelief? Also, we know you have semi-belief/semi-disbelief about God. Does this apply to everything we might know or just God concepts? If only to God- why? If to all things, then you are a true agnostic- one with the inabilty to know anything. In this case, you could not even know that you don't know anything and we could deposit you in the hoplelessly agnostic category and begin to watch as the worms begin to grow out of your brain.

Rene 2006-05-27T19:33:36Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4eca664d-3762-4b4b-9d5a-addcddaa4a72 2006-05-27T19:19:12Z 2006-05-27T19:19:12Z

>>"I'm saying that even if you claim 51% probability that God does not exist, you need evidence for that conclusion... again, you're employing the fallacy that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence"<< You are the one employing a fallacy. Let us consider the following example. Someone has a dream and imagines there is a second sun, smaller than the one we usually see that always remains hidden. This sun has not been observed (like God) and there is no observed data that requires a second sun to explain it (like God), this is simply a fanciful, imaginary concept (like God). Any rational person would say that they do not believe in the second sun, unless some evidence for it is found. The probability that this fanciful idea might be correct is directly related to the amount of valid evidence found to support the idea. If no evidence is found the probability would be extremely low and every rational person should and would disbelieve it. If some indirect, inconclusive evidence is encountered, the probability of the second sun being real would increase. Depending on how one evaluates this evidence and whether or not better theories to explain this evidence can be devised one should continue to disblieve the theory until some weight of evidence accumulates to make the theory at least plausible. Without any evidence the probablity any theory might be correct is so low that disbelief is the only rational option.

Rene 2006-05-27T19:19:12Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9de3d29e-c1fd-487e-90e9-05f6521fbdaa 2006-05-27T18:27:57Z 2006-05-27T18:27:57Z

"I am not sure that there is any significant or meaningful difference between declining to believe something and disbelieving it" Plenty. First of all, one's rationally justified and one's not. You could reverse the equation. Is there any significant difference between declining to believe the proposition "God does not exist" and disbelieving it? Of course. Disbelieving it would mean you believe that God exists. Declining to believe it makes you an agnostic at best. "First of all, let me say that I do not believe that anything can be known with 100% certainty, so if that is what you are saying, then we agree." Well, some things can be known for 100% certainty. Deductive proofs can be so known. I know for 100% certainty that if Jones is male and all males are mortal, then Jones is mortal. But I'm not saying this. I'm saying that even if you claim 51% probability that God does not exist, you need evidence for that conclusion. There's no reason why people failing to priovide evidence for God's existence justifies any probabilistic conclusion about God's existence. However, if you would expect to find God observed in some manner and attempt to observe God in that manner, failure to observe God in that manner would count as evidence of God's nonexistence. But I know of no one who has provided any foundation to set up an experiment like that. "The degree of certainty we can have about anything depends on evidence can be gathered to support the idea. " In general I agree about a posteriori matters, but certain a priori claims can be known for 100% certainty (e.g. deductive proofs) without the need for empirical evidence. "If an idea or theory has no valid evidence to support it, then the probability that it corresponds to any reality would be extremely low and we should disbelieve it." This is where we disagree. if I come up to you and claim some proposition for the first time, whether I have any evidence or not for the proposition has no bearing on the probability for the truth of the proposition. To ascertain the probability of the proposition, one would have to evaluate the available evidence. "Failure to do this can only lead one to endlessly searching down blind alleys in any effort to gain a greater understanding of the world." Well, that's how science works, in the hope that some alleys explored are not so blind. Science doesn't learn about the universe by declaring "Well, none of my colleagues have provided any evidence about some proposition, so we can conclude that the proposition is probably false." They make judgements about the world by evaluating available evidence and doing experiments, not because their collagues have failed to offer evidence. "The idea of God clearly and unequivocally fits into the category of something about which there is no valid evidence and therefore only fools believe in this idea and only those who admire fools fail to disbelieve it. " Well, the above is frankly foolish. People reasonably believe plenty of things they can't empirically support. Moral values are an example. Political values are an example. They just reflect their adoption of world views that help them make decisions, plan their lives, pursue things that are important for them, etc. That's how human beings operate, since the idea of a purely logical machine making choices is absurd. You can engage in vacuous ad hominems by calling them "fools" if that makes you feel good about yourself, but it's human nature to embrace ways of viewing the world that aren't empirically demonstrable, and I'm certain you do it as well. And furthermore, your last clause is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that if someone believes something without support, it's foolish to disbelieve what they believe. At best, it may be as foolish to believe what they believe, but again, you're employing the fallacy that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That's basically the appeal to ignorance fallacy, and we've gone over that repeatedly.

Anthony 2006-05-27T18:27:57Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#1d41b9e9-05ef-4c86-b356-66865a8f6da7 2006-05-27T16:40:54Z 2006-05-27T16:40:54Z

I thought your post was perfect and pretty much agree with most of what you said. Thanks for the stimulating ideas.

Rene 2006-05-27T16:40:54Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#faa49e97-0f3a-41b9-a5c2-1316a9bf8d50 2006-05-27T16:37:16Z 2006-05-27T16:37:16Z

>>”Reason requires that until we have evidence or reason for something, we should decline to believe it, not disbelieve it.”<< I am not sure that there is any significant or meaningful difference between declining to believe something and disbelieving it- any action or decision you might make is going to be the same. This is part of the reason the agnostic position seems absurd to me, but clearly this distinction means something to you and it is really the major point of contention between our positions. First of all, let me say that I do not believe that anything can be known with 100% certainty, so if that is what you are saying, then we agree. However many things can be known with a high degree of certainty and I am quite willing to say that I believe in things that can be known with a high degree of certainty and disbelieve those with extremely low degrees certainty. The degree of certainty we can have about anything depends on evidence can be gathered to support the idea. If an idea or theory has no valid evidence to support it, then the probability that it corresponds to any reality would be extremely low and we should disbelieve it. Failure to do this can only lead one to endlessly searching down blind alleys in any effort to gain a greater understanding of the world. The idea of God clearly and unequivocally fits into the category of something about which there is no valid evidence and therefore only fools believe in this idea and only those who admire fools fail to disbelieve it. There are some ideas which might have little evidence to support them, but they explain something about the world which has no other explanation, so we can hold them in the possible category; waiting for supporting data. As an example, you would not have been a fool to postulate a wind god to explain the actions of the wind, lacking any other theory to explain what you observed. Now we understand what causes wind and only a fool would not disbelieve in wind gods. This is of course how all the ideas about gods and God came about. It appears that all these theories have lost their reason to exist in the first place. They are not needed to explain anything and there is no evidence they correspond to anything real. This is why we should disbelieve in gods or God. Religious people understand this. That is why they have turned to “intelligent design” as a “scientific theory”. They want to claim there is something we don’t have an explanation for so that their faith in God can appear rational. Otherwise it is not rational to accept any idea or theory without valid evidence that is not needed to explain anything about the world, contrary to what you stated.

Rene 2006-05-27T16:37:16Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#1da7ce61-524f-4a61-a7b8-3467379f0a58 2006-05-26T06:06:41Z 2006-05-26T06:06:41Z

Wow. It's going to be some time when I can take the time to go through all that in detail.

Anthony 2006-05-26T06:06:41Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b0de0913-12ce-48ff-b819-d00bab587d0d 2006-05-26T05:48:51Z 2006-05-26T05:48:51Z

Sorry for the ridiculously long post. I'm can never tell if I'm overexplaining or underexplaining things.

VoodooChild 2006-05-26T05:48:51Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9b318742-054f-49b6-a01c-fa58596daeee 2006-05-26T05:46:15Z 2006-05-26T05:46:15Z

Anthony, your way of using the term “evidence” makes sense to me, and I don’t find any problem with it, or with your conclusion that within this conceptual economy, we can never infer anything from a lack of evidence. That seems reasonable enough to me. At the same time, I still don’t see how my view of treating evidence something like “processed sense data confirming a hypothesis” leads to any sort of incoherence. <”If you're reporting your experiences, you're reporting actual evidence, not lack of evidence, even if it's a report of failure to see something.”> This does not seem to apply well to cases like the extraterrestrial example. Experts may report their experiences of looking through telescopes, etc. and still say “we have no evidence yet,” though in this case people, including “the experts” typically think that having no evidence does not refute the hypothesis. <”If a doctor says that if you have X disease, then we should see Y come up on test Z. If he then fails to see Y come up on Z test, that's not an absence of evidence. That disconfirming event is positive evidence against disease X, since it's falsifying evidence.”> I think this example works well for your concept of evidence, but I don’t think it rules out mine. Think of it this way: Y fails to come up on test Z, so we have no evidence of the presence of the disease in a case where we think we really ought to have evidence if the disease had infected the person. This absence of evidence constitutes a “reason” for thinking the test subject does not have the disease. So I don’t treat “evidence” and “a reason” as synonymous. I think of evidence as a relatively narrow concept and “a reason” as a fairly broad concept. In this semantic grid, if a hypothesis predicts evidence under certain conditions and no evidence gets observed, then we have a reason to think we have a defective hypothesis. So I still think our disagreement revolves around semantics. Going back to anthropomorphizing and thinking of God as a model generated by a nervous system- <”That human beings tend to do what you subsequently describe doesn't count as evidence in a particular case that human beings are doing that. For one thing, that we tend to do that may be inculcated in our design by a God.>” Okay, I can appreciate the abstract possibility that God has designed the world so that we anthropomorphize lots of things, including Him. If we use something like “absolute 100% certainty” as our gold standard, we can probably never disprove this. Similarly, we can never absolutely disprove the hypothesis that the universe got created 5 minutes ago, with memories implanted into all sentient beings. Or the hypothesis that Satan created the world and the Christian religion began as a propaganda campaign by YHVH and his angels to brainwash mankind. Or the possibility that our brains sit in a cosmic vat being fed sense data by a super computer. The sentential true/false logic game leads to many stalemates because we can always imagine ways that our perception can get tricked. The universe doesn’t usually find it difficult to trick a 3lb slab of electric meat. But we don’t have to play by these game rules. Replace this medieval language game with one based on modern brain software like cognitive science, AI, neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, etc., and now we have a new take on an old problem. If we start with the idea of a nervous system making models (theories, conceptual schemas, pick your favorite metaphor) of its experience, then we can ask what kinds of cognition the brain does well at, how it draws conclusions from ambiguous data, what kinds of tasks it routinely fails at, and what biases lurk in the software. We can tell quite a bit by modeling parallel processors (neural nets). These models make many things plain as day, for example why the brain naturally does well at recognizing the same face at different angles but performs heinously at long arithmatic, and why we have trouble adapting to new anomalous data once we have formed a set of prototypes to understand our experience. In this game, like in science, we may not find absolute 100% certainties, but we may get a better sense of how much trust to put in our ideas. Trends in the cross-cultural history of human thought suggest to me that that humans tend to anthropomorphize that which we don’t understand. We can think of this as a bias in the way we model the world. Several scientific disciplines began with supernatural anthropomorphic models to explain our experience (gods controlling the weather, planets being pushed by angels), but over time the anthropomorphic parts got taken out because they added nothing to the predictive power of the theory. So when we make a supernatural anthropomorphic model to understand our experience, we need to bear in mind that these models have an abysmal track record in the history of ideas and probably reflect a quirk in the brain’s software rather than the nature of the outside world – especially if the model has no (or few) points of contact with the outside world and therefore cannot be improved by systematic observation and experimentation. We agree (but Rene doesn’t) that God models do not necessarily have clear points of contact with the world of observation. But this should make us even more critical of them because we know from our historical track record that we build miserably inadequate models when we do not have the means to test them by systematic experimentation. Without this process we could not have gotten from phrenology to modern neuroscience. Theology has spun wild ideas, squared circles, and played some interesting language games, but has not found a way to enter a theory/observation feedback loop with the environment and improve its models. Consequently I see little reason to think it amounts to anything more than the old familiar anthropomorphic bias built into our brain software. As I mentioned in my last post, I don’t consider this a definitive “proof” of the non-existence of God, but I think it casts grave doubt on the value of the God model. And I sometimes wonder if the desire for absolute irrefutable 100% certainty in matters of the outside world amounts to a hangover from medieval thinking.

VoodooChild 2006-05-26T05:46:15Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#cc1a20fa-9da2-407b-bfe0-592dba2db9be 2006-05-25T18:50:31Z 2006-05-25T18:50:31Z

"Your entire argument is based on a series of entirely meaningless and absurd concepts. " I am underwhelmed by the logical force of your unsupported personal authority. "First, a being outside of the physical universe: Where would this be exactly?" "where" implies spatial location. I don't know if a God existed it would exist in space. And it is possible to have other dimensions. "Oh it would consist of nothing, since it is not physical" That makes the question begging assumption that the physical represents everything that's real. "The entire concept is simply absurd. " Only if you employ the questrion begging reasoning you just employed: "The physical is the only thing that's real. God by hypothesis isn't physical, and hence isn't real." "Now the entity that consists of nothing" More question begging, since you're assuming that a God would consist of nothing, which basically means it doesn't exist. If it existed, it obviously wouldn't consist of nothing. So you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Question begging. "but leaves no trace because he does want anyone to know he exists and he is omnipotent and omniscient by definition. " I never suggested it wouldn't want to know. I have no idea. I don't make any assumptions about what such a being would want to do. You're the one making the unsupported assumption that it would want to leave empirical evidentiary traces of itself. "Can something exist and have no limits? Can one thing be all things?" I already addressed this Rene. Try addressing the arguments brought against your points rather than doing the Chopper maneuver of just ignoring counter-arguments and repeating yourself. The idea that God 's power is unlimited does not mean that God is unlimited in what he/she/it is. No one other than pantheists claims that. You're attacking a straw man. "This concept is simply absurd and ridiculous." Only the straw man you've constructed. "I suggest that the fact of existence requires time and space" Well, your "suggestion" is hardly a proof. I suggest that there was a singularity that exited "prior" to the creatrion of space and time that followed the Big Bang, and most physicists apparently agree with this. So obviously some things can exist outside of the spatio-temporal menifold that we are presently familiar. "Omniscience is similarly a meaningless, absurd concept, for the same basic reasons stated above for omnipotence, as it really is a subset of omnipotence, but there is another issue we can address here." So you're employing the same fallacious argument for omniscience? If God's knowledge is limitless, then God must be all things? That was an absurd inference when dealing with omnipotence, and it's even more absurd when dealing with omniscience. "To be able to store all knowledge about the universe would we require something exponentially bigger than the universe in which to store it." This is wrong for several reasons. A. To have all knowledge of every fact of the universe doesn't necessitate storage larger than the universe. You can pack all the information contained in books in a major library in one good computer. That doesn't mean that the computer has to be larger than the library. B. Even if God (assuming it existed) was bigger than the physical universe. So what? Why is that impossible? C. You're once again assuming that an existing God would have to be located in space. "Additionally, storing it would not actually give you this knowledge; you would still need to be able to access it. There is no imaginable way it could be accessed as needed." What?! Says who? You can't imagine it so it must be impossible? Where's your logical proof that this is logically impossible, since if you can't demonstrate that it's logically impossible, then obviously an omnipotent being could conceivably do it. "Basically the entire idea is simply absurd and ridiculous." Again, repeating this kind of rhetoric is vacuous and adds nothing to the discussion, other than demonstrating your strong emotional committment to your beliefs. "Go into space- most of it is vaccum. Take some of the vaccum and add it to some more vaccum and see what you get." I suggest you study something about quantum physics to learn about the possibuiloity of things coming into existence out of nothing. And once again if an omnipotent creator being is added to the equation, then obviously the universe wouldn't be completely coming from nothing. "The observations of billions of people over millions of years don’t count as evidence because, Anthony has defined God as something these people would not have observed." Once again you're putting words in my mouth. Please pay closer attention to the arguments you are addressing. I guess the billions of people who have never seen oxygen counts as evidence against the existence of that wacky idea. "Reason requires that until there is evidence for something, we should disbelieve it." Actually, that's fallacious. Reason requires that until we have evidence or reason for something, we should decline to believe it, not disbelieve it.

Anthony 2006-05-25T18:50:31Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b6501431-0c39-4039-8cc7-7f1e86a90709 2006-05-25T15:13:46Z 2006-05-25T15:13:46Z

>>"I've only assumed predicates of the standard western definition of God: Creator of the physical universe and hence fundamentally different than the physical universe, omnipotent, and omniscient."<< Your entire argument is based on a series of entirely meaningless and absurd concepts. First, a being outside of the physical universe: Where would this be exactly? What would it consist of? Oh it would consist of nothing, since it is not physical, so then it is nothing, but it is something, but to be something, you must consist of something. The entire concept is simply absurd. Now the entity that consists of nothing creates something out of nothing 0+0 = infinity, but leaves no trace because he does want anyone to know he exists and he is omnipotent and omniscient by definition. Why would he do all this work and chose to leave no trace? (Duh… don’t know, just because). And now the religious claim this entity wants us to love and worship him, even though he does not want to allow us to observe his presence (according to Anthony). Does this make sense to you? Is omnipotence even a meaningful concept? The real question here is; can something exist and have no limits? Can one thing be all things? This concept is simply absurd and ridiculous. I suggest that the fact of existence requires time and space in which to exist and existence in time and space necessarily limits what you might be able to do. Existence outside of time and space is not really even a meaningful idea. Omniscience is similarly a meaningless, absurd concept, for the same basic reasons stated above for omnipotence, as it really is a subset of omnipotence, but there is another issue we can address here. Knowledge is simply information i.e. data. To have all knowledge would mean you would have to store it somewhere. To be able to store all knowledge about the universe would we require something exponentially bigger than the universe in which to store it. Additionally, storing it would not actually give you this knowledge; you would still need to be able to access it. There is no imaginable way it could be accessed as needed. Basically the entire idea is simply absurd and ridiculous. So here we have a series of absurd and ridiculous concepts: existence outside of the physical universe, omniscience, omnipotence and these add up to God, a concept Anthony, the agnostic feels should be given credence, since it cannot be disproved, even though every one of the concepts individually are square circles-meaningless concepts. Also, of course, the usual reason for postulating God; to create the universe is similarly absurd- nothing cannot come from something. This is obvious, but the rational Anthony wants “proof”. I suggest this experiment. Go into space- most of it is vaccum. Take some of the vaccum and add it to some more vaccum and see what you get. It would be obvious to most people what you would get, but apparently Anthony needs proof that what you would have is vaccum. I think I can save you some money. It will be vaccum. There is absolutely no doubt about this. Similarly, Anthony wants “evidence” for the non-existence of God before he will disbelieve it. The observations of billions of people over millions of years don’t count as evidence because, Anthony has defined God as something these people would not have observed. Is this rational, as he likes to think? No, not at all- Reason requires that until there is evidence for something, we should disbelieve it. We can think up all kinds of extraordinary things- many of them beyond our observational reach. The chances that any of them might exist are so small, that they can be taken as zero. The idea of God certainly fits into this category and anyone who gives any credence to this concept is not using reason to come to this conclusion

Rene 2006-05-25T15:13:46Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#dd5d993d-1a38-43e0-b87d-34c20e07158b 2006-05-25T06:43:33Z 2006-05-25T06:43:33Z

"It is quite impossible for something to come from nothing." You just asserting so doesn't make it true. "it is obvious and needs no proof." Well, that's one way to dodge one's burden of proof. OK, I can play the same game. You're obviously wrong and that needs no proof. Wow. Easy. Come on. Back up your claims if you can. If you can't, blowing smoke impresses no one. But having said that, the hypothesis is not that the universe came from nothing. It's that it came from an omnipotent being. That's most certainly not "nothing". "You continue to spin in your circle, asserting that can be no evidence for the non-existence of God, because you have chosen to define God as something for which there can be no evidence." Again, I said no such thing. But if the concept of God involves being omnipotent and omniscient, if such a being existed, the only evidence one would find of it is precisely the evidence such a being would want you to find, since it would be fully aware of any evidence it leaves behind and would have the power to act in a way that leaves no evidence. I notice that you've made no effort to try to refute that argument. And declaring that I'm spinning in a circle is just vacuous rhetoric, impresses no one, and can hardly be considered an argument. "No religious person believes this or really defines God in this way. If they did, they would not believe in God. " Nothing I've asserted is in any way inconsistent with standard ways of defining God (i.e. omniscient and omnipotent). You've just repeated your article of faith that if such a being existed, he/she/it would leave evidence that you would find satisfactory, but you've never demonstrated why anyone should assume that. Talk about spinning in circles. "They think there is abundant evidence." Nonsense. Many do, but not all religious folks are evidentialists. Many just take it on faith. "For some inexplicable reason, you want to give credence to their ideas" I'm not giving any credence to anyone's ideas. But if someone makes an ill supported and unsound argument, like you have, I'll point that out. If someone can make a sound argument against the likelihood of God, I'm all ears, but you haven't done so. Burden of proof is on the claimant, and you haven't satisfied your burden. "postulating a God completely different than they the one they believe in" You keep repeating this but it's still nonsense. Again, I've only assumed predicates of the standard western definition of God: Creator of the physical universe and hence fundamentally different than the physical universe, omnipotent, and omniscient. The vast majority of western theologians, not to mention lay believers, would have no problems with those predicates. My argument simply followed the implications of those predicates. As I mentioned before and inexplicably you don't seem to understand, the fundamental problem in our dispute is your assumption that this purportedly nonphysical, omnipotent, omnisicent being will necessarily leave lots of evidence of his/her/its interactions with the physical universe. This is an assumption that you just repeatedly make but offer nothing to support. Apparently you have your blind faith as well. "The simple fact is this God you have invented is not one any of these religious people would care to worship" I'm sorry, but this suggestion is laughable. There is nothing about being worthy of worship that requires that such a being leave elephant like empirical evidence of its existence. "The concept of God is the most extraordinary, absurd, ridiculous, crazy idea ever conjured up by the human imagination." Well, you just saying so, no matter how earnestly or emphatically, does not constitute an argument. It's as persuastive as a staunch religionist insisting without evidence or argument that obviously God exists and anyone denying so is a fool. I'm not persuaded by emotional emphasis from either such religionists or you. I'm only impressed by sound reasoning.

Anthony 2006-05-25T06:43:33Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a90bfd7d-82f0-440f-8c81-227e833d33ea 2006-05-25T04:28:17Z 2006-05-25T04:28:17Z

>>"If "God" is meant to refer to the creator of the physical universe, then if it turns out that the physical universe always existed and hence never was created, then that would seem to count as evidence against the God hypothesis."<< It is quite impossible for something to come from nothing. Since the universe exists, it has always existed and was never created. Now you will make up some reason to deny this fact, but it is obvious and needs no proof. The idea of creation is equivalent to having having a square circle. You seem to like math, so here is your proof: 0+0 =0 (always and forever with no exceptions) You continue to spin in your circle, asserting that can be no evidence for the non-existence of God, because you have chosen to define God as something for which there can be no evidence. No religious person believes this or really defines God in this way. If they did, they would not believe in God. They think there is abundant evidence. I think all of their evidence is bogus and thus the ideas emerging from this bogus evidence are bogus. For some inexplicable reason, you want to give credence to their ideas, by postulating a God completely different than they the one they believe in, one which you feel cannot be disproven. The simple fact is this God you have invented is not one any of these religious people would care to worship, so your invention of this God cannot save their beliefs for them or for you. I think that I have probably already said this before but it bears repeating. The concept of God is the most extraordinary, absurd, ridiculous, crazy idea ever conjured up by the human imagination. We routinely dismiss extraordinary ideas such as this unless there is some evidence to suggest that they might have some merit. No such evidence exists for the concept of God and the idea should be dismissed by any reasonable person.

Rene 2006-05-25T04:28:17Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#dbcec95c-05f9-4b03-a9e2-5592538ed4c9 2006-05-24T07:24:25Z 2006-05-24T07:24:25Z

"if it does not have limits, then it is everything which is really the same as being nothing (think about it)." By the way, here is a simple proof of why the above is wrong. The set of odd numbers is infinite. In that sense it has no limits (at least sixe limits). But it doesn't follow that since it has no limits in that sense, then therefore that set must include the set of even numbers as well. A set (such as the set composed of God's hypothetical powers) can be infinite without engulfing every other set. Now one might be tempted to respond that the set of odd numbers is limited in what kinds of numbers are within it. But that's a way of saying that though the set of odd numbers is infinite, it's not unlimited in a way that includes even numbers. Similarly, no one to my knowledge refers to God's hypothetical limitlessness in a way to mean that God is everything, or unlimited in what God is. His limitlessness is restricted to certain delimited sets, such as the set of odd numbers is limited in its infinity to a certain delimited kind of number. Namely in the case of God, his powers are limitless in the types of activities God can do. His all-goodness is limitless in the ways he can be good. etc.

Anthony 2006-05-24T07:24:25Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#bb64c46a-e041-40a6-aa07-e91a847f781e 2006-05-24T07:09:16Z 2006-05-24T07:09:16Z

"Your entire argument is actually quite circular. You choose to define God as something or someone who sits in a position where no evidence is possible to disprove its existence, then of course, there can be no evidence for its non-existence because that is how you have defined God." That's not circular since it doesn't assume anything it's trying to prove, which is what circularity is. The concept of God may in fact be something that is unfalsifiable. Some claims are unfalsifiable. There's nothing circular about that fact. The proposition "When I die, I will remain conscious" seems unfalsifiable to me, since in order to falsify it to me I would have to lose consciousness when I die. But if I'm not conscious, then nothing can be falsified to me, since I wouldn't be aware of falsifying evidence. Having said that, I didn't define God is a way that's unfalsifiable. It's always possible to falsify a proposition by demonstrating that it's self-contradictory. That seems to me the only way to prove that God cannot exist, in that it is self-contradictory. I'm not aware however of any successful attempt to prove this. "Anything that exists and interacts with our world must leave a trace." Why? Your raw assertion of this does not constitute evidence nor argument for the truth of such an assumption. Again, if that something that exists is omniscient and omnipotent then the only way it's going to be leaving a trace is if it's consciously doing so and also has the power to refrain from doing so, being omnipotent. "Next you will try to claim he is omnipotent, so he can hide all his traces. This is ridiculous. Why would he hide from we puny humans?" That assumes he leaves traces in the first place that he might want to hide. Again, if he's omniscient and omnipotent, then any traces he leaves behind are precisely what he would want to leave behind, since he would have complete control over whatever he's doing. And merely declaring "That's ridiculous" is neither an argument nor does it demonstrate why an omnipotent, omniscient being would have to leave behind any traces at all. Our being "puny" proves nothing. Do you know what the attuitudes of such a being would be regarding humans? How could you know? "Also, the idea of omnipotence is absurd. If something exists it must have limits, if it does not have limits, then it is everything which is really the same as being nothing (think about it)." Well, I've thought about it and your argument makes no sense. Being omnipotent means being able to do anything. It does not follow from being able to do anyything that such a being would be everything. I have no idea how you could make such an inference. And I see no reason why if something exists it must have limits on its power, though if a god was discovered and it turned out that such a being's powers were virtually infinite rather than literally infinite , such a being could still be reasonably called a God. A being that could make and design our physical universe would be so incredibly powerful that I would call that virtually omnipotent, even if not literally so. "On top of all this, most people do not chose to define God as the great hide and seek player, they define him, as already discussed, as an elephant in their lives- the most important thing." Importance doesn't necessarily mean it's going to have elephant like empirical reactions with our environment and leave evidentiary traces. One thing doesn't follow from the other. "Clearly, it is reasonable to assume that something this big and important would leave some traces and yet there are none. " I don't see why, and you haven't presented any reason for assuming this. But one can point to some effects which may exist if a God existed. The believers' beliefs in God. Religious history if any of their claims of the miraculous are true. Surely many claims of the miraculous have been disproven, but the fundamental ones of the world's major religions haven't been, to my knowledge. For those religions based on miraculous claims that have subsequentkly been shown to be probably false, then that constitutes evidence against those religions, but not necessarily God him/her/itself. "Exactly, as not finding evidence for the elephant in the garage is evidence that it does not exist, not finding any real evidence for a God, where much evidence should be expected" You really just keep repeating your assumption that a God, if it existed, would leave elephant like evidentiary traces of its existence. You need to demonstrate why, and you have yet to do so. You claim that God, if such existed, would leave "much" evidence but you've provided no reason why. "To define God as something for which no evidence can exist is really just a dodge, which cannot be justified. " Whether you consider it a dodge is not relevant, since it's possible that some entities are in fact unverifiable or unfalsifiable. It's the height of anthropomorphism to assume that we "puny" humans are just so lucky to be endowed by evolution with complete senses that can discover everything that's real in the universe. "According to them, all we need to do is open our hearts to Jesus-God and he will fill them." For a lot of people, that's precisely what they say they experience. Whether that's actually God or something else in any particular case I don't know. "Our Muslim friends do not define God this way- they bow to Mecca and submit to his will, praying to Allah every day." And they believe that everything that happens is God's will, so for them EVERYTHING is indicative of God's existence, and I know of no way to prove them wrong. "Why do you chose to define God in this way just to preserve the God these people believe in as a viable possibility?" Though the deists did in fact define God in such a way as to eliminate any ongoing divine interaction with the world, I don't know if I'm defining God in any way that's inconsistent with Jews, Muslims or Christians. The concept of God can very well assume that God is constantly interactive with the world and with human beings. The key is that you make the additional assumption that if God is so interractive, he would leave evidentiary traces akin to an elephant leaving evidentiary traces. You haven't demonstrated any reason to assume that, other than your raw, unsupported assertion that anything that exists leaves evidentiary traces. "Why not follow what all your senses and brain tell and assume that since there is no evidence for it; there is no God? It is time to grow up. Recognize a story for what it is- a story and nothing else" This last part is just vacious rhetoric and hardly counts as evidence or argument. Your emotional commitment to your beliefs counts as no more evidence than a religionist asserting his certainty that God exists.

Anthony 2006-05-24T07:09:16Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#524f7951-9e70-4197-a461-2ac9dcc41acb 2006-05-24T06:35:58Z 2006-05-24T06:35:58Z

"I was thinking of evidence for a hypothesis as a piece of experiential data that confirms the hypothesis, like seeing an elephant, smelling a fat elephant turd, etc. If we observe none of these then we have no evidence. We presume that if an elephant inhabited our garage we would find some evidence, and since we don't, we take that lack of evidence as evidence of an absence." If you're reporting your experiences, you're reporting actual evidence, not lack of evidence, even if it's a report of failure to see something. If a doctor says that if you have X disease, then we should see Y come up on test Z. If he then fails to see Y come up on Z test, that's not an absence of evidence. That disconfirming event is positive evidence against disease X, since it's falsifying evidence.. This isn't just semantic because failure to observe something only counts as evidence against a hypothesis if the hypothesis predicts that a particular observation would be observed. If someone claimed "God exists" and never provided any evidence of anything, the fact that he doesn't provide evidence of anything is not evidence of anything regarding the truth of his claim. "I think you should still agree with the point that we evaluate the God question differently than we evaluate the elephant question or the aliens question." I absolutrely agree. Since we know what the nature of an elephant is and know what kinds of evidence an elephant leaves, we can make predictions of what to expect if someone claims an elephant in the garage. I don't know if there's anything we know of the God concept which would lead us to believe that we should experience any kind of evidence. I suspect we should predict a couple of things. If "God" is meant to refer to the creator of the physical universe, then if it turns out that the physical universe always existed and hence never was created, then that would seem to count as evidence against the God hypothesis. Certain religions make historical claims that may, if disproven, count against the truth of their religions. For example, if historical evidence comes up demonstrating that Muhammed was a fraud who admitted to making up everything he claimed to fool the people, then that would count against Islam. Or if the remains of Jesus of Nazareth were definitively found and hence he didn't rise from the dead, that would count against the Christian religion. "Consider the human psychological tendency to anthropomorphize that which we do not understand, or the tendency of primitive tribes to embrace animistic belief systems" That human beings tend to do what you subsequently describe doesn't count as evidence in a particular case that human beings are doing that. For one thing, that we tend to do that may be inculcated in our design by a God. "Given all this, how likely does it seem that folk theology - a discipline far more isolated from direct evidence and systematic observation than any of the examples cited above - created an accurate model of its invisible domain while all these other folk theories contained glaring inaccuracies, even in their bedrock assumptions?" Well, as I mentioned in another post, if there's an omniscient, superintelligent, omnipotent being that wanted us to believe certain things, then the chances of us believing those things are 100%. Does such a being exist? I have no idea, and I know of no way to determine whether such a thing exists or not.

Anthony 2006-05-24T06:35:58Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9ace400b-0616-4b8e-91dc-d4aec5fe573e 2006-05-24T05:32:33Z 2006-05-24T05:32:33Z

Anthony, you make some good points. I think our disagreement is mostly semantic. <"If someone just claimed "There is an elephant in the garage" but offered no evidence, that would not constitute evidence that there is no elephant in the garage. What would constitute evidence is walking into the garage and looking around, (as well as the background evidence that elephants aren't likely to be found in people's garages). When you look around and see nothing, that's positive evidence that there is no elephant, since the hypothesis "there is an elephant in the garage" entails the prediction that if you walk into the garage and look around, you will see it, since elephants are large enough to be seen."> I was thinking of evidence for a hypothesis as a piece of experiential data that confirms the hypothesis, like seeing an elephant, smelling a fat elephant turd, etc. If we observe none of these then we have no evidence. We presume that if an elephant inhabited our garage we would find some evidence, and since we don't, we take that lack of evidence as evidence of an absence. Or we wonder if the person who told us this meant one of those little crystal elephants that lady folk love to collect. <"I don't know of any case where absence of evidence is evidence of absence, since if there is a complete lack of evidence, nothing can be inferred from that. "> This gets into the issue of what kind of evidence we expect and the standard of justification we use seems to vary between different kinds of claims. The elephant in the garage question gets answered by a different sort of operation than the intelligent life in space question, so it makes sense to evaluate them differently. One involves walking into a room and looking around for probably 5 seconds, the other involves spending millions of dollars to send probes into space, blast radio waves out of the atmosphere, look through telescopes, and could go on indefinitely without a firm answer. And the God question seems far more nebulous and ill-defined than either of these examples. We could argue forever about what kinds of evidence we would expect to have if God did exist (though it's worth noting that the gods of some religions seem difficult to reconcile with the world we live in) So even if you don't agree with the way I use the word "evidence" I think you should still agree with the point that we evaluate the God question differently than we evaluate the elephant question or the aliens question. Putting my atheist hat on for a moment I can think of one argument against God that actually strikes me as quite reasonable. Consider the human psychological tendency to anthropomorphize that which we do not understand, or the tendency of primitive tribes to embrace animistic belief systems. Viewing the brain as a builder of models, I think an argument could be made for treating ideas of God(s) as bad models - folk theories – pre-scientific models of the world created by early humans noticing patterns in things, but not having the luxury of rigorous experimentation and easy manipulation of variables. Folk astronomy postulated that the earth sat in the center of the universe, folk geology held that the earth was flat, folk biologists believed that species were created "as is," folk meteorology used the emotional states of deities to explain the unpredictable changes in weather. Now it even looks like folk psychology may rest on profound mistakes. Given all this, how likely does it seem that folk theology - a discipline far more isolated from direct evidence and systematic observation than any of the examples cited above - created an accurate model of its invisible domain while all these other folk theories contained glaring inaccuracies, even in their bedrock assumptions? Physics, biology, psychology and the other scientific disciplines can engage in a feedback loop with the environment to continually revise and improve their models, and get rid of bogus "intuitive" assumptions. But can theology do this? I have trouble seeing how. Can experience correct the errors of bad theology? It doesn't seem so. So theology remains to this day a folk theory, unruffled and unimproved by the darwinian struggle we see in the empirical sciences, and therefore a theory that we have little reason to take seriously, and one that we should suspect of arising from our natural tendency to anthropomorphize what we do not understand. This may not "prove" that God doesn't exist, but then does it need to? Do we need a black and white answer?

VoodooChild 2006-05-24T05:32:33Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9a5762d9-c66a-4076-a8cb-aac84f14c307 2006-05-24T04:40:02Z 2006-05-24T04:40:02Z

>>"By the way, it even seems contradictory to assert that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence"<< Not really, but I think this has already been explained quite well enough, so I chose not to address this directly. Instead let us try another tack. Your entire argument is actually quite circular. You choose to define God as something or someone who sits in a position where no evidence is possible to disprove its existence, then of course, there can be no evidence for its non-existence because that is how you have defined God. I suggest to begin with that this premise is false. Anything that exists and interacts with our world must leave a trace. Therefore, a being such as the one you have chosen to define as God is impossible. Next you will try to claim he is omnipotent, so he can hide all his traces. This is ridiculous. Why would he hide from we puny humans? Also, the idea of omnipotence is absurd. If something exists it must have limits, if it does not have limits, then it is everything which is really the same as being nothing (think about it). On top of all this, most people do not chose to define God as the great hide and seek player, they define him, as already discussed, as an elephant in their lives- the most important thing. Clearly, it is reasonable to assume that something this big and important would leave some traces and yet there are none. Exactly, as not finding evidence for the elephant in the garage is evidence that it does not exist, not finding any real evidence for a God, where much evidence should be expected, is evidence for its non-existence- just as you described yourself for the case of the elephant. To define God as something for which no evidence can exist is really just a dodge, which cannot be justified. Our Christian friends do not define God this way. According to them, all we need to do is open our hearts to Jesus-God and he will fill them. Our Muslim friends do not define God this way- they bow to Mecca and submit to his will, praying to Allah every day. Zeus and the other Greek gods were not defined this way- the stories had them interacting constantly in the lives of men. Why do you chose to define God in this way just to preserve the God these people believe in as a viable possibility? Why not follow what all your senses and brain tell and assume that since there is no evidence for it; there is no God? It is time to grow up. Recognize a story for what it is- a story and nothing else.

Rene 2006-05-24T04:40:02Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b60669c2-224f-43b5-ba05-e9379a2c64f9 2006-05-24T00:29:22Z 2006-05-24T00:29:22Z

By the way, it even seems contradictopry to assert that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there's a complete lack of evidence, then how can that lack of evidence amount to evidence of anything? "Absence of evidence" means there's no evidence. if there's no evidence, then it can't be some evidence.

Anthony 2006-05-24T00:29:22Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#3dd04558-d039-4dd4-856c-7b5240280bec 2006-05-24T00:16:56Z 2006-05-24T00:16:56Z

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence- it is simply not definitive." No it's not. You can't make inductive judgments from an absence of evidence. You have to have evidence with which to make judgments. "Each and every observation that fails to uncover a given phenomena reduces the probability of that phenomena existing." Not quite. First of all, the above is only true with respect to phenomena that predict that you would detect it in the manner that you are trying to detect it. Every time I look into the sky, or my room, or anywhere on earth, I do not see oxygen, yet that doesn't mean that every time I fail to see oxygen reduces the probability of oxygen existing, since oxygen isn't visible. Not seeing oxygen would only be disconfirming evidence of the existence of oxygen if the existence of oxygen entailed the prediction that i would see it if I looked. But it doesn't, because the nature of oxygen is such as to be invisible if it existed. Second, observations that are used to disconfirm the existence of something looked for do not constitute "absence of evidence." That is positive evidence. If your hypothesis predicts that you will see something if you look, you then look and don't see what was predicted, then that is positive evidence disconfirming the hypothesis. It's not "absence of evidence." Once you start looking for evidence to confirm or falsify a hypothesis that predicts that you would discover something (e.g. see the elephant) if your hypothesis is true, you're collecting evidence. That's the opposite of "absence of evidence." "They seem to refer to an entity intimately involved in their lives, concerned with their well being- a loving creator, who will take them into his bosom when they die. It seems to me, based on this description there ought to be elephant/God footprints and elephant/God excrement all over our little garage." That doesn't follow, since the hypothesis "There is a being that loves me and will have a relationship with me after I die" doesn't entail, inductively or deductively, that such a being would leave footprints, particularly when the being is considered to be radically different than any physical being we come across, particularly since the hypothesized God is purported to be the ultimate creator of physical things. I simply don't see any reason for your assumption here about what kind of evidence such a God would be expected to leave. In fact, since the proposed God is omniscient and omnipotent, then such a being would be completely aware of what kind of self-indicating evidence he/she/it leaves, and would have the complete power (presumably) to control whether he/she/it leaves any evidence or not. Hence, the only way I can imagine such a being leaving any evidence at all is if he/she/it intended to do so, and I see no reason to assume or believe that such a being would likely intentionally leave the kind of evidence you would like to discover. "Well maybe there is, but in that case, what difference would it make to anyone?" It would make a load of difference if it existed and controlled our eternal destiny. "Now if I had never been to Africa, never heard of or seen an elephant and I started imaging the beasts that might live in Africa, what would be the odds that I could imagine this beast accurately without any data or information?" Now, if the elephant was sentient, omniscient and omnipotent and wanted you to have information about him/her/it, then the chances of you having the information that such an elephant would want you to have would be 100%.

Anthony 2006-05-24T00:16:56Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e0272072-59ca-4760-bc2d-7e3e0e7c097a 2006-05-23T23:57:54Z 2006-05-23T23:57:09Z

"We can think of cases where it does, like the elephant in the garage." Actually I disagree. Even the elephant in the garage case is not absence of evidence being evidence of absence. If someone just claimed "There is an elephant in the garage" but offered no evidence, that would not constitute evidence that there is no elephant in the garage. What would constitute evidence is walking into the garage and looking around, (as well as the background evidence that elephants aren't likely to be found in people's garages). When you look around and see nothing, that's positive evidence that there is no elephant, since the hypothesis "there is an elephant in the garage" entails the prediction that if you walk into the garage and look around, you will see it, since elephants are large enough to be seen. So walking into the garage and seeing no elephant is a case of falsifying the "Elephant in the garage" hypothesis by testing it. That's positive evidence, not absence of evidence. So seeing no elephant is actually positive evidence of the absence of an elephant. It's not "absence of evidence". I don't know of any case where absence of evidence is evidence of absence, since if there is a complete lack of evidence, nothing can be inferred from that. Looking for and not finding a God is only positive evidence of the nonexistence of God if the existence of God entails the prediction that we would see/detect such a God if we looked and such existed. I don't know of any reason to assume that.

Anthony 2006-05-23T23:57:09Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#620a1f9e-b154-4491-aa4a-7ca5475f3998 2006-04-22T04:37:32Z 2006-04-22T04:37:32Z

>>"Will God love me long time or what?"<< We all love you Geoff... and we are God or maybe we are Love or both or something... however no promises about how long this will last- is until next Christmas long enough?

Rene 2006-04-22T04:37:32Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4d67bc92-55ed-438d-b0f8-919d5159fac0 2006-04-22T03:40:12Z 2006-04-22T03:40:12Z

Nice one John! Atheism vs. agnosticism discussions usually come down sooner or later to a matter of who has the burden of proof and whether the absence of evidence counts as evidence of an absence. We can think of cases where it does, like the elephant in the garage. Unless your definition of the word "elephant" differs from mine, I'd have to get pretty stoned to not notice an elephant in my garage. But we can also think of cases where the absence of evidence does not imply evidence of an absence, like Anthony's example of finding intelligent life on Earth. Oh wait, that was intelligent life outside of earth. In that case we have some reasons for thinking that intelligent life might exist in other places, but our ability to "check" has not advanced to the point where we can draw firm conclusions, so we don't consider this evidence of an absence. So do we consider God more like the elephant or more like the extraterrestrial? That question should seperate the agnostics from the atheists! It also illustrates why arguments from analogy alone generally don't persuade people to change their beliefs. The concept of god(s), fits neither model in this restrictive language game so why pick one? How about a different metaphor for god? Robert Heinlein metaphroized God as a black cat in a dark room that doesn't exist. Neurotheologians theorize that God consists of a certain type of brain activity. And hippies, Chrstian scientists, new agers, "enlightened people," and Ramtha keep telling me that God "is" love. I haven't figured out what that means yet. Will God love me long time or what? We now return to your regularly scheduled language game, Bob...?

VoodooChild 2006-04-22T03:40:12Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#5c822fff-0181-4b6d-b450-0879d6e3366e 2006-04-21T22:36:19Z 2006-04-21T22:36:19Z

Rene et al, This reminds me of -- you guessed it -- my favorite elephant joke: "Hey, my wife and I got a pet elephant this past weekend!" "Really?" "Yeah, but we lost it. It's in the apartment ... somewhere." :-) Regards, John, just reminding everyone that, whether there are invisible elephants in the garage or not, we can still laugh about it :-) Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2006-04-21T22:36:19Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9a85b618-168a-46c1-9903-ea667514e602 2006-04-21T19:55:25Z 2006-04-21T19:55:25Z

Some more thoughts about elephants… It seems a theist might be equated to someone who was told there is an elephant in his garage and this elephant is the most important thing in his life, but don’t bother looking in the garage; you won’t be able to see him. The theist accepts the elephant and his importance, never even tries to look in the garage and dutifully goes to church and worships his invisible elephant every Sunday. The agnostic is told the same thing as the theist. He goes and looks in the garage and does not see anything. Since he cannot see the elephant he states he does not believe in it, but at the same time, he does not disbelieve. After all he might not be very good at elephant spotting. The elephant, being gray might blend into the gray walls of the garage; he just can’t sure about this elephant in the garage, and oh by the way, he had heard there were reports of elephants in Africa, so he imagined elephants in garages are at least theoretically possible, so he would not want to rule out this possibility. The atheist is told the same thing as the theist and agnostic. He goes and looks in the garage and does not see any elephants. He states flatly that there is no elephant in the garage. He has heard about the elephants in Africa, but feels certain one would not be hanging around in his garage and would certainly not be the most important thing in his life, if it were. Now it turns out the atheist was wrong and the agnostic was almost wrong, while the theist was right. There was an elephant in the garage and he was the most important thing in their lives, but of course the elephant was not real- he was only an idea. The theist wasted his life worshipping invisible elephants. The agnostic wasted his life, never being able to determine what ideas were worthy of consideration, while the atheist went on to discover that there were abundant treasures in that garage and the elephant was not among them.

Rene 2006-04-21T19:55:25Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9ae0770e-43cb-4e41-9346-a99f0256a91a 2006-04-21T13:59:43Z 2006-04-21T13:59:43Z

>>"the dictum of science, logic and statistics that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."<< This is actually not an accurate statement. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence- it is simply not definitive. Each and every observation that fails to uncover a given phenomena reduces the probability of that phenomena existing. Depending on what you are trying to observe more or fewer observations may be required to make a satisfactory evaluation. You already pointed out that in the case of an elephant in the garage, this number would be low . Nevertheless, no matter how many observations you made, there would always be some probability that you somehow missed seeing the elephant, so that not seeing it could never be considered definitive proof that there was no elephant in the garage. But you would be justified in not believing in the elephant because this probability would be extremely low. It seems to me that the most common conceptions of God are describing something not unlike an elephant in a garage. They seem to refer to an entity intimately involved in their lives, concerned with their well being- a loving creator, who will take them into his bosom when they die. It seems to me, based on this description there ought to be elephant/God footprints and elephant/God excrement all over our little garage. There ought to be stuff knocked over and a bad smell. Once in awhile I ought to see him hanging around in the garage. Since none of these things has ever happened to me and I suggest that they have never happened to billions of people over millions of years- we have a whole lot of observations concerning our elephant/God that would seem to have reduced his probability of existence to near zero, exactly like the elephant that you could not see in your garage. Now I know what you are going to say, maybe there is a God, completely detached from our world, and not really a part of it. He is not in our garage, but over in Africa somewhere. Well maybe there is, but in that case, what difference would it make to anyone? It is basically silly that we cannot eliminate the God everyone seems to be talking about- the one in their garage, because there may be another kind of God/elephant over in Africa somewhere. Now if I had never been to Africa, never heard of or seen an elephant and I started imaging the beasts that might live in Africa, what would be the odds that I could imagine this beast accurately without any data or information? Once again, as in all my examples, the probability would be very, very low- approaching zero. Therefore, if someone came to me an said he imagined a beast in Africa that looked like what we call an elephant, I would be completely and totally justified in saying that this is not a viable idea and to disbelieve it. Every idea of God is exactly the same as this elephant idea and should similarly be discounted- particularly the one in our garage, but also the one in Africa- unless there were some data to confirm it.

Rene 2006-04-21T13:59:43Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d2808518-d8a3-48f3-87fa-c9a5aca6ee05 2006-04-21T06:28:53Z 2006-04-21T06:28:53Z

"purple bunnies speaking French" Given that we know that bunnies don't have the cognitive or vocal capacities for language at all, much less learning a human language, the probability of a bunny speaking French are very small. But I don't know how we can compare that to the proposed existence of something (God) that belongs to a class (supernatural, creative, sentient entities) about which we have zero background knowledge. Similar point can be made about Santa Claus, particularly since there have been plenty of eye witneses at the North Pole who have not seen a fat jolly guy living there, not to mention the other physics stretching things he is allegedly capable of doing.

Anthony 2006-04-21T06:28:53Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#45944077-8475-4430-b6fd-7d81d83521bf 2006-04-20T22:31:16Z 2006-04-20T22:31:16Z

>>"Hence, by your reasoning, it is completely irrational to try to spend any time or resources trying to discover the existence of anything about which we have yet to find evidence, since the chances of success are infinitesimal,"<< Yes, and this is pretty much how science works. Resouces are directed at theories that are judged most promising by the evidence already at hand. New and really surprising things are usually found by accident. You might say this is not a good way to explore the unknown, but actually it is because we could be come totally lost exploring dead end theories, suggested only by our imaginations with no data behind them. We have to let the data lead us throough the darkness; there really is no other way.

Rene 2006-04-20T22:31:16Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a65b5113-1f78-4236-a049-754d89772177 2006-04-20T22:23:41Z 2006-04-20T22:23:41Z

>>"That's like finding one grain of sand which we discover is magnetite and thus concluding that we have 100% confidence that any other particular grain of sand we pick up on the planet will be magnetite."<< No, the probablility based on your 1 sample would be 100%. This is simply mathematics. However the degree of confidence would be very low since you do not have a statistically significant sample. You would need more than 100 samples and perhaps as many as a thousand samples to raise the condfidence level above 90%. So if you picked up 1000 grains of sand and they were all magnetite, you could say with a high degree of confidence the sand was all magnetite, at least in that area. 1000 grains would not be statistically significant if you were considering the entire planet and all the sand; perhaps millions or even billions of grains would be required. But what all of this points out is that without data the probablity of an accurate assessment of anything is very low. The more data you have, the more accurate your model can be. With no data or one data point you have concluded my assessment of intelligent life beyond earth is probabliy inaccurrate. This is the correct conclusion and the same conclusion you should apply to all God theories, as they similarly lack data.

Rene 2006-04-20T22:23:41Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d20954f3-fd56-4c12-ba79-7ea244bb8120 2006-04-20T19:39:44Z 2006-04-20T19:39:44Z

I wouldn't say that atheism is a belief "system", but atheism in some usages certainly is a belief, if it reflects the belief that there is no god or gods. When atheist comedian Adam Corolla announced on his radio show "There is no God", he was certainly expressing a belief.

Anthony 2006-04-20T19:39:44Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4052ac4d-9365-4cf1-8432-1dd55b47b2e4 2006-04-20T19:37:50Z 2006-04-20T19:37:50Z

>>“atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God or gods."<< Frankly put: this is a stupid definition. Not accepting the existence of someone’s imaginary fantasy can never be considered belief." You're not employing the definition you're quoting. If you're simply not accepting belief in any god , then you don't per se have any belief about God. If, however, you believe that there is no God, then you do have a belief. Now you might think it's "stupid" to have such a belief, but the definition is not "stupid" since it applies to a class of people who do exist and this definition is at least one conventional usage of the term, and hence entirely appropriate. "From what I know about the natural world, three-headed pink frogs seem absurd and unlikely to exist, therefore I cannot accept that what you are telling me is true." If you believe that it's unlikely there are three headed pink frogs in the basement, then you have a belief: namely, that it is unlikely that there are three-headed pink frogs in the basement. "This is exactly the same thing an atheist would say about gods. In no way can this be considered belief." Not all atheists simply decline to believe in a god Rene. Some affirmatively assert and even try to argue that there is no God, at least as conceived in western theology. The atheist philosopher Michael Martin is one example. Antony Flew was another famous example until he eventually embraced a kind of deism. These people have beliefs: namely that there is no god of western theology in the universe of existence.

Anthony 2006-04-20T19:37:50Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#eaec760a-5780-46ed-9644-2899980efbbd 2006-04-20T19:29:00Z 2006-04-20T19:29:00Z

"First, although you claim to fully comprehend the difference between impossible and improbable, you use to two interchangeably and inaccurately as in your above statement." I don't recall ever using the terms "improbable" and "impossible" interchangeably, and I certainly didn't in that statement of mine that you quoted. That statement was in specific reaction to this statement of yours: "The agnostic believes in the possibility of God despite the lack of evidence." The above appears to make the erroneous inference that lack of evidence of God entail the impossibility of God, which looked like you were confusing "unsupported" with "impossible". My point was that if the lack of evidence for God entailed that God was impossible, then the lack of evidence for intelligent exterrestrial life entails that intelligent exterrestrial life was not possible. But that would be a fallacious inference, and hence my point. "Based on our one data point, the probability of the next world we examine having intelligent life would be 100%. " That's not a legitimate inference, since we know that there are an estimated 70 sextillion stars in the universe, so it would be irrational to conclude that since our experience of one in 70 sextillion star systems having intelligent life, then it's 100% probable that the next star system we examine has intelligent life. That's like finding one grain of sand which we discover is magnetite and thus concluding that we have 100% confidence that any other particular grain of sand we pick up on the planet will be magnetite.

Anthony 2006-04-20T19:29:00Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#2d982047-d95b-4c49-a1d7-1774b2661b87 2006-04-20T19:15:54Z 2006-04-20T19:13:50Z

By that reasoning Rene the probability of any particular thing existing until we have evidence for it existing are literally infinitesimal. It is irrational to expend resources in pursuit of something the chances of success of which are infinitesimal. For example, it would be irrational to spend five dolars to win a $10 raffle if the chances of winning are say 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which are considerably better odds than infinitesimal. Hence, by your reasoning, it is completely irrational to try to spend any time or resources trying to discover the existence of anything about which we have yet to find evidence, since the chances of success are infinitesimal, since by your reasoning the chance's for the entity's existence are infinitesimal until we find evidence for its existence. So the lack of evidence for the existence of some proposed entity should logically provide extremely strong reason not to look for evidence of its existence. That doesn't sound right, and seems to run counter to the dictum of science, logic and statistics that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have a friend who's a probability expert. I'll have to ask him about this.

Anthony 2006-04-20T19:13:50Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d5c72380-0320-4b71-a5e5-ebf38d83c0e8 2006-04-20T19:11:08Z 2006-04-20T19:11:08Z

>>”And once again the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does not logically entail that the existence of such beings is impossible.”<< I wanted to discuss this idea separately because although it deals with the same theme, there are some additional interesting aspects to it that I would like to discuss. First, although you claim to fully comprehend the difference between impossible and improbable, you use to two interchangeably and inaccurately as in your above statement. I don’t believe anyone would ever say that extraterrestrial intelligent life is *impossible* only that it is improbable. I would not be one of those people. I would say that extraterrestrial intelligent life is highly probable. This is based on the data at hand. We have closely examined one star system and found intelligent life (assuming of course humans can be considered “intelligent”). Based on our one data point, the probability of the next world we examine having intelligent life would be 100%. However our degree of confidence in this estimate would be very low. It would take many more samples to get our level of confidence above 90%, probably more than 100, but less than 1000. Now if we examined two star systems and found intelligent life on only one, the probability of finding intelligent life, based on the data, would be 50% for the next star system we examine. So what would the probability be if we had no data- intelligent life had never been observed anywhere. Based on your many earlier statements you would say, we could make no estimate of the probability, but this is not true. Intelligent life, as an entirely new idea or theory, unsupported by any data would have a near zero chance of being a real phenomena. The truth of this can be demonstrated by the following example: Let us program a computer to design 3-dimensional objects. First, let us give it all the geometric forms and some fractal algorithms and let it try to “imagine” some real object. What would be the odds it could produce anything resembling a real object, other that the perfect geometric forms we gave it. I would estimate the odds would be so small as to approach zero. Now if we fed it more data; more possible forms, the chances of it reproducing some real object would increase. In other words, the probability of a model being accurate is directly related to how much data is available. Let us take away, the geometric forms and the fractal algorithms- could the program ever reproduce something resembling a real object. I think the probability is so low as to approach zero. This is exactly what we are doing when we try to imagine a God. With no data, the probability of imagining a model that resembles any reality is extremely low- not impossible, but not possible for all practical purposes.

Rene 2006-04-20T19:11:08Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8074d417-2491-40bc-9a06-fb644720f927 2006-04-20T16:17:45Z 2006-04-20T16:17:45Z

After analyzing your many statements and comments, it is clear that our disagreement is centered on one issue. This statement best summarizes your position on this issue: “I have zero experience with such proposed entities and hence have no prior database upon which to make probabilistic judgments about the nature of such an entity if one were to exist. Let us stop talking about God here and discuss some other products of the human imagination, to determine, if it is possible to “make probabilistic judgments” about the existence and/or nature of such entities. My position is that without any data or information it would be nearly, if not completely impossible, but certainly improbable for anyone to determine the actual existence and/or nature of anything. Let us think about something that, until fairly recently, was unknown to science- quasars. We now know that quasars exist and also know a lot about their characteristics, but before there was any data on these objects, could we have determined the probability of their existence, could we determine the probability of anyone having accurately described their characteristics? Quasars, before their discovery, would have fit into the category of “unseen astronomical objects beyond the range of current telescopes”. Let us call them UAO’s for fun. Now in this general category, there would have existed the possibility of there being 0-infinity number of such objects. Based on prior data one would have suspected many objects and could have reasonable predicted the characteristics of most of them, nevertheless the possibility of 0-infinity such objects existed and also there existed the possibility of 0-infinity types of objects with characteristics never before observed, such as our quasar Now, if someone came to you before the quasar was observed and said he believed there was an object out there with these characteristics, could you have made a “probabilistic judgment” about its possible existence? Yes, you could. There would be a very large, perhaps infinite number of possible objects with characteristics different from anything yet observed. The probability that any one of them might correspond to reality would be nearly infinitely small. All of the objects that we might imagine beyond the range of current telescopes can not be proven to not exist (I assert again that nothing can be *proven* to not exist), however logic demands that we do not believe in their existence until and unless they are actually observed because each one is highly improbable. Improbable things can exist- the quasar being an example, but if we had believed in the quasar before it was observed, the odds of these things existing would have been “astronomically” low and it would not have been logical to accept that this quasar idea had any merit. The idea of God is no different than any UAO, whether real or not, having not been observed, it is a product of our imagination, the odds of any conception of God or any UAO being accurate are highly improbable. Now I suspect that you are not really convinced that the probability of any conception of God cannot be determined, only that God is just another UAO and that certainly there are many things out there beyond our current reach. In this case we agree completely, but when you give anything out there a name, such as God, you have already given it some characteristics, and the odds are very, very small that these characteristics fit anything real. In other words, it is very, very unlikely anyone could have predicted the quasar, and just as unlikely anyone might accurately imagine the next UAO to be discovered and any God would fit into this category. You made this statement: “It's not improbable until it's demonstrated to be improbable. You seem to be confusing "unproven" or "unsupported" with "improbable". I think I have demonstrated that it is improbable that any conception of God could be accurate. There is no confusion. If some idea is unsupported by data then it is improbable. With only a little data, it may still be improbable. The probability that an idea is correct increases as the data and the quality of the data grows. With all ideas or theories we are never dealing with certainty as to their accuracy: only with probabilities and these probabilities are tied directly to whether we have data and whether that data is verifiable.

Rene 2006-04-20T16:17:45Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#bc93360d-0da0-4d50-88bb-545a6b716dce 2006-04-20T01:40:36Z 2006-04-20T01:40:36Z

"To the contrary, this is the only logical inference." No, the best logical inference in the absence of evidence one way or another is "I don't know". "You seem to be confusing probable with possible." No I'm not. I understand the distinction. Unless something is self-contradictory, it's logically possible. It's not improbable until it's demonstrated to be improbable. You seem to be confusing "unproven" or "unsupported" with "improbable". "a giant. invisible, yellow fish a the center of our galaxy" I know this is false because if it's invisible, it couldn't be yellow. And if it's a fish as we know fish to be then it's highly improbable that there's a giant one at the center of our galaxy and that it's invisible, given what we know about the nature of fish. But again, neither you nor I know anything about alleged supernatural creative entities (such as an alleged god) to know whether or not it's likely one exists. "the simple fact that there are no verifiable observations of either of these imagined phenomena is some evidence of their non-existence." Well, we know enough about fish to know that they aren't invisible, so if one says there's a fish at point X and I look at point X and see no fish, then there probably isn't a fish at point X. In contrast, I don't know anything about the expected nature of any alleged supernatural creative entities to know what to expect to see if I looked for one. This is just a mirror image of the elephant discussion, so we may be going in circles at this point. "Congratulations on presenting an excellent and well written defense of your position." Thank you. At the very least I would hope that your acknowledgement here is evidence that that there are at least some agnostics (e.g. me) who aren't some ignorant yokels who just haven't thought about the issues and are unable to make a decision. None of these arguments are new to me. I've considered them for decades and made what I believe to be the best conclusion based on the available evidence.

Anthony 2006-04-20T01:40:36Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c4aac146-55bc-4dcc-ac87-cef83e01b51e 2006-04-19T20:45:08Z 2006-04-19T20:45:08Z

>>”We have no evidence one way or another about most things that exist in our universe of a billion galaxies each of which has hundreds of millions of stars. But it's not a logical inference to conclude that until we have evidence about something that may be out there. it probably doesn't exist.”<< To the contrary, this is the only logical inference. You seem to be confusing probable with possible. I have never discussed the possibility of the existence of anything. I would say that anything that one might imagine might possibly exist, but the probability of any of these things existing is so low, that not believing in them until and unless evidence for their existence is forthcoming is the only logical choice. I like to use the example that there may be a giant. invisible, yellow fish a the center of our galaxy. There is no evidence for the fish, just as there is no evidence for God. There is also no evidence that the fish does not exist, just as there is no evidence that God does not exist. In both cases there can be no definitive evidence against their existence, but the simple fact that there are no verifiable observations of either of these imagined phenomena is some evidence of their non-existence. Of course, even if we had 1 million billion trillion observations which failed to find these phenomena, it would not “prove” they don’t exist. I suggest there are many more people, over many more years making many more observations which failed to find a God, than observations which failed to find my fish, so my fish should be more believable than God… and yet I suspect you really do not believe in my fish. You are most likely not agnostic about this. And yet all the arguments that you make about God, also apply to my fish. Both the fish and God are possible, but neither is probable until and unless there are some observations that would lead you to suspect their existence. If something is improbable it is logical to not believe in its existence. To withhold judgment in the way of the agnostic is not logical and it does not follow the evidence. Congratulations on presenting an excellent and well written defense of your position. I would like to make some additional comments about all of it, but it will have to wait for another time. This will have to do for now.

Rene 2006-04-19T20:45:08Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#430a0374-9a6a-4d11-baeb-e645a74e3822 2006-04-19T19:31:51Z 2006-04-19T19:31:51Z

>>””why shouldnt religion, philosophy and science play by the same rules?” Less toss in politics. Does politics play by the same rules? In politics, it is well accepted that it's perfectly OK to embrace political principles as true without being able to assess their truth by the same means science assesses scientific explanations. Different language games have different rules.

Anthony 2006-04-19T19:31:51Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#1228ec84-0464-4ee5-9628-791fa0eb9d28 2006-04-19T19:23:00Z 2006-04-19T19:23:00Z

"An atheist world view does not hinge on anything other than accepting what is real, tangible, or observable in some way as a piece in the puzzle of the meaning of existence." That's not true. For a world view to be an atheist world view would just require that the world view either not have a belief in the existence of any god or else affirmatively believe in the nonexistence of a god or gods. An atheist world view doesn't require only accepting as real things that are tangible, etc. There are atheist world views that believe in the mystical and the supernatural, just not God. Marxism is an atheist world view that believes in some things that aren't observable (such as certain inevitable forces of history and certain values). As for the Santa analogy, there's very good empircal reason to believe that there is no guy who lives on the North Pole who's capable of flying to every Christan's (or Christmas observing) child's home on the planet in one evening, propelled by reindeer that are not aerodynamically capable of flying, and sneak down a chimney no matter how narrow or whether one exists or not. Can't say the same thing about a proposed "god".

Anthony 2006-04-19T19:23:00Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d8500915-bd24-4e92-a2da-d750a9940785 2006-04-19T19:14:09Z 2006-04-19T19:00:20Z

"It seems that you could substitute God for elephant here and reach the same conclusion about God." Incorrect. I know the nature of an elephant (carbon based living organism of a specific species) and have seen a lot of them and based on this prior experience, invisible elephants are highly improbable, if not physically impossible (and elephants are physical entities). In contrast, the western idea of God is the idea of some being that created the physical universe and hence would be prior to the physical universe. I have zero experience with such proposed entities and hence have no prior database upon which to make probabilistic judgments about the nature of such an entity if one were to exist. Since this proposed entity by hypothesis created the physical universe, I have no basis for assuming that its nature would be bound by the constraints of nature normally applied to physical entities such as elephants. In short, I have no evidentiary basis to assume that if there was a god, I would be able to see it/him/her. That's not the case with elephants. "The only reason you fail to do this is because you have been culturally conditioned to accept the notion that some kind of invisible, supernatural being exists." Incorrect. I've just explained the difference above. And since I don't accept (but don't reject) the existence of such a supernatural entity, then it's also incorrect that culture has conditioned me to accept its existence. "You keep saying that your agnostic conclusion is "justified by the evidence", but there is no evidence to suggest the the idea of God is a viable idea." "You believe, with no evidence that the idea of God is a viable idea." Well, I don't accept the existence of God because I don't see sufficient evidence nor reason for accepting such, and I don't accept the nonexistence of God because I don't see sufficient reason nor evidence for believing such. The burden of proof is on you guys (speaking of atheists who deny the existence of gods and theists who assert it) to provide the evidence to justify my belief one way or another. I don't need to provide evidence for holding an agnostic position, since my agnostic position says that there is insufficient evidence or reason for me to believe one way or another. Now I don't know what you mean by a "viable idea". If by that you mean a coherent idea, I don't see any reason to believe that the idea of a god is necessarily incoherent, and so if you believe that it is, the burden is on you to prove it. "The atheist follows the evidence or lack thereof and concludes this is not a viable idea." That doesn't logically follow. There is also a lack of evidence for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial beings somewhere out there in the universe, but it doesn't follow that the lack of evidence for their existence makes the idea "unviable". "The atheist has no belief in God because there is no evidence." Same with an agnostic like me. Yes, the lack of evidence justifies the position of having no belief in the existence of God. But the lack of evidence does not justify the position of having a belief that no God exists. If you assert and want someone to believe that no God exists, then you assume a burden to provide the evidence and prove the truth of such a belief, otherwise I have no reason to accept it. "The agnostic believes in the possibility of God despite the lack of evidence." Yes, it's possible so long as it isn't self-contradictory, and as far as I can see it's not. It does not follow that if there is a lack of evidence for some entity, then it is impossible for that entity to exist. If that were the case, then the lack of evidence 100 years ago for the existence of protons justified the conclusion that it was not possible for such entities to exist, which would of course have been incorrect. And once again the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life elsewhere in the universe does not logically entail that the existence of such beings is impossible. Lack of evidence for the existence of some entity, or for that matter the truth of some proposition, does not logically entail that the entity does not exist or that the proposition is false. If it did, then for any possible entity about which we have no evidence for or against its existence (e.g. intelligent extraterrestrial beings), it would be justifiable to conclude that such beings both don't exist (because of lack of evidence for their existence) and do exist (because of lack of evidence for their nonexistence). But any argument that produces self-contradictory conclusions based on consistent premises is an irrational argument. "Also, the agnostic claim that we cannot know enough to draw a conclusion about the subject of God, is simply another belief, also without any evidence." No it's not. It's a lack of belief. I have no belief one way or another about God's existence since I see no sufficient evidence to believe one way or another. I don't need evidence for a non-belief. I was born an agnostic (not having a belief one way or another) so that's my default position until someone gives me sufficient reason to believe one way or another. I don't conclude that "we" don't have sufficient evidence for the existence of God. I'm more modest than that. Maybe someone out there personally has access to proof of God's existence or nonexistence, but I haven't met that person yet. Until I do, and no one has provided sufficient evidence one way or another, then I will reside in my default position of not having a belief one way or another as to whether a god or gods exists. I just don't know. Agnosticism. "the God of modern theists would seem to have no observable effects in our world and therefore there is no reason to even put forth this theory- it explains nothing." I still don't understand. Again, the God of modern theists is put forward to explain the existence of the physical universe, and perhaps other things. That they don't have sufficient evidence to prove that their explanation is superior to a naturalistic one just shows that they haven't proven that their God exists, but there is a set of phenomena that their God hypothesis is there to explain, such as the existence of the physical universe, as well as human beings, etc. "To say the universe is an observed effect is not quite true because non-existence, in my estimation, is not possible. " I don't see why, and I particularly don't see why it was impossible for the universe in its present form to not exist, with intelligent life forms such as us, etc. "This is true even if we postulate a God because how could God exist if there was no universe in which to exist?" Well, that depends on what you mean by "universe" and "God". Often people mean "universe" to refer to the physical universe of matter and energy that physicists study. If there was a being that created this universe of matter and energy then it would be hard to imagine that that being was a part of that universe of matter and energy, otherwise it would be creating itself, which at least seems incoherent at first blush. But I don't see anything incoherent about the idea that there was a sentient entity, or for that matter nonsentient force, external or prior to our universe of matter and energy that caused our universe of matter and energy to exist. Now if by "universe" one means everything that exists, then by that definition God, if such a being existed, would be a part of the universe, and in THAT case it wouldn't make much sense to say that there is a God that created the universe. But I think when people mean that there is a God who created the universe, they mean "universe" in the previous sense above. Now there might be a temptation to try to disprove the existence of God by assuming that the universe is everything that exists PLUS the universe is just the totality of matter and energy and so-called "natural" processes studied by science. But that would beg the question since it would just be assuming that supernatural entities didn't exist. "Something cannot come from nothing." Don't know if that's a logically necessary principle. I don't see why spontaneous generation is logically impossible, and there is some work in physics that does suggest that at least some particles just come into existence from nothing, and perhaps even the universe did as well, but really neither has been proven yet. "The theists propose our something came from God. It is simpler to assume our something has always existed as it is, or perhaps had some other form and changed via a natural process, rather than to invoke some supernatural cause- there is no need for this" I'm not sure if that would be simpler or not, since for me to know which was simpler I would have to have some degree of precise knowledge about the mechanics of our present physical universe coming into existence via some natural processes vs. via some God, otherwise I have no idea as to which mechanism is simpler. One or the other could be much more complex than the other. Second, since you seem to be alluding to Occam's Razor here, I don't know if it's legitimate to apply Occam's Razor to explanations of the universe as a whole. Yeah, it seems to be a useful principle in addressing proposed explanations of phenomena WITHIN the universe, but I don't know if it's legitimate to apply the principle to the universe as a whole. What is true of the part (e.g. of the universe) is not necessarily true of the whole (of the universe). This analysis is just as applicable to the classic theistic argument that since everything in the universe has a cause, then the universe itself has a cause. That's a similar fallacy. The Principle of Sufficient Causation (everything needs a cause) and Occam's Razor may be generally useful principles to apply to phenomena within the universe, but I don't see why it's necessary to apply it to the universe as a whole. As Hume pointed out as an analogy, that every individual human has one mother doesn't justify the conclusion that humankind as a whole has one mother. "So any way you look at it the universe cannot be considered "an observed effect"- an effect requiring some explanation." Well, I'm assuming the dominant view of physics to be true that there was something like a "Big Bang" that began our physical universe. I'm also assuming that there was no necessary reason to believe that an earth like our own with intelligent beings like ourselves had to exist. Hence, to these phenomena that didn't seem to be necessary, the theist posits his God as creator for explanatory purposes. "Imagine something right now, something you and no one else has ever seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt. What are the odds this something really exists?" You mean like protons, or Velociraptors, or extraterrestrial life forms? And I think it's highly improbable that we would have conveniently evolved to have senses capable of experiencing everything that exists, since our evolved faculties would seem to be only necessary for perceiving things that are useful for our survival, and I don't see any necessary reason to believe that everything that exists is necessary for us to perceive for our survival. The odds you speak of depend on the context and background information. I have zero background knowledge of the nature of supernatural beings if such things do or ever did exist, and hence I have zero basis by which to assess if such things presently do or do not exist. There might be dimensions with entities I don't know about or am incapable of accessing given my physical nature, but that doesn't mean that such things probably don't exist. In contrast, I know what an elephant is, and know by its nature that if one existed in my garage, I would with high probability be able to see it if I walked into my garage (it's a very small garage). "I feel certain that you would conclude that any of these things you just imagined which might be infinite in number "probably don't exist"" Incorrect. If it's possible, it's possible. It only becomes improbable (or for that matter probable) when sufficient evidence is discovered by which to assess probability. Without such evidence, it's irrational to conclude that such entities are either probable or improbable. Rene, we have only explored a tiny fragment of the universe, even if we restrict ourselves to the physical universe (i.e. what physicists study). We have no evidence one way or another about most things that exist in our universe of a billion galaxies each of which has hundreds of millions of stars. But it's not a logical inference to conclude that until we have evidence about something that may be out there. it probably doesn't exist. "I assumed you might get this without further detailed explanation, but since you did not, I will explain further. Let us first define God as a wise and benevolent creator, since this appears to be the most common perception of God. Man is supposedly his finest creation. If you simply open your eyes you will see that God's finest creation is riddled with flaws. Why an appendix? Why have teeth that easily rot? Why not a more efficient waste disposal system? Why sickness? and on and on... I could do a better job of designing my "finest creation" on a bad day" This is why I asked if there was a new argument out there, because I've heard the above argument and numerous variations of it. First of all, on issues like the appendix, I'm not aware of any major religion that ever claimed that man (at least in his present form) was created as a physically perfect or optimally engineered being, so you appear to be attacking a straw man. And even if there was such a religion, that certainly doesn't foreclose the idea that that specific religion is wrong but that there still is a God who created humans to simply be well adapted enough to survive and reproduce and dominate the world (or do whatever one's theology requires), which doesn't require engineering perfection. Now as to the larger "Problem of Evil" approach that says that if God is all-good, then why would he create a universe that has suffering/evil. The problem with this argument is that it assumes to know what the moral obligations of such a god would be if one were to exist. As I've said, I have no prior knowledge nor experience with or of such supernatural entities if such entities do or ever did exist (as to their nature nor existence), and I'm certainly in no position to entertain how such beings should morally behave if they did exist. In short, if there was God who some religion called "all good", would such a being allow suffering/evil, or for that matter teeth that rot or appendices? I don't know, and I have no reason to know one way or another. Maybe such a being would have his reasons for allowing or having such things that are consistent with how that religion views their God's moral obligations to be. The only way that I can see such an argument working is if you could point out in such a religion the precise moral obligations of their God and demonstrate that their God, if it existed, violated such moral obligations, but I've never seen such an attempted argument succeed, at least not vis a vis the big world religions. In short, I see no reason to believe that if a God existed, he would make a perfectly engineered human being (assuming that the "imperfections" we note are really imperfect in the sense of being contrary to the alleged creator's purposes), or for that matter remove suffering, evil or imperfection from our world. "No matter how you stack it up, the evil in the world precludes a benevolent God." Ah, there you go. No it doesn’t. The Problem of Evil. See above. First of all, if a God exists, I don't see any reason why such a being would necessarily be maximally benevolent to all creatures, even the human ones (doesn't the Bible describe God as a vengeful God, which doesn't sound omnibenevolent to me), and I frankly don't see that necessity in the major world conceptions of God (Islam, Judaism or Christianity). Second, again, I see no evidence as to whether or not a God exists, nor of what such a being's probable nature would be if it/he/she did exist. With that, I CERTAINLY see no evidence by which to judge whether or not that being, if it existed, is being "morally perfect”, consistent with whatever moral obligations such a being would have. It’s hard enough to prove the moral obligations humans have to one another, much less the moral obligations of a hypothetical god about which we have no experience. We don’t have a basis on which to say, “Well, most gods I know of have such and such moral obligations that would preclude allowing suffering/evil, and hence if a god existed, he would likely disallow the suffering/evil that we know exists in the world”. So in short, yes I'm familiar with the Problem of Evil/Suffering (aka the Argument from Evil or the Argument from Suffering). It's the most famous atheistic argument against the existence of God. It's unfortunately not a sound argument (not just my opinion - most academic philosophers acknowledge it's not sound – not trying to appeal to authority, but just to acknowledge the argument’s status in the academic literature), since there's no reason to assume that if an all-good God existed, it would eliminate all evil or suffering, or for that matter any suffering/evil that actually exists. "If there were a God controlling our lives then our lives would have no meaning because we would be no different than wooden puppets being pulled around in a silly play by a silly God." Well, that doesn't follow for a couple of reasons. Even if we are wooden puppets being pulled along by the strings (as Islam would have it), the meaning of life would be that we are wooden puppets pulled along by the string. It may not be meaning that you or I would like, but it would be meaning. Second, however, it doesn't follow that if there was a God, that he would be manipulating us in such a way, particularly when the main Jewish and Christian traditions have God existing consistent with humans having the free will to make moral decisions, etc. I don't see any reason why the existence of God is necessarily incompatible with humans having free will (and yes, I'm familiar with the Foreknowledge Problem, which also doesn't work). "Being alive means being free to create your own destiny." Well, that would be ideal to me, but I don't see why that's the meaning of "alive." And even though not being free wouldn't be a pleasant state of affairs, merely being an unpleasant reality would not make it false. But by the way, your problem here would seem to entail that even if there was no god and yet we were determined by natural forces to do what we do (physical determinism), then life would have no meaning and we wouldn't be "alive". This seems to reflect more discomfort with determinism than a problem with the idea of a God, and again, I don't see any reason why the concept of God necessitates determinism.

Anthony 2006-04-19T19:00:20Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#33fdcf7b-044a-49c1-b9d6-09dc0bf93e4a 2006-04-19T07:44:05Z 2006-04-19T07:44:05Z

Don't worry, I am not offended. Like everyone, I have a slightly different perspective. Mine is also mixed with a little spirituality, but I guess I have my own (excuse the term) branch. My beliefs are so mixed that I can not narrow it to one belief, but agnostic is the closest to explain it. I was just ranting and raving about my personal experiences with Athiests... You tell the truth about the skepticism, but I was just trying to pound on the point that Athiests tend to be so skeptical that it dumbfounds me so often.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-04-19T07:44:05Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#5f885167-2f60-44c3-a407-7d904c3452f8 2006-04-19T07:40:52Z 2006-04-19T07:40:52Z

Today I consider myself an agnostic so I can't very well dogmatically insist on anything I say as absolute truth, but lets step out of the rationalistic true/false logic box for a moment. If we jump up a level of abstraction to the next epistemological plateau we can consider ideas of God as language games--ways of fitting words to our experience and manipulating them according to heuristic rules. The authors of the Hebrew Bible spoke of God in the archetype of a jealous, vengeful creator, and father figure (monotheism) The authors of the gospels spoke of God in the archetype of a forgiving, loving shepherd (trisected monotheism?) Hindus and Greeks speak of Gods as supernatural beings with superhuman powers whose favor can be won by doing and saying the right things (polytheism) Jefferson thought God created the world and then buggered off (deism) Spinoza spoke of God as the totality of the universe (pantheism) Einstein had a similar but even more esoteric view which people still argue over, but if I remember right he spoke rather metaphorically of God as the source of the laws of nature. No being currently imaginable by me could possibly fit all these descriptions, as several of them attribute conflicting properties to god(s). But what do they have in common aside from using the word "god(s)?" It seems they all appeal to a sort of "ultimate explanation" behind the phenomena of experience. I can't tell anyone what God "is," but throughout the ages people have invoked the metaphor of God for nearly anything they don't understand or cannot predict: the existence of stuff, the weather, the tides, sickness and health, national prosperity, personal fortunes, morality, mystical experiences, and so forth. Looking at the human nervous system cognitively, historically, and cross-culturally, it seems to have a tendency to personify that which it does not understand, and it typically prefers a woefully inadequte explanation to no explanation at all. These tendencies play out in language games, and since everybody sees the conceptual landscape a little differently and defines terms differently, everybody feels like only they understand the issue correctly. Thus we get a communication jam. I encourage anyone who thinks they know the answer to the God riddle (even those agnostics who have convinced themselves that no one can know the answer) to try a little cognitive experiment and consider ideas of God as sophisticated language games. See if you can entertain this meta-model for an hour, or a day before going back to the ordinary true/false logic game.

VoodooChild 2006-04-19T07:40:52Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7d746155-d319-4600-b048-f7558d79a20f 2006-04-19T06:57:45Z 2006-04-19T06:57:45Z

Bubba, Athiesm isn't quite what you describe -- it's basically the perspective that, until there is evidence that is independently verifiable and testable via the scientific method, that belief in god is unfounded. Note, I didn't say "wrong", just not based on fact. Athiesm isn't about putting one's head in the sand, it's about using the scientific method -- the method which is to a very large degree responsible for everything humanity has come to know and understand about the world we live in -- and applying it to god. Please, don't be put off by my description -- our world is fast-changing and dynamic, and what we learn tomorrow may (and often does) redefine what we thought we knew today, and sometimes the hunches of today are the facts of tomorrow. Athiests are skeptics, yes ... but we're all skeptics -- it's part of the process by which we gain knowledge, and skepticism isn't the domain of the athiest alone. Regards, John Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2006-04-19T06:57:45Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#72f5b167-b401-4dde-864b-59be9b1bd0bb 2006-04-19T06:17:05Z 2006-04-19T06:17:05Z

I'm with you on that one. They do follow similar paths, which is in general denying religion. BUT, it's to each either own and some of us who are Agnostics have realized that there's just something out there that can not be denied with no explination on who or what it is. Instead of labeling it some sort of God, we just accept it's there. Athesim (sp) is just the full out denial of anything religious/spiritual based -- belief of nothing (how I define an atheist). These people also seem to be completely skeptical, which counteracts other beliefs that I have. I hate to break it to these people, but there is something out there unexplainable as of yet. Yes, it may be something we might be able to explain in the future, but there will always be something unexplainable. This belief in the unexplainable does not deem religion, but it prevents the leap to being Atheist, hence Agnostics... You can call it a cultural difference, possibly even a form of racism that causes an Atheist to condem us Agnostics... Judge me how you must, but don't dwell on it. Get over yourself and your lack of belief and go about your business and life. It's just another version of theology and politics, which I do not want any part of.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-04-19T06:17:05Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#904ecde7-bbda-4df8-936e-8b735fb02f8b 2006-04-19T04:26:08Z 2006-04-19T04:26:08Z

>>"I made up my mind. I just made up my mind as to what conclusion is justified by the evidence."<< >>"Yes I've proven it, though "proof" doesn't need to rise to the level of absolute certainty. You can prove something to be probably true. If there was an elephant in the room, I would probably see it if I looked in the room. It then follows that if I look in the room and see no elephant, then there's probably no elephant in the room. Invisible elephants are improbable. "<< It seems that you could substitute God for elephant here and reach the same conclusion about God. The only reason you fail to do this is because you have been culturally conditioned to accept the notion that some kind of invisible, supernatural being exists. You keep saying that your agnostic conclusion is "justified by the evidence", but there is no evidence to suggest the the idea of God is a viable idea. You believe, with no evidence that the idea of God is a viable idea. The atheist follows the evidence or lack thereof and concludes this is not a viable idea. The atheist has no belief in God because there is no evidence. The theist believes in God despite the lack of evidence. The agnostic believes in the possibility of God despite the lack of evidence. Also, the agnostic claim that we cannot know enough to draw a conclusion about the subject of God, is simply another belief, also without any evidence. Put simply your conclusion is not in any way "justified by the evidence". You are simply fooling yourself, if you believe this. >>"Could you explain what you mean by this, since the concept of the western God is that the universe is the observed effect."<< What I mean by observed effects is that for instance, people experienced wind and postulated a wind god caused it. This is logical, maybe even scientific, but the God of modern theists would seem to have no observable effects in our world and therefore there is no reason to even put forth this theory- it explains nothing. To say the universe is an observed effect is not quite true because non-existence, in my estimation, is not possible. I would say that what exists must have always existed in some form. This is true even if we postulate a God because how could God exist if there was no universe in which to exist? God would thus be the form of the universe before it took it present form, by his will, or by some other process. Something cannot come from nothing. The theists propose our something came from God. It is simpler to assume our something has always existed as it is, or perhaps had some other form and changed via a natural process, rather than to invoke some supernatural cause- there is no need for this. So any way you look at it the universe cannot be considered "an observed effect"- an effect requiring some explanation. >>A: "but it doesn't follow that the ones I don't and/or can't see probably don't exist."<< Imagine something right now, something you and no one else has ever seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt. What are the odds this something really exists? Would you give it a high probablity or a low one? How many such things could you imagine? I feel certain that you would conclude that any of these things you just imagined which might be infinite in number "probably don't exist" Why is the idea of God any different than any of those somethings that you just imagined? It isn't. >>R: "the idea does not fit well with everything that can be deduced about the nature of man and the universe that surrounds us." << >>A:"I don't see why. Has there been a new argument that I haven't heard yet?" Since you are agnostic, I assumed you might get this without further detailed explanation, but since you did not, I will explain further. Let us first define God as a wise and benevolent creator, since this appears to be the most common perception of God. Man is supposedly his finest creation. If you simply open your eyes you will see that God's finest creation is riddled with flaws. Why an appendix? Why have teeth that easily rot? Why not a more efficient waste disposal system? Why sickness? and on and on... I could do a better job of designing my "finest creation" on a bad day and I am not all that wise. If life on this planet is taken as evidence of God's benevolence and good will toward man, then there simply is no evidence. Why famine, hurricanes, drought, asteroid impacts, war, and on and on...? No matter how you stack it up, the evil in the world precludes a benevolent God. The design of the world precludes a wise or intelligent God. (ID is really a bad joke.) I will be happy to expand further on this theme, but surely now you understand my point. >>R: "That really quite simply that if there were a God, nothing about life really would make any sense."<< >>"A: "I don't follow that logic. Why?" This clearly needs much more explanation. Here I am talking about "the meaning of life". Many religious people say that life would be meaningless without a God. I say the opposite is true. If there were a God controlling our lives then our lives would have no meaning because we would be no different than wooden puppets being pulled around in a silly play by a silly God. The puppet's life has no meaning. It is not really alive. Being alive means being free to create your own destiny. If you destiny is already determined what could possibly be the point in carrying it out? The meaning of life is what we choose to make it by our own free actions and creative thoughts- nothing else is really meaningful.

Rene 2006-04-19T04:26:08Z Pinky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#645aecaf-aff6-433e-9703-cd76d7c8d5dd 2006-04-19T04:04:41Z 2006-04-19T04:04:41Z

Forgive me for neglecting to take the time to read the other responses to this one thus far, but I have something I have to say, and I hope no one's said it already. Then I'll just sound redundant. For the most part, any atheists who are "strong atheists" (ones whom are absolutely, positively, beyond the shadow of a doubt sure that there is absolutely no such thing as a "higher being") are the only ones I truly consider to be atheist. The ones who aren't so sure of themselves, I consider more among the ranks of agnostics - perhaps more on the skeptical side of agnosticism in comparison to others, but agnostics nonetheless. For those that I do consider "true" atheists, I view them in the same light as religious extremists - mainly because they technically are. While Atheism is not a religion per se, it is certainly a religious view: a belief pertaining to the supernatural - the belief in the nonexistence of it. I see them as just as stubborn, ignorant, illogical, bigoted and arrogant as I see religious extremists to be. Atheists have no more proof for any particular deity's nonexistence as Theists have of proof for any particular deity's existence. For the most part, I get along fine with anyone who is NOT a religious extremist - of either the Theist or Atheist variety. To answer your question (although I don't think this really DOES answer your question), Atheists are just as intolerant toward Agnostics as Theist extremists for same reasons, whatever those may be. They all adhere to an "us or them" line of thinking.

Pinky 2006-04-19T04:04:41Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#93da1644-2634-4e7c-b764-5e1f70e22167 2006-04-19T01:37:36Z 2006-04-19T01:37:36Z

"belief in god is as arbitrary as any other imaginary belief" My response is that belief that no god exists is as arbitrary as any other imaginary belief as well. Both are leaps of faith unsupported by the available evidence.

Anthony 2006-04-19T01:37:36Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c4da4408-7a5f-4351-acd5-bd01c15445f3 2006-04-19T01:33:15Z 2006-04-19T01:33:15Z

"Agnostic - dictionary.reference.com/search "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something." You're ignoring that site's second definition: "1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." Count me as #2. "Atheism - dictionary.reference.com/search "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" " You're ignoring that site's second definition as well: "b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods." "when clearly Atheism is a "lack of belief"" Depends on what kind of "atheism" you're talking about, since as your very own link has demonstrated, there are more than one accepted usage. The kind of usage asserted by the second definition certainly involves a belief.

Anthony 2006-04-19T01:33:15Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b9d7701c-945f-4999-8a7d-d21d95e7dbf5 2006-04-19T01:24:42Z 2006-04-19T01:23:13Z

"You have not proven the elephant does not exist- only that you have not seen it." Yes I've proven it, though "proof" doesn't need to rise to the level of absolute certainty. You can prove something to be probably true. If there was an elephant in the room, I would probably see it if I looked in the room. It then follows that if I look in the room and see no elephant, then there's probably no elephant in the room. Invisible elephants are improbable. "You can prove that the idea of a square circle is not logical and cannot represent anything real, since the definition of each excludes the other, but this really has nothing to do with the argument about a God or gods. These are imagined entities that by definition are not self-contradictory" Right, and one argument against the existence of God as defined by western theism is that the concept is an imagined entity that by definition is self-contradictory. if that argument is sound, and you've proven that the western definition of God is self-contradictory, then you've proven that western theism's God does not exist, since entities the description of which are self-contradictory cannot exist. "We can imagine an infinite number of such non self-contradictory entities, and not seeing them only proves that we have not seen them, just like your elephant. It is logical to not believe in this entire class of objects" That doesn't follow. I haven't seen most objects in the universe and don't presently (and probably never will) have the capacity to see them all, but it doesn't follow that the ones I don't and/or can't see probably don't exist. "In my estimation God would be one of those limited cases since there are no observed effects" Could you explain what you mean by this, since the concept of the western God is that the universe is the observed effect. "the idea does not fit well with everything that can be deduced about the nature of man and the universe that surrounds us." I don't see why. Has there been a new argument that I haven't heard yet? "That really quite simply that if there were a God, nothing about life really would make any sense." I don't follow that logic. Why?

Anthony 2006-04-19T01:23:13Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a3ec89f3-c932-4b4d-a5e4-d840c710c858 2006-04-19T01:14:30Z 2006-04-19T01:14:30Z

"some atheists have tried to sort these folks out by calling the former “weak/soft atheists” and the latter “strong/hard atheists”. This didn’t really catch on" I have been perfectly content with the traditional and classic atheist/theist/agnostic trichotomy. Talking about strong and weak atheists just seems obfuscating. And furthermore, calling someone a "weak atheist" seems to be chicken shit to me (since we've all felt free to challenge the courage of us agnostics), since it simultaneously attempts to embrace the bold sounding "atheist" label while at the same time refusing to assume any responsibility to prove that God does not exist, which the strong atheist believes. Something like "Yes, I'll declare it! I'm an atheist! But just don't ask me to defend it, because I don't have to."

Anthony 2006-04-19T01:14:30Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d2f9d185-0826-40c1-b709-5a9447047531 2006-04-19T01:09:55Z 2006-04-19T01:09:55Z

"I think the fear factor is actually more appropriately applied to most agnostics. It is the fear of making a decision." No, I made a decision. I decided that there is insufficient evidence to believe one way or another. Having the "courage" to decide to believe something about which you do not have sufficient reason nor evidence to believe is precisely what's wrong with the religionists, and the same applies to atheists who take the leap to believe something that they have no evidentiary justification to believe. "If you walk into a classroom and all the children in the room are wearing glasses, would you be willing to say; "all these kids seem to be wearing glasses" That's not a good analogy since I can see most places in the classroom, so I can legitimately make a probabilistic judgment. In contrast, I can't see everywherenor even most places in the universe, and even in the places I can look, I have no reason to believe that evolution has conveniently endowed me with abilities to see everything that exists. There could be dimensions I don't know about or can't reliably access, physical processes beyond my senses, or whatever. "but simply frustration with someone who does not know how to make up his mind." I made up my mind. I just made up my mind as to what conclusion is justified by the evidence. I have no interest in taking a leap of faith one way or the other.

Anthony 2006-04-19T01:09:55Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#06ddf35c-5e91-42d9-a83f-52c1f320cbc3 2006-04-18T14:21:35Z 2006-04-18T14:21:35Z

>>"If my son says that there is an elephant in the garage, I can go in there and prove to myself that there is no elephant."<< You have not proven the elephant does not exist- only that you have not seen it. You can prove that the idea of a square circle is not logical and cannot represent anything real, since the definition of each excludes the other, but this really has nothing to do with the argument about a God or gods. These are imagined entities that by definition are not self-contradictory. We can imagine an infinite number of such non self-contradictory entities, and not seeing them only proves that we have not seen them, just like your elephant. It is logical to not believe in this entire class of objects, until and unless some proof or perhaps even some sign of their existence appears. This not believing is based on the fact there is an infinitely small chance any such imagined object is real; there being an infinite number of possible objects of this kind. >>"And in limited cases you can prove that something doesn't exist for all practical purposes"<< In my estimation God would be one of those limited cases since there are no observed effects, the idea does not fit well with everything that can be deduced about the nature of man and the universe that surrounds us. That really quite simply that if there were a God, nothing about life really would make any sense.

Rene 2006-04-18T14:21:35Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#cb786faf-59ae-474f-bc11-86e63b70781c 2006-04-18T00:28:06Z 2006-04-18T00:28:06Z

"This is because anyone of sound mind recognizes that it is totally, completely impossible to prove the non-existence of anything." This is often said but not true Rene. You can deductively prove the nonexistence of something by demonstrating that's its definition is self-contradictory, which is the atheological approach of the problem of evil (i.e. the supposed contradiction of an all good, all powerful being allowing evil). I can prove that square circles don't exist. And in limited cases you can prove that something doesn't exist for all practical purposes. If my son says that there is an elephant in the garage, I can go in there and prove to myself that there is no elephant.

Anthony 2006-04-18T00:28:06Z Anthony http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#81f21d0b-1716-448a-a941-1c4e30e3db97 2006-04-18T00:24:47Z 2006-04-18T00:24:47Z

I frankly find these responses smug and arrogant. I reject religion because I see no reason to believe, and if I'm being intellectually honest and consistent, I reject the denial of the existence of any god for precisely the same reason. Maybe there is some supernatural being out there, or some extratertrestiral with huge fucking powers, or whatever. I don't know, and I don't know if there's not either. So I'm agnostic, which in my mind is the only position justifiable by the available evidence. And yes I have thought about it a long time, and yes I have no problem with testosterone. In fact, I went from attheist to agnostic at one point, since I at one point thought that there was good reason to believe that the god of western theism didn't exist, but then the arguments I was relying on turned out to be not so strong after thinking about it for a while. Of course the arguments for God are at least as bad. So here I am in my agnostic position. If you think I'm not rational for denying the existence of a god or gods, then prove that no god exists. Until then, no evidence one way or another means that I have no reason to believe one way or another.

Anthony 2006-04-18T00:24:47Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e9328d96-3aa1-4c75-ba0a-caaeb7dc92cc 2005-12-15T05:48:44Z 2005-12-15T05:48:44Z

Bryan, Thanks for the clarification. That was about what I figured you had in mind, and I agree with everything you say here. Working out the details and logical implications of this world-view is something that has occupied my mind for a long time, and probably will continue to. I've read your posts on a bunch of tribes and you always make good points. We're definitely on the same page most of the time. And surprise, surprise--we both label ourselves as agnostics.

VoodooChild 2005-12-15T05:48:44Z me http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#03659bad-a3a5-4c08-86c1-b173b60557b7 2005-12-15T04:02:11Z 2005-12-15T04:02:11Z

"is one that I have a lot of sympathy for! Give or take a little, it is the view John Dewey calls "instrumentalism," Bas Van Frassen calls "constructive empiricism," Robert Anton Wilson calls "model agnosticism" or "neurological relativism," and the background view on which Thomas Kuhn based his masterwork on scientific revolutions." Yep yep yep, thats just about where I'm coming from. "But when I applied this perspective to the idea of the brain being a computer in another thread, you balked and wanted to resist saying that a computer is only a model of the brain. So I'm curious, why is it that you want to apply this model-theoretic view to the God debate but not to the debate about the nature of the brain? Or have I misunderstood you? " Ahhh. I think we might have been speaking in different contexts in the other thread. EVERY concept is a model, no model is complete. I completley grant that to its fullest logical conclusions. In the brain thread I really wasnt trying to debate how good of a model a computer is for a brain, thats more on the level of attempting to describe reality. I was adressing a different type of question there? I was asking if our the essential concept of what makes a computer a computer is also contained withing the human brain. That argument is on the level of definitions and semantics. To the extent that words have meanings (and one must assume they do as some levels of commiunication seem possible and somewhat consistant), then each word has a central concept that it is attempting to label. If a model of any sort fits the critera for that unique label, then we must be either willing to refer to that model in terms of that word, or change the definiton of the word so that is no longer ambiguious in that concept. However, that wasnt even really what I asked in that thread to begin with anway. I asked how is the brain NOT a computer in the attempt to learn the logic behind people's positions that conciousness is somehow unique to being human, and is fundamentally impossible to program into a computer. I am undecided on that issue, but I don't see the evidance that proves that it is not. The conversation diverged somewhat from there. Sorry If I was ambiguous or did not make the level of abstraction I was talking about clear. I have enjoyed your imput in quite a few threads by this point and think we see eye to eye more than it may have seemed at first.

me 2005-12-15T04:02:11Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ce7a79ec-bf98-4caf-8eef-96fc463a190f 2005-12-14T06:53:46Z 2005-12-14T06:53:46Z

Bryan: Are you in all the same tribes I'm in or what??? The view that you are putting forth: <"Basically the only logically consistant way to look at the world is to make models subject to revision with new data. No model can ever completley predict the system is represents anyway."> is one that I have a lot of sympathy for! Give or take a little, it is the view John Dewey calls "instrumentalism," Bas Van Frassen calls "constructive empiricism," Robert Anton Wilson calls "model agnosticism" or "neurological relativism," and the background view on which Thomas Kuhn based his masterwork on scientific revolutions. But when I applied this perspective to the idea of the brain being a computer in another thread, you balked and wanted to resist saying that a computer is only a model of the brain. So I'm curious, why is it that you want to apply this model-theoretic view to the God debate but not to the debate about the nature of the brain? Or have I misunderstood you?

VoodooChild 2005-12-14T06:53:46Z ta2 JoYnT http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a03986df-d83e-4bad-ba48-b35f70012246 2005-12-14T05:23:16Z 2005-12-14T05:23:16Z

I think that atheist's just look at us agnostic's as sitting on the fence. I'm simply comfortable with (shrug) I don't know !

ta2 JoYnT 2005-12-14T05:23:16Z me http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#97b02d76-6421-49f6-addb-c6ea68aa62d7 2005-12-14T04:41:41Z 2005-12-14T04:41:41Z

I'm still catching up to this thread, and rather than rehasing my points from my thread in the atheist tribe, I will summarize my position by quoting Paul and Anne Ehrlic from "Betrayal of Science and Reason". "..science can never provide absolute certainty or the "proof" that many who misunderstand science often say society needs. Certainty is a standard commodity for some relegious leaders and political columnists, but is forever denied to scientests." Basically the only logically consistant way to look at the world is to make models subject to revision with new data. No model can ever completley predict the system is represents anyway. Atheists who are certain there is no god are opperating on the same prinicpals of faith as deists who are certain of their god's existance. You don't belive in what you can see, or in what you can't, you just have to increase your knowlege as truth does ultimatly not exist.

me 2005-12-14T04:41:41Z me http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d8f26bdb-f4da-4195-a809-e13a39849c9c 2005-12-14T04:23:28Z 2005-12-14T04:23:28Z

Lol, I'm having a fun round of debates with the atheist tribe as we speak. They get so mad when you say things like "absence of evidance is not evidance of absence" or "yea but how do you know, FOR SURE". :)

me 2005-12-14T04:23:28Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#f24088cd-08b6-4c54-a6ad-8987856dd762 2005-12-02T21:00:00Z 2005-12-02T21:00:00Z

>>”When it comes to destiny, our purpose, everything you made example of, still born baby.... that child was never meant to be here now.”<< Of all the religious and pseudo-religious fantasies people seem to accept, this idea of destiny or fate seems to be the one that makes the least sense. If you accept this idea, it seems that what you are accepting is that you are simply a cog in some machine with some function determined by someone or something outside of yourself. I cannot imagine what joy or fulfillment can be derived from being a cog in a machine. If I was convinced we were parts of some machine, I would try to throw a wrench in it and stop it. The most nonsensical aspect of many believers in fate or destiny is that they still cling to the idea that they have free will. The two ideas are diametrically opposed and cannot coexist. You cannot have both fate/destiny and free will. Of course, their ability to hold two contradictory beliefs is simply another symptom of their failure to examine in any depth the mishmash of ideas that they hold. If they did examine their ideas, they would realize that if the course of your life is predetermined; if you have a fate or destiny, there would be no reason for you personally to care about it enough to want to carry it out. You should be looking for an escape hatch that would get you out at every chance. What you would be hoping to escape to is a life that is not predetermined, one where the future, although limited by our circumstances, is not defined by them; where every choice we make makes a difference. This would be an, exciting, interesting, exhilarating experience, with at least the chance of nearly infinite possibilities. Fortunately, we entered this escape hatch when we came squealing into this world, because this is the nature of life. We have no fate or destiny. There is no God. There are only infinite possibilities, limitless choices, and no one responsible for what occurs, other than you and all other living things.

Rene 2005-12-02T21:00:00Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#64db1ba9-2839-40cd-9a7c-ff3bf3a382f4 2005-12-02T16:07:46Z 2005-12-02T16:07:46Z

Sean, I've no problem with agreeing to disagree :-) I've been through hard times as well, and through all of them, it was people (others and myself) who got me through them, not some magic being in the sky. People are capable of so much, and i've been very fortunate to have made some incredible friends in my life. It's a matter of respect for me, to support them, to put my faith in them, who have been there when I needed them, rather than some "god" who was not. They deserve it, they show me every day the promise (and portent) we're all capable of. ... and yes, some of them are believers, and they know my stance. We remain very good friends. Regarding prayer, no. I don't pray. I act in such a way as to make my sphere a cordial, friendly, thoughtful and supportive one, knowing that those who intersect with it at various points in my life, even if they view the world differently, will be a little more likely to fashion their sphere similarly. It's the old adage -- think globally, act locally. Regards, John, who was brought up Christian, but ... well, let's just say that it never worked for me :-) Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-12-02T16:07:46Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#eaca404e-a72c-44e9-abdf-4861cb78471a 2005-12-02T12:58:33Z 2005-12-02T12:58:33Z

I'm sure that it's a matter of disagreeing with you John. We just see it through different eyes, experiences and the enviroment in which we were brought up in. I am not religious by the definition of going to church, synagogue or temple. I went through hard times in my early years, and as a child. Had alot of adversity (I am not complaining... its what was and had to be for me to understand and discover my purpose.. and still discovering) I came out on the other side with a street smart mentality, and an attitude of life that must not be taken seriously. I still fall, revert back to my old ways of dealing and thinking but i come around... we all will...come around. I also know that i am not alone nad there are people with much worse...I pray for them...dont you??? peace Sean

lateraus 2005-12-02T12:58:33Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#79074281-09d4-4acf-ab29-92aef35652b6 2005-12-02T01:33:44Z 2005-12-02T01:33:44Z

Sean, Wow -- what I had originally written was very acerbic and full of vitriol (not directed at you at all, it's just that I really find the "god" concept very, very distasteful, for the reasons I outlined above, and others). I decided not to post that :-) Anyway -- I agree with you completely once again; the suffering we see all around us (humans and non-humans) is largely caused by us (the rest just being our environment, or simple chance). That's one big reason why I personally believe that the less we consider the intangible concept of "god", the more we can (and should) consider the very real, very tangible, reproducible, observable, testable and verifiable concept of humanity, and how we can work to make our world a better one, for everybody. I also personally believe that our success in making our world better approaches infinity as "god" approaches zero, but can we just agree to disagree there? :-) Regards, John Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-12-02T01:33:44Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#cec4fa1e-ff01-4759-a544-a1485f5aa4b8 2005-12-02T00:40:01Z 2005-12-02T00:40:01Z

Laterus says: <"have you heard that we as humans only use 3% of our brains total ability??? what would you think would happen if we could use 20-30-40%"> Laterus, I'm happy to tell you that this is simply not true. My understanding is that early in the 20th century, psychologist/philosopher William James said that we only understand what 10-15% of the brain does. But when this statement began making its way through popular culture by word of mouth, it somehow got changed into "only 10-15% of the brain does anything at all". Obviously our lack of understanding (as of 1915 or so) of what 85-90% of the brain is doing does not mean that this huge chunk of brain matter is doing nothing at all. Nowadays there is still a lot we do not understand about the brain, but we have at least rough blueprints of what most of the parts are used for, and we can check these hypotheses by various techniques like lesion studies, electrodes, and brain imaging techniques like CAT, PET, and MRI. I think there is a lot any person can do to improve the use of thier brain. Some examples that come to my mind are "smart drugs," memory-enhancement techniques, voracious reading, meditation, excercise, logic puzzles. This list could go on. But it is unlikely that any of these things involve tapping into some huge "waiting" brain-area. Data from multiple scientific disciplines converge on the conclusion that the brain evolved to be an organ of flexible adaptation, not a container for dormant abilities that no one has discovered yet.

VoodooChild 2005-12-02T00:40:01Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d334bca1-6af4-4c57-bcc4-77bfaa0b8c68 2005-12-01T21:58:27Z 2005-12-01T21:58:27Z

John First of it isnt "my God" that "does all of these things to people. My understanding of "A GOD" is just that...my understanding. God to me is not vengfull. But what you see going on in the world with poverty and diseases and war you would think other wise. Look at Africa, filled to the brim with counrties that have corupt governments, where the rich stay/get richer and the poor die. thats people harming people, people using free will to much. people are the culprits here not god. I believe god made earth and mother nature and said "lets see what happens" I have never read the bible and never intend to, it was written by people that could have made up any story so i choose to make up my own that suits me. Do you believe in evolution??? have you ever paid much attention to what the solar system resembles??? to me its an atom. the sun being a nucleus and the planets the nutrons and electrons, kind if ironic how the seems to be. so maybe we are part of something much much bigger than we could even imagine. hence I didnt say god mind you. have you heard that we as humans only use 3% of our brains total ability??? what would you think would happen if we could use 20-30-40% also think about most of what you have said, the hard bad side of life. most of it is man made. hence an example of the 3% brain use!! Oh about the child who achieved suicide, its not his purpose its his destiny... 2 completly different things in my opinion. peace Sean

lateraus 2005-12-01T21:58:27Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#62e23223-cd27-489f-b73b-d7cb1eeb2420 2005-12-01T19:44:35Z 2005-12-01T19:44:35Z

>>"the worse off people are, the *more* they seem to believe in God"<< And as you mentioned Christianity is the one religion that has always had great appeal to the poor and downtrodden. Their symbol of some poor, tortured guy hanging on a cross, pretty much tells you what this religion is all about- the basic idea seems to be that this world is meant for pain and suffering, so that we might gain a better life after death. This focus on the afterlife, allows one to endure whatever ills one might encounter in real life. It is actually a pretty good trick. Any suffering can be endured, if you look past it to some imagined reward. If life really is some kind of torture, perhaps it makes sense to delude yourself in this way. The problem that I see is that if you do not focus on what is real, your strategies for making life better, are going to be less effective. If you allow yourself to accept and expect suffering- this is more likely to be your fate.

Rene 2005-12-01T19:44:35Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#648eafb6-f4f1-49c7-8423-04a34ea8c1dd 2005-12-01T18:41:36Z 2005-12-01T18:41:36Z

John Says <"I don't mean this in a bad way, so I hope you don't see it as such, but it's very easy to believe in a god who has graced your life with good things, when ... well, your life is graced with good things. It's very easy to believe that your god gave you your wonderful children (and i've every confidence that they are wonderful), that god made the poor couple win the lottery, that god gave the infertile couple twins. It's much harder to believe in this god when the average sub-Saharan family has an income 1900% _less_ than the average American,"> I generally agree with all the points you are making here, and particularly that the massive amount of human suffering surrounding us is extremely difficult to reconcile with the idea of an all-powerful, loving personal God. But I think there is also an irony here in that the worse off people are, the *more* they seem to believe in God. Some of the poorest parts of Africa, (like Ghana for example) are extrememly Christian, to a degree that makes the American Bible Belt look lazy. Perhaps its a case where day to day life is such a miserable struggle that hope and faith is all they have. In any case, they certainly aren't seeing miracles.

VoodooChild 2005-12-01T18:41:36Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#74c8727e-3fef-4ac0-ba6c-6cc346e2b079 2005-12-01T18:02:51Z 2005-12-01T18:02:51Z

Sean, My examples are more on the negative side in order to point out the dichotomy between what this god of yours gives (and who he gives it to) and what he does not. To consider your examples with mine: 1. If your god gave this couple, who had nothing, 300 million US dollars, how do you reconcile that with the billions of others living in extreme poverty, for which god did not? A very significant percentage (60% or more) of the world's population have a choice: subsist on less than $2 per day, or die. Why does your god not make them win a lottery? 2. Regarding purpose, your comment "how do you know you were meant to do if you didn't achieve said thing???" only illustrates my previous point -- that the premise of purpose, in the context of your god, is self-referential. We achieve what we achieve, that was our purpose. If the child from a broken home achieves suicide, that was his ... purpose? I don't mean this in a bad way, so I hope you don't see it as such, but it's very easy to believe in a god who has graced your life with good things, when ... well, your life is graced with good things. It's very easy to believe that your god gave you your wonderful children (and i've every confidence that they are wonderful), that god made the poor couple win the lottery, that god gave the infertile couple twins. It's much harder to believe in this god when the average sub-Saharan family has an income 1900% _less_ than the average American, when 33% of adults in Zimbabwe have HIV vs. less than than 1% in the US, when _so_ many children die of hunger, when what you or I leave on our plates after dinner would be a veritable _feast_ for a huge percentage of the world population, when polio (which we eradicated here long ago) still cripples children in many other parts of the world, where a mosquito bite in many parts of Africa could mean death from malaria and the villages don't even have enough money to get mosquito nets. With such great numbers in need, why is your god so good to a few, yet so cruel to so many? Why is your god so unfair? As far as your god having a "sense of humor", well ... I think you should reconsider that a bit. _None_ of these things are humorous at all to me. Regards, John Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-12-01T18:02:51Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#810f9ff9-0bba-45d4-8b53-639e19d06315 2005-12-01T16:05:36Z 2005-12-01T16:05:36Z

I also call it life. life as a whole is a very powerfull thing. I believe whole heartedly in evolution, Darwin was a genius with his reshearch. But when it comes to humans, we are far more evolved, have languages, a much deeper intelect in regaurds to making decisions. We dont depend apon our intincts like most mammals do for our survival. Yet we still are animals and have survival inticts byt they are a second choice to us due to our ability to comunicate. So the free will I speek of is based of this premise. What is right and wrong, good and bad, the wide range of emotions we "experience" throughout life. When it comes to destiny, our purpose, everthing you made example of, still born baby.... that child was never neant to to be here now. a child growing up that eventually kills him self chooses to do so "free will" yet again. and maybe he didnt learn his/her lessons this time around. You also asked if you didnt achieve something you were meant to do. how do you know you were meant to if you didnt achieve said thing??? that your path destiny, but purpose is a much deeper experience that we all have, what we gain from them we must share and give back in order to understand the entire lesson. And now god would not punish you only you can truely punish yourself. I must say all of your examples, they are all towards the negitive side of things, the difficult side of life, what about those poeple that win the $300 million lottory That had nothing, or the couple that were told you could never have a child but a miracle happens and they have twins??? What about the single mother who raises 5 kids alone, works tow jobs and all become doctors and or astronauts??? thats all af thier purposes and destinies no??? God i thing does have a sence of humor, but its all in your perspective of life and how you view yourself in you life. Life is full of all kinds of good and bad, As far as the girl who had died its not her purpose to die, thats her destiny, the purpose(s) she had before her death, its now his purpose to experience this, sorry to say, but like you said.... thats life. peace Sean

lateraus 2005-12-01T16:05:36Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#1b55b03e-9cfb-4559-9a63-ec578e3519f5 2005-12-01T05:56:11Z 2005-12-01T05:56:11Z

>>“"Where do we go after life on Earth? I believe it possible that some part of us continues because, everything actually is connected in some way and is interacting." Could you say more about what you have in mind here?”<< What I have in mind here is that matter, which we are made of, has been shown to have a wave aspect, while also appearing to consist of particles. A wave is a non-local phenomenon, present throughout space. This can only mean one thing; every particle, in its wave aspect is interacting with all the other waves from all other particles which are also present throughout space. The wave/particle duality is a paradox of modern physics. Check this website for one solution to the paradox: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm This non-locality of matter has also been demonstrated in the EPR experiment, where entangled particles affect the others states, instantaneously and at any distance. That all matter is somehow connected and interacting also seems to follow from gravity and inertia, as we understand them. If you imagine that you are in fact composed of waves, interacting with all other matter waves in the universe, it seems that every action and thought you might have is going to affect the rest of the universe. These effects will move out from the source, always exist, and continue to resonate for all of time. The effects that continue as you live and should continue after you die, cannot be equated with a conscious being with a sense of self, so I would not interpret this as immortality for any conscious being. The conscious being is the source of the wave activity, not the result of it. Rather than support the idea that your consciousness or spirit is separate from your physical form and might survive after your death, the idea that you are simply a wave-form leads me to a greater realization of how insubstantial we are. What I imagine are the currents, eddies, and storms in the ocean; all with very real and powerful characters while they exist, all affecting the rest of the ocean, and all simply vanishing at some point; never to be reconstituted in the same way. Other storms will form, perhaps in some way affected by those that preceded them, but the same storm will never form again, never follow exactly the same path; each will be new and different with no real memory of all that preceded it. All the same things can be said about anything that lives and dies.

Rene 2005-12-01T05:56:11Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#10ffbbb2-64c6-4d6c-94ca-bf538dc85d82 2005-11-30T17:44:06Z 2005-11-30T17:44:06Z

Laterus, Yes, please choose a new word -- that was my point :-) How about "experience?" Regarding your trust, I think that you and I (and, *gasp* many agonstics / [apa]athiests / nonthiests, and I don't mean this in a bad way) are very similar here. You put that trust in "something that will guide me along", put obstacles in front of you for you to overcome and hopefully learn from, and give you the rewards for doing so. Well, I have complete trust in this very same thing -- I call it, simply, life / the human condition / experience. I have complete trust in it because, well, if I weren't here, living life, I wouldn't be discussing it with you :-) Our difference, I think, is that you attribute a certain precogniscence (purpose, reason for being) to this something, anthropomorphize it and call it god, while I just say "hey, it's life." ... but there's the rub. If we all have a purpose, then that again flies in the face of the "free will" premise, for some supernatural being had to have _appointed_ that purpose to me, e.g. already decided that my reason for being is to accomplish x and y. There are some problems with that: 1. I probably don't know what x and y are, so I won't know if I accomplish them or not. 2. It's a self-referential thing e.g. whatever I accomplish, that's what I was supposed to accomplish, that was my reason for being. If someone was able to _not_ fulfill his purpose, then either god gave them a bum purpose (god says "psyche!") or god didn't know how it would turn out, which throws the whole god-is-omniscient argument out the window. 3. If everyone has a purpose, a reason for being here, what do you say to the mother whose baby was stillborn? At one point, the baby lived and therefore, in your view, had to have a purpose. What do you say about the depressed child from a broken home who commits suicide? Was their purpose, their reason for being, to live in a horrible environment, suffer from clinical depression and eventually kill themselves (that, my friend, is a very cruel purpose, a very diabolical reason for being)? What do you say of the baby who develops cancer as an infant and dies as a toddler? 4. What if somone doesn't accomplish their purpose, whatever it is? Is this possible? Can I _not_ do something that I was _meant_ to do? If so, didn't god, being all-knowing, know that I wouldn't accomplish this? Is god going to punish me for not doing what he _knew_ I wouldn't do? Was my purpose, my reason for being, to fail and be punished for all eternity? Again ... a very cruel purpose to be given. There was a recent news story about a girl who died because her boyfriend kissed her 9 hours after eating a peanut butter sandwhich. She was deathly allergic to peanuts, and he had no idea. What was her purpose, her reason for being? What do you think his is? Do you think that your god put a lesson in his path through life, mainly "never eat a peanut butter sandwhich and kiss anyone later, lest they die?" This is one reason why I am agnostic, leaning towards [a/non]thiesm, for it is far easier for me to accept the premise that there is no god, then to accept that this god is so incredibly atrocious and unkind. Regards, John Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-11-30T17:44:06Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a68c8c2d-d1f3-4dd3-81fb-2ea63e37aa92 2005-11-30T16:04:01Z 2005-11-30T16:04:01Z

Can i choose a different word now??? Someone gave these names of heaven and hell as places to go for poelple that were good and bad you now this shit. but all I'm saying is life is a hard experience and a joyous one as well like i said before. I am the common denominator in all my problems in my life, as well as during all the good times. Meaning by having free will I ca either choose to create chaos or serenity love or war. but for me to have a trust in something to guide me along the path of life, that no matter what will happen, I will recieve the lessons, abilities, tools, love happiness and all the hard times so that I can become a better person for myself and those close to me as well as the people that i hope to meet that i can give away what i have learned along the way, that means so much to me (having that trust). Have you read the book called the "Celestine Prophicy" i forgot the author. he writes about how there isn't such a thing as coincidences in life, that you me the people that you are meeting for a reason, you are doing your work as to carry some message to those around you. It is a good book if you like. we all have purpose a reason for being here.

lateraus 2005-11-30T16:04:01Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b28dab15-2703-4401-add7-c90bf41a192d 2005-11-30T10:22:41Z 2005-11-30T10:22:41Z

Pinemaker, If what you're asking is, "if i'm self-aware, then am I a part of something much bigger that it also self-aware, and if so, could I possibly know it?" then, well ... I don't know :-) I don't immediately see how this is contrary to the concept of free will, though -- but I just woke up (couldn't sleep, mind racing -- I kid thee not -- about how to save the world, something i'll never be able to do though it consumes _so_ many cycles <shrug>). Regards, John Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-11-30T10:22:41Z Pinemaker http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ed9a9596-efdd-47f9-8a54-66dafe88cd2d 2005-11-30T07:47:48Z 2005-11-30T07:47:48Z

Just trying to picture out a scenario where a universal consciousness exist (note: not exactly a creator) yet would be impossible for us to understand. Still I think for an agnostic its existence won't be a big deal... everyone can live oblivious to its existence... without much hassle. Still an agnostic would be likely more closer understanding reality.

Pinemaker 2005-11-30T07:47:48Z Pinemaker http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#025c3112-9547-4838-b89d-21ec26ce40b2 2005-11-30T07:39:46Z 2005-11-30T07:39:46Z

Just wished to ask... 1. If the human mind is a product of a complex neural interaction stream lined by evolution to have a reaction that tries to preserve itself thereby poducing consciuosness, freewill etc. Would a universal complex reaction be properly called conscious? 2. Could for example an organize body of interacting individuals aiming for a goal be called if considered as a whole, consciuos? 3. Is free will just a product of reactions operating as a complex chaotic system? Which would mean free will is not actually free. 4. Can our consciousness be likened to a 2 dimensional organism in the surface of a 3 dimensional ball, wondering the true shape of the its world. 5. Is there really a box that is impossible to know what lies inside?

Pinemaker 2005-11-30T07:39:46Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#9dba1908-7b39-49d7-bfed-46aa5761b93f 2005-11-30T04:56:26Z 2005-11-30T04:56:26Z

Laterus, << I have two unbelevable kids that make me smile, cry, laugh, angery, feel joy, and realize how fragile the human race really is. >> ... this doesn't sound like hell to me :-) Me thinks you've some great things there. I don't mean anything acerbic by this, but I feel I need to ask -- if these are some of the things that make your life "hell", what is your idea of "heaven" (not to discount how said unbelievable kids might think of being part of your "hell")? Now, i'm agnostic as they come (or perhaps not quite, for I admit to having a tendency to lean toward outright athiesm) so if prudence dictates that you take anything I write with several grains of salt, i'm cool with that. It just intrigues me that someone who is clearly able to see what wonderful things life has to offer can possibly refer to it as "hell". Not only does it just not seem to accurately describe the context that you live in, but it really seems to trivialize those whose contexts' are obviously much worse than ours. There are untold #s of people who suffer from starvation, terminal diseases, famine, seemingly unending and very brutal wars, extreme poverty, etc. If you think that your life is "hell" with two healthy children to occupy it, how would you describe the life of someone in the midst of a bloody civil conflict, who has no choice but to provide any comfort that they can to their children, knowing that they're starving, and comfort is the _only_ thing they _can_ provide (for there is no food)? Regards, John, not intending to sound over-emotional, just curious (perhaps morbidly so) Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-11-30T04:56:26Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#17398cb7-b736-406e-832b-3078f20a4ea7 2005-11-30T04:30:17Z 2005-11-30T04:30:17Z

Geoff its hard to really explain by typing but, just for a moment take away the conitation that the word hell has and hear what it is I am saying (typing).. I love life most of the time, I have bad days I have great day sbut my point of life is where hell is now is due to the range of events, emotions, war, birth of your first born, loosing your best friend, murder, the smell of rain in Joshua Tree N.P in may, overcoming your fear(s) to talk to that very beautiful women, falling in love, so on... I'm not walking around thinking life sucks and pissed off at everyone and everything, I'm just someone whos living life mabye not to its 100% potential but trying. I have two unbelevable kids that make me smile, cry, laugh, angery, feel joy, and realize how fragile the human race really is. Hope this helped. I did like your information on brain behavior it made me think a lot on the topic, thanks!

lateraus 2005-11-30T04:30:17Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#919eba06-ad85-45fe-b372-117140d2350a 2005-11-30T03:22:46Z 2005-11-30T03:22:46Z

Some thoughts for Laterus and Rene: Laterus says <"My belief, though may sound negitive to some, Hell is we are now."> Well, yeah. That's a pretty negative belief, and one that I think could have very depressing consequences. Brain/behavior researchers have found that we find confirmations of our beliefs all around us (whether those beliefs are true or not) and that we tend to filter-out that which conflicts with our beliefs, or that which is not explainable with respect to our beliefs. After all, if some observation seems completely opposed to our beliefs, we simply don't understand it. So our beliefs become self-fulfilling prophecies. This is known as "confirmation bias" and it's a well established phenonemon. So if you walk around in the world with the belief that life is hell, then it would seem you will be more likely to tune in to all the negative things happening around you, and tune out the world's many wonderful qualities. This is a fate I would hesitate to wish on anyone, so I hope you're open to being persuaded that as Milton put it, the mind can make a hell of heaven, a heaven of hell. Rene says <"Where do we go after life on Earth? I believe it possible that some part of us continues because, everything actually is connected in some way and is interacting."> Could you say more about what you have in mind here?

VoodooChild 2005-11-30T03:22:46Z John Michael http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a09bec76-a2dc-4616-b7ca-60f9c2ddb3ad 2005-11-30T02:50:22Z 2005-11-30T02:50:22Z

I don't believe in fate / destiny / karma / etc., either. I think what Rene is trying to communicate is a problem (though certainly not the only one) with the principle of omniscience. If a being is omniscient, said being knows my past, present and future. I may not know my future, but the premise that _anyone_ does really flies in the face of the principle of free will. No worries, though -- i'm respectful of others' beliefs (though there are limits) ... I may not agree with them, but we humans don't have to agree on everything :-) Regards, John Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com

John Michael 2005-11-30T02:50:22Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e9016acc-8e23-4074-8f13-bc11deccf705 2005-11-29T20:42:37Z 2005-11-29T20:42:37Z

>>“…Do you believe…?”<< To answer your questions: No, I do not believe in fate, destiny, karma, heaven, or hell. Where do we go after life on Earth? I believe it possible that some part of us continues because, everything actually is connected in some way and is interacting. The impact of our choices is going to resonate for all of time. As a conscious entity with a feeling of selfhood, nothing will survive the end of your physical body. I feel that the self that we know, love, and share with others is completely tied up and derived from our physical form, so that once this is gone, the self must also be gone. There is no separate body and spirit in my estimation. If life is hell for you, hell is all that you will ever know. >>”I can also imagine that you have every single day planned from now until eternity. If so you your self is playing a god-like role.” I certainly don’t have every day planned. It is wandering on unplanned paths that makes life interesting. Understanding that the road is completely open, that the future is dependent on your choices, along with all others, may seem god-like you, but really it is simply the nature of all life and this imaginary concept of a God or gods is not applicable to describing this situation. That the path of your life is your responsibility and that the future depends on you and your choices is difficult for some to accept- I think this is one reason people like to imagine gods- it frees them of responsibility. >>”Thats what free will is all about”<< I am quite sure that if you examine the issue of free will and the God that you claim to believe in, that you will discover that they are not compatible. After you have done this, you will have to discard either the idea that you have free will, or the idea of God. You will not be able to keep both.

Rene 2005-11-29T20:42:37Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#63265760-0736-4085-aae5-e45ea0468d7f 2005-11-29T18:39:14Z 2005-11-29T18:39:14Z

So it's safe to say, pardon the assumption, that you don't believe in fate or destiny?? karma? I can also imagine that you have every single day planned from now untill eternity. If so you your self is playing a god-like role. As for the puppet example, i have no strings or chain pulling me in the direction in which my god is thinks "should" go!! Thats what free will is all about. Religion to me as far as organized religion has far to many rules, and "orchestrated movements" to follow. I'm talking about a basic fundemental belief in that yes I have a brian to makes choices on what can and hopfully help me and my family life a happy nonstressful life, full of love an excitment and the growing pains of what life is all about. Question... Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?? What or where do we go after we have finished being here in this life as humans??? reincarnation?? or just nothing what so ever?? My belief, though may sound negitive to some, Hell is we are now. Life is difficult full of pain, joy, death, loss, ups and downs, emotions we sometimes dont understand, constantly questioning "is there a god?" "why are we here?" and on down the road.... we are here for some reason but i will not know why 100% untill I die and see" the light" we have lessons we must learn from what i believe from possibily past lives, to help people find thier answers. It doesnt have to be so hard all the fucking time. we make it hard. Its the nature of the beast being humans.

lateraus 2005-11-29T18:39:14Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7abbb502-c642-4498-9666-687a7380e70a 2005-11-28T23:24:52Z 2005-11-28T23:24:52Z

“>>the bigger question..why???”<< I had some more thoughts on this question. Theists often claim or feel that without a God, life has no meaning or purpose- that there is no answer to the questions; why live, why are we here? In my estimation, the opposite is actually true; if there were a God, a power, or a force directing our lives it would be impossible for there to be any real meaning or purpose. We would basically be no different than puppets in a play. From the point of view of the puppet, life, it seems, would be a meaningless charade of orchestrated movements forced by the hand of the puppeteer. Would anyone really want to live such a life? From the point of view of the puppeteer, the puppets lives would also appear to be meaningless, since the puppeteer already knows what must occur, why take the effort to carry it out? He could simply carry out the movements in his mind with the same effect for him. The entire scenario is devoid of meaning. There could be no reason to carry it out. Let us look at this from a more earthly perspective. What is it about raising children that imbues people’s lives with meaning and with joy? The parent could be viewed as a puppeteer- trying to direct and control a child’s life in order for the child to fulfill a plan the parent has devised. Some parents may actually act this way- only not being gods; the results are not assured, so seeing their plans work out might give them some fulfillment. Is there any joy, or real meaning for the child in this? I think that there is not any- that the child’s meaning and joy must come from finding and following his own path. Likewise, most parents do not find any real joy in being puppeteers; the joy comes from seeing the child blossom and grow in ways they could not have expected, predicted or planned. It is the surprises that a child brings, the new perspectives that really bring joy and make the experience meaningful. In the same way, the meaning in our lives is derived from what we choose to build and create. No other meaning is possible. All life, including ours, is an unfolding of infinite possibilities, following a path of our choosing. This seems very meaningful and interesting to me, whereas, if my life were following a directed path chosen by some other force or being, it would be entirely pointless and not worth living.

Rene 2005-11-28T23:24:52Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#612fae2e-0e3d-40b6-812c-682a1284fec1 2005-11-28T19:55:12Z 2005-11-28T19:55:12Z

So why did you ask "why" dont religion, philosophy and science follow the same rules?? Isn't that a meaningless question as well? What and how I evaluate my beliefs to coenside with how I choose to apply them to my daily life doesn't mean it's going to equate to an accurate understanding of our world. what is an accurate anyway. You are suggesting that there is only one clearcut answer to how it all does and should work. Everyday life if you really sit back and watch inspires and motivates me to be a litte bit better in how i view my place within this role I play here. Yet I have gotton tired of all the why questions, just want to know when and where. My answers will come when they need to, in due time!!

lateraus 2005-11-28T19:55:12Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8f945c3b-6210-4016-b16f-0266b8f2170f 2005-11-28T16:18:36Z 2005-11-28T16:18:36Z

>>””why shouldnt religion, philosophy and science play by the same rules?” Rules? Why have so many lines drawn in the sand about how to think, act and believe??”<< There are no lines in sand and no one is suggesting everyone should think the same way. What I am suggesting is that any ideas that you personally consider and evaluate, you apply the same criteria for judging whether or not you accept them as meaningful and useful to an accurate understanding of our world. “>>the bigger question..why???”<< Personally, I think that this is a meaningless question. There is no why, only how, what, and where. Why is only meaningful in a human context, where we hope to understand the motives behind someone’s actions. Motives imply consciousness and giving this attribute to the universe at large seems absurd to me. My view is that what is always has been and always will be. There are no motives or direction to “what is” other that what we ourselves add to it.

Rene 2005-11-28T16:18:36Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#0e5be5e0-bc2f-428e-8b82-352845efe1a6 2005-11-28T16:01:10Z 2005-11-28T16:01:10Z

>>"Well we will have to agree that you just don't understand."<< I agree that I don't understand. It appears there are three possible explanations for this: (1) I do not have the ability to understand either lacking the intelligence or the proper open-minded attitude. (2) You have failed to defend and explain your position in a manner that would allow me to understand it. (3) Your position is in fact not defendable or explainable, so that no one including yourself could understand it, defend it or explain it. Without hard data on this question, my estimate here is simply a guess; #3 is correct, partly supplemented by #2.

Rene 2005-11-28T16:01:10Z lateraus http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#1ce9dda9-22cb-4f02-94b4-9726dafecd43 2005-11-28T15:48:19Z 2005-11-28T15:48:19Z

>>why shouldnt religion, philosophy and science play by the same rules?<< Rules? Why have so many lines drawn in the sand about how to think, act and believe?? Being humans gives the advantage of exploreing the impossible, space, the human mind and how we think so on and so fourth.. we are different from any other living on this planet. But by your statement you are saying that they dont already follow the basic rules. are you sure this is true??? the laws of nature are the, if not the most powerful examples of philosophy and science and even reliogion at work. take for example the grand canyon millions apon millions of years to grind and carve a pathway just by the movment of water, philosophy, science and a power greater than all of us are at work as we sit here. are they fighting who is bigger, better more important??? I think not. they just are. You dont wounder what or who created the stars, ok the science of how a star is made and such, but the bigger question..why??? will it make you feel any better to achieve tis answer?? then whats next? outer space is by far the biggest sign that we are nothing in the grand scale of things and there is something much more powerful at work!!! on the same note, we did somewhere down the line come from all that right??

lateraus 2005-11-28T15:48:19Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8c6ba305-4b35-4019-a500-9a6f26efbdd8 2005-11-28T04:23:49Z 2005-11-28T04:23:49Z

Well we will have to agree that you just don't understand.

Entropy 2005-11-28T04:23:49Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#daab56f8-7791-404a-9590-7a23e9e6417e 2005-11-27T18:34:57Z 2005-11-27T18:34:57Z

>>"I put a caveat on that you obviously missed about religion."<< I wonder why you choose to put religion in a special category? It seems to me that any ideas people have about the world ought to be evaluated and discussed on the same basis. Why give religion a free ticket? Why should not religion, philosophy, and science play by the same rules? It seems that this free ticket that religion is usually given and that religions seem to demand is unwarranted and dangerous. It is part of the reason religions have been able to wreak havoc on human society historically, and continue to do so. If we continually allow nonsense and fantasy to be taken seriously, the result is what we see today- people blowing themselves up engrossed in some religious fantasy and a free state (the USA) threatened with theocracy.

Rene 2005-11-27T18:34:57Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8b1d611f-1eed-4d70-8dee-681fe5840970 2005-11-27T02:43:58Z 2005-11-27T02:43:58Z

I put a caveat on that you obviously missed about religion.

Entropy 2005-11-27T02:43:58Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#be637004-51a7-4b47-847e-26eb371993eb 2005-11-26T22:53:01Z 2005-11-26T22:53:01Z

>>"Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term, "pointless"<< I am just guessing, but it would seem that any discussion should be pointless to you based on your earlier claim; "And I would never try to convince anyone to think like I do."

Rene 2005-11-26T22:53:01Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b76b00a0-da4e-4909-b938-d30bcdc4c92f 2005-11-26T19:10:15Z 2005-11-26T19:10:15Z

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term, "pointless".

Entropy 2005-11-26T19:10:15Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#cb8a4296-7ccf-4b27-996b-5697a378f031 2005-11-24T20:12:17Z 2005-11-24T20:12:17Z

>>”"Newton’s theory = General Relativity in most other cases. " This discussion just became pointless to me.”<< Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this fact: Einstein’s field equations in General Relativity reduce to Newton’s law of gravity where there is a weak gravitational field and the speed is slow relative to the speed of light. Einstein’s field equations are non-linear differential equations which are difficult to solve, so where applicable Newton’s equations are used, since they produce the same result. More on this from this link; http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761558302: "Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics differ in fundamental assumptions and mathematical development, but in most cases do not differ appreciably in net results; the behavior of a billiard ball when struck by another billiard ball, for example, may be predicted by mathematical calculations based on either type of mechanics and produce approximately identical results. Inasmuch as the classical mathematics is enormously simpler than the relativistic, the former is the preferred basis for such a calculation. In cases of high speeds, however, assuming that one of the billiard balls was moving at a speed approaching that of light, the two theories would predict entirely different types of behavior, and scientists today are quite certain that the relativistic predictions would be verified and the classical predictions would be proved incorrect."

Rene 2005-11-24T20:12:17Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#aa0f4d43-241d-424c-aa39-c7cd875da570 2005-11-24T01:46:12Z 2005-11-24T01:46:12Z

You make a very convoluted argument based on your own definition of "what science is", and the results? This statement: "Newton’s theory = General Relativity in most other cases. " This discussion just became pointless to me.

Entropy 2005-11-24T01:46:12Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#91f2d4a4-7c41-4b91-ba24-45bf344ee6c5 2005-11-23T20:41:43Z 2005-11-23T20:41:43Z

>>“See the problem here is that we disagree on just that one point. The history of science is the history of theories that don't account for all the data. Now are the new theories "better" at accounting for more of the data... usually, but there's always more data to account for.”<< Let us look at these issues in a slightly different light. First I am going to define what I think we should consider “Science”: Science is the enterprise of trying to gain a better understanding of our world and the universe at large by the application of the scientific method which I referred to in an earlier post: • 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. • 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. • 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. • 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. • 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. Step 5 implies that “any scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all the data”- the statement I made earlier and have repeated ad nausium. Now Science as defined above, would end given two possible circumstances: (1) All of the data that can be acquired is properly accounted for by the theories of Science. (2) People stop trying to account for all of the data. So, of course, “The history of science is the history of theories that don't account for all the data.” If they did account for all of the data that would be the end of science and the end of the history of science- rather than Science, as I defined it above, what we would have is a static body of knowledge to be passed on from generation to generation. Science as I defined it above, would never have occurred and there would be no history to talk about if those seeking to gain a better understanding of the world did not require from themselves and others that any theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data. >>”Theories are accepted not on the basis of accounting for "all the data" rather on their "usefullness". Newtonian physics still accepted as a theory, even though subsequent theories are better at accounting for more data. Doesn't mean Newtonian theories are no longer useful.”<<Accounting for all the data isn't necessary for acceptance, it is a goal that is never achieved, sure, but it's not necessary for "acceptance" as you state it.”<< It is not fruitful to play with the meanings of words, so I am not going to discuss what exactly is meant or should be meant by the word acceptance in relation to scientific theories; instead let us simply jettison the word and no longer use it and discuss these same ideas with different words: Newton’s equations are still used because, as a special case within the theory of “General Relativity” they still very accurately predict the movements of bodies in space. General Relativity is seen as superseding Newtonian mechanics because it can be applied accurately to more data than can the Newtonian equations. >>”Accounting for all the data isn't necessary for acceptance, it is a goal that is never achieved, sure, but it's not necessary for "acceptance" as you state it.”<< So Newton’s theory is still useful, but it cannot account for certain data which General Relativity can account for. Newton’s equations cannot be used (are not accepted?) in the instances where this is true. The equations of General Relativity can be used (are accepted?) for the special cases where Newton’s equations work. Newton’s equations are used here because they are easier to work with and understand. It seems clear that there is nothing about this situation which contradicts my statement: “in order to continue to be accepted a scientific theory must eventually account for all of the data.” Newton’s theory is not used/accepted in the cases where it cannot account for the data. Newton’s theory = General Relativity in most other cases.

Rene 2005-11-23T20:41:43Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#2f521986-3e35-4c3c-9745-c3442c689131 2005-11-22T19:45:57Z 2005-11-22T19:45:57Z

"to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data. " "this does not imply that all the data is necessarily ever accounted for" See the problem here is that we disagree on just that one point. The history of science is the history of theories that don't account for all the data. Now are the new theories "better" at accounting for more of the data... usually, but there's always more data to account for. Theories are accepted not on the basis of accounting for "all the data" rather on their "usefullness". Newtonian physics still accepted as a theory, even though subsequent theories are better at accounting for more data. Doesn't mean Newtonian theories are no longer useful. Accounting for all the data isn't necessary for acceptance, it is a goal that is never achieved, sure, but it's not necessary for "acceptance" as you state it.

Entropy 2005-11-22T19:45:57Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#175815a9-bfe1-482c-a176-3723cb46c3f9 2005-11-22T14:44:30Z 2005-11-22T14:44:30Z

>>"You see that any proposition or hypothesis is accepted because they were made by credible men"<< I am not sure that I am understanding what you are trying to say so what follows may not be an appropriate answer. In my estimation a "credible" man is one who adhers and is committed to the application of the scientific method which was outlined earlier on this thread. This method requires that any theory in order to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data. As I said earlier this does not imply that all the data is necessarily ever accounted for, only that this must be the goal and that data is the final arbitrator between whether one theory or another is accepted. I suggest that any process aimed at furthering our understanding of the world that does not apply the scientific method is bound to fail. If it all is simply a matter of belief then the only thing we will ever understand about the world is how we would like it to be. I am quite convinced that we now understand the world much better than men living 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Our knowledge has progressed and the only reason this is true is because the scientific method is being applied and any sceintific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data.

Rene 2005-11-22T14:44:30Z Pinemaker http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c225cdcb-b7d6-491a-9c51-4b17858329b7 2005-11-22T08:49:38Z 2005-11-22T08:49:38Z

Dear Rene, Why would I/we accept that "Yes, I gathered that this was true and the implication is that in fact Kuhn understood that a successful paradigm must eventually account for all of the data."? Are you able to give as objective facts and data to support your claim? Can you read Kuhn's mind as to be absolutely sure? Do you really know all of these for us to believe? It is only logical I believe that for anyone to accept their argument they themselves must also apply these arguments. If you can "eventually account for all of the data" needed then there is no question. What you say is true. You see that any proposition or hypothesis is accepted because they were made by credible men and we accept it eventhough we ourselves have not made the said experiment nor have we seen it for ourselves. As I have pointed out earlier what we believe or undoubtly stand may in fact be a hindrance to us in accepting reason.

Pinemaker 2005-11-22T08:49:38Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e1759229-5f85-4340-934c-06e3be09fd10 2005-11-22T04:56:41Z 2005-11-22T04:56:41Z

>>"You can't judge Kuhn's work by any synopsis you find on the internet--it's a rich world-view of interconnected parts, and the whole is more than the sum of those parts."<< I am sure you are completely correct about this and that this would apply to most if not all books. However, I was not really trying to judge the totality of Kuhn's work, only how it might relate to my statement that "any scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted, must eventually account for all of the data", which you contested. I am satisfied that there is nothing in Kuhn's book that would nullify this statement. It is also clear that the book had a major impact, some of it good and some of it bad. For this reason, it is undoubtedly a book worth reading. On your recommendation I will make it #16 on my list. >>"The quote above generally applies to scientific revolutions *as they are happening*, in a state which neither paradigm can account for ALL data" Yes, I gathered that this was true and the implication is that in fact Kuhn understood that a successful paradigm must eventually account for all of the data. But statements like this one seem to have lead some to conclude that accounting for the data is not final arbitrator of science; that essentially it is a matter of belief. Thus we find Kuhn be used in support of creationism/ID theory and similar non-scientific enterprises.

Rene 2005-11-22T04:56:41Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#39378720-a9d2-48c6-be6c-aae98ec32381 2005-11-22T04:14:42Z 2005-11-22T04:14:42Z

Kuhn sez: "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proof." Rene sez: "This conclusion that Kuhn’s makes is not actually supported by what he presents in the book or by the facts." Not supported by what he presents in the book? Wait, I thought you hadn't read "Structure"? WTF??? He actually does make a pretty good case for this claim in Structure, but it's hard to appreciate that case when you are only reading synopses of his work. Much of what he says sounds like nonsense when taken out of context (by his defenders or his detractors). The quote above generally applies to scientific revolutions *as they are happening*, in a state which neither paradigm can account for ALL data, and this is why the historical context is important. For example, the early copernicans were embarassed by the fact that the parallax motion predicted by their theory was not observed. With our 20-20 hindsight we can now see that this was because thier telescopes were too crude to detect this motion, but in the context of the time, this was a good argument against Copernicus. Also, in some cases, Kuhn overstates his conclusions--for example, he has a genuine insight about the difficulty of comparing different theories which use different vocabularies and explain different data (incommensurability), but he gets overzealous in his presentation of this claim. The philosophy of science he was developing was diametrially opposed to most of the other philosophies of science of the time (like Popper and the Positivists) and sometimes he goes too far in the other direction. He softens some of his more relativistic-sounding conclusions in later works and postscripts to "Structure," and he ultimately died feeling bitter and misunderstood, and embarassed by those claiming to be his followers. Personally I agree with some points he makes, disagree with other points, and some I'm still not sure about. These things are seldom black and white. You can't judge Kuhn's work by any synopsis you find on the internet--it's a rich world-view of interconnected parts, and the whole is more than the sum of those parts. I've read it at least twice and written a couple papers on it and there are still parts I can't decide whether to agree with. I certainly understand that you have a lot cued-up to read and can't impulsively take other posters suggestions--I'm in the same boat! But I would recommend that you at least suspend judgment until you get a chance to read "Structure" and grapple with it on its own terms.

VoodooChild 2005-11-22T04:14:42Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8e740bc3-371c-439f-b150-465b813bd3df 2005-11-21T21:57:31Z 2005-11-21T21:57:31Z

>>”"It seems clear enough from this cursory examination that there is nothing in the book that contradicts the idea that science (the application of the scientific method) requires that a scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data, as I said earlier." Actually that's the entire point of the book. That is to discount this idea, that science seeks to account for all the data. That we are climbing some ladder of knowledge. Kuhn does a very affective job at contradicting this idea, and discrediting what you are arguing”<< I do not think this is exactly correct. In the Postscript in the 3rd edition, in section 6, Kuhn writes about his opinion on the matter of scientific progress: “In the sciences, I believe, the high value accorded to puzzle-solving ability has the following consequences. Imagine an evolutionary tree representing the development of the modern scientific specialties from their common origins in, say, primitive natural philosophy and the crafts. A line drawn up that tree, never doubling back, from the trunk to the tip of some branch would trace a succession of theories related by descent. Considering any two such theories, chosen from points not too near their origin, it should be easy to design a list of criteria that would enable an uncommitted observer to distinguish the earlier from the more recent theory time after time. Among the most useful would be: accuracy of prediction, particularly of quantitative prediction; the balance between esoteric and everyday subject matter; and the number of different problems solved. Less useful for this purpose, though also important determinants of scientific life, would be such values as simplicity, scope, and compatibility with other specialties. Those lists are not yet the ones required, but I have no doubt that they can be completed. If they can, then scientific development is, like biological, a unidirectional and irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist’s position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress. I can see however, why you and many others have taken this idea from Kuhn’s work. For instance, he also says this; "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proof." This conclusion that Kuhn’s makes is not actually supported by what he presents in the book or by the facts. Let us look at the case of Copernicus and Ptolemy. Kuhn says this: "Copernicus’ more elaborate proposal was neither simpler nor more accurate than Ptolemy’s system. Available observational tests, as we shall see more clearly below, provided no basis of a choice between them." Copernicus system was in fact a simpler, more robust model that that of Ptolemy. Initially, perhaps the observational data could not resolve the two systems, but later and certainly now, the system of Ptolemy cannot account for all of the data whereas, the Copernican system can. If later data supported Ptolemy, his system would have been adopted and Copernicus would now be thought of as a crank scientist. The reason he is not is because and only because his theory continues to account for all of the data and Ptolemy’s system does not. This directly contradicts Kuhn’s assertion above: “The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proof." Kuhn makes other assertions that are equally inaccurate. For instance from Wikipedia: in discussing different paradigms: “Kuhn observes that they are incommensurable — literally, lacking comparison, untranslatable. New theories were not, as they had thought of before, simply extensions of old theories, but radically new worldviews. This incommensurability applies not just before and after a paradigm shift, but between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used belong within the paradigm and are therefore different in different paradigms” This idea suggests that Einstein who might be viewed as the father of both the paradigm of General Relativity and the paradigm of Quantum Mechanics (although he hated this child) could not translate from one theory to the next. Or looking at Geology, those who developed the geosynclinal theory of mountain building could not converse with those who embraced plate tectonics, perhaps the biggest paradigm shift in the last 50 years. Looking closer at this paradigm shift, what we see is not that geosynclinal proponents died and plate tectonics proponents gradually prevailed, but that an overwhelming amount of data was acquired that could only be explained by plate tectonics- the gradual movement of the continents through geologic time. One theory could account for all of the data and the other could not. Once again, this is the only reason that plate tectonics persists and geosynclines lie in the dustbin of scientific history. If data is gathered showing somehow that the continents cannot move, plate tectonics would enter this same dustbin. The reason again being that in order for any scientific theory to continue to be accepted, it must eventually account for all of the data. Let us go back to Copernicus and Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic system was continually modified during its time of acceptance. Why? Because new data was acquired and had to be fit into the system in order for it to continue to be accepted. Copernicus was dealing with additional data that would very difficult to explain in the Ptolemaic system. This is why he came up with something new. How one can imagine that this can “discount this idea that science seeks to account for all the data’, is beyond my reckoning. Finally let us discuss this idea from Kuhn; From: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/kuhn.htm: “In summary, Kuhn’s argument is something like this: 1. All novelties of fact (discoveries) or theory lead to the end of normal science. 2. Normal science does not aim at its own demise. Therefore, normal science does not aim novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none” In my estimation “normal science” is science. There is no other kind. Normal science aims to uncover more and more facts/data which it attempts to explain by theories. It requires that any theory in order continue to be accepted must eventually account for all the data. Normal science continually aims at the demise of theories because it is well recognized that new data often requires new theories and this is why science is exciting and interesting for those involved in it. Because of this, normal science is successful and old theories are constantly supplanted by new theories. Often theories build up a large amount of inertia because they seem to explain so much data from many different quadrants. If enough data is accumulated to overcome this inertia a “paradigm shift” occurs when it can be clearly demonstrated that the new “paradigm” will be better able to eventually account for all of the data. So finally, Kuhn’s work was relevant and useful in that it reminded us that science is imperfect, that social factors influence its direction, and that we must always work to keep an open mind and not fall in love with our theories. What Kuhn’s work did not do, nor could it ever do, is change the basic premise of the scientific method- that any scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted, must eventually account for all of the data. I believe the real “entire point of the book” was not “to discount this idea, that science seeks to account for all the data” but to say that in addition to science seeking to account for all the data, there are many other significant influences that drive what scientists accept and how science progresses. If in fact Kuhn wanted to say, that science need not account for all the data, then what I would say is that he would have been completely and totally in error.

Rene 2005-11-21T21:57:31Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4a5c26de-a0c1-4f90-b81f-2284b87bb113 2005-11-21T03:47:30Z 2005-11-21T03:47:30Z

That is to discount this idea, that science seeks to account for all the data. That we are climbing some ladder of knowledge. Kuhn does a very affective job at contradicting this idea, and discrediting what you are arguing.

Entropy 2005-11-21T03:47:30Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c315cae9-5bd8-4dbe-8b4d-7e650f26e437 2005-11-21T03:44:46Z 2005-11-21T03:44:46Z

"It seems clear enough from this cursory examination that there is nothing in the book that contradicts the idea that science (the application of the scientific method) requires that a scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data, as I said earlier." Actually that's the entire point of the book.

Entropy 2005-11-21T03:44:46Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d6f5f57b-be21-4001-8352-5c1711a62148 2005-11-21T03:36:22Z 2005-11-21T03:36:22Z

Kuhn’s ideas are not unfamiliar to me, but I have not actually read the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. I reviewed what the book was all about on some online summaries. Probably I won’t be reading it anytime soon, as I have about 15 other books that I intend to read, but never seem to find enough time for. Clearly, this was a very influential book with a lot of interesting ideas, leading to a different view of how science progresses. No one in our culture has been spared the idea of the paradigm shift which seems to have Kuhn at its root. It seems clear enough from this cursory examination that there is nothing in the book that contradicts the idea that science (the application of the scientific method) requires that a scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data, as I said earlier. Rather than contradict this idea, it would appear that it supports it. Why does a paradigm shift occur?- because there was data that was not being accounted for in the preceding paradigm. What Kuhn’s ideas are mostly addressing is how this comes about and why the progress of science is not smooth. But it as clear as anything can be that no progress would occur, no paradigms would shift if the scientific method did not require that any scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data. Please note that saying that a theory must eventually account for all the data does not mean that all of the data is ever accounted for. However, this requirement is what drives and focuses all scientific research. We will probably never account for all of the data, but nevertheless any scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data. The reason I first introduced this idea was to contest the characterization of scientific theories as nothing more that “best guesses”. I wanted to emphasize that scientific theories are based on data and can be nullified by data. They are not just another belief system. Since humans are involved the process, obviously it is far from perfect. Opinions are held onto too long. Facts are ignored. Dogmatic thinking forces us down narrow paths that lead nowhere and obscure the truth. But science still manages to lead us to a greater and greater understanding of the world we live in. I suggest that the only reason that this is true is because any scientific theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all of the data.

Rene 2005-11-21T03:36:22Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#08ec3aa0-4de4-46f9-9fbd-f5370abadb59 2005-11-18T22:54:04Z 2005-11-18T22:54:04Z

I definitely second this reading recommendation. Kuhn's "Structure" is arguably the most important book in the philosophy of science to come out of the 20th century. My comments in previous posts will certainly make a lot more sense to anyone who has read Kuhn.

VoodooChild 2005-11-18T22:54:04Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ea56b8bb-4e1a-45ae-9d27-a1be1c528b63 2005-11-18T20:46:34Z 2005-11-18T20:46:34Z

Um I'll jump in here, and say that Rene you need to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", a book by Thomas Kuhn. And since this is about science and not agnostic beliefs, or lack there of, this is about convincing you. The structure of scientific revolutions points out that your belief, that all data will be accounted for, never happens... and it is just these, "anomalies" that will lead to a new revolution when these anomalies are numerous enough. These revolutions basically throw out the old theory, they don't build on the old theory, and in fact are completely new. Eventually this process happens all over again. No theory ever results in all data being accounted for, instead what happens is the new theory has less anomalies than the old theory.

Entropy 2005-11-18T20:46:34Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#1d19770e-49bf-464e-9f21-077f59d16e59 2005-11-18T16:03:18Z 2005-11-18T16:03:18Z

>>”What a theory must do survive is account for more “relevant” data”… Aha! Here is why we are talking past one another. I’m talking about actual scientific practice on planet earth as a socio-historical endeavor undertaken by certain members of a species of domesticated primates.”<< Of course, we are only talking about “relevant” data- most theories are not formulated to explain every aspect of the universe. I don’t think it is all that useful to view science as a “socio-historical endeavor”, as you are doing. I would prefer to use a narrower definition of science: the application of the scientific method which is described below: From this link: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html; “What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: • 1. Observe some aspect of the universe. • 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. • 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. • 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. • 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.” I would add that usually a theory will then be formulated as an equation or set of equations which can be used to make further predictions. Often even if the conceptions which underlie a given theory can be shown to be inaccurate, the theory, as a set of equations, will still be applicable in certain situations and will remain useful. Your view seems to be that step 5 never or rarely reaches the point where there are “no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observations. I would say that generally speaking step 5 is reached and that is the point where we have a generally accepted scientific theory. There are some large and blatant exceptions to this, such as the “Big Bang” theory, which I already mentioned and certainly you can find many more examples. I would argue that these examples are exceptions and not the rule. If discrepancies are found between a theory and experiment and/or observation, what you have is a theory that was formerly accepted and in need of revision. The theory may still be useful and may appear to be “accepted” when in fact it is not, or if someone continues to accept the theory, then what he is doing is not science as I would define it; the application of the scientific method, as outlined above.

Rene 2005-11-18T16:03:18Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#cff7b0af-3a52-46f8-a9f7-b71a7681c685 2005-11-18T05:03:03Z 2005-11-18T05:03:03Z

Okay, this is turning into a pretty big tangent, so I’ll try to wrap up my thoughts in this post, and then pass you the mic for final commentary. You ask: <”And how exactly is fitting the data better, substantially or actually in any way different than accounting for all the data. It really isn’t, but reading between the lines it seems that you are saying that in some theories contradictory data is being ignored.>” What a theory must do survive is account for more “relevant” data (in the eyes of the scientific community) than any competing theory in that theory’s domain. Not accounting for ALL data is not a reason to reject a theory--it is a reason to develop the theory more, and it is the case with most theories most of the time. If model 1 accounts for more data than model 2, then we have a reason for preferring model 1. But accounting for ALL data is always a point on the horizon to strive for, and it would be great if a theory got there, but this is not required to maintain active work within the paradigm. The Corliss book mentioned in my last post catalogues anomalies (unexplained data) in modern physics, chemistry, psychology, evolution, astronomy, and many other scientific disciplines, taken from scientific journals. Part of normal scientific work is to explore how a paradigm can be tweaked to fit ALL these “damned things”. <” What I am describing is how things should be- what is required by the scientific method. Of course, we live in a real world where it is difficult and challenging to follow this method which might be viewed as a set of rules. The fact that the rules are not always being followed does not change the rules.”> Aha! Here is why we are talking past one another. I’m talking about actual scientific practice on planet earth as a socio-historical endeavor undertaken by certain members of a species of domesticated primates. My background is in philosophy of science—obviously we’ve been reading different authors. =) One of the most profound changes that occurred in philosophy of science in the 20th century was the transition from theories about science that were normative and began with logical/axiomatic definitions and principles and then proceeded with deductive or inductive logic to give an account of science (like logical positivism/empiricism, Poppers “falsificationism”, the hypothetico-deductive method, etc); to descriptive models of science that started by looking at actual scientific practice throughout history and the present and adjusting it’s concepts and definitions accordingly. To put it another way, philosophy of science (or at least the vast majority of its practitioners) transitioned from a rationalist orientation to an empiricist orientation. They left the definition-based approach in favor of a fact-based approach. Philosophers started taking data from the history of science seriously, and realized that theories like logical positivism and falsificationism provided a lousy map of what was actually going on, and not just in cases of “bad science”. You say “the rules” still exist even if no one is paying attention to them. But where do they exist when no one is practicing them—Platonic heaven? I also suspect the rules may be less universally agreed upon than you estimate. It would seem that physics has different rules than psychology, which has different rules than archaeology, which has different rules than evolutionary biology… Pragmatically the one universal rule would appear to be “convince your peers”. You say: <”A theory should follow from observation via inductive reasoning. The reverse, devising a theory and then looking for supportive data (deductive reasoning), is generally less fruitful.>” Interestingly, the modern philosophy of science that I've been talking about seems to be a paradigm case of your observational-inductive approach, and the old school would seem to be a case of your deductive approach gone awry. Though I think when we look closer we realize that both of these are very coarse “rational reconstructions” of the scientific process. Doesn’t scientific practice normally proceed by a positive feedback loop between observation, induction, deduction, assumption, etc all working toward the goal of a better fit between observable fact and intangible model? Our theories are influenced by our observations but our observations (what we notice, what counts as relevant data) are also influenced by our theories. Science is constantly making a valiant bootstrapping effort, and over the centuries, despite the normal human "irrationality" of any of it's fallible practitioners, it ends up being humanity's most fruitful cognitive endeavor. That’s how I see it, anyway. Your ball, compadre.

VoodooChild 2005-11-18T05:03:03Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#f778ec83-2db7-46fb-8c41-105785899560 2005-11-17T17:32:32Z 2005-11-17T17:32:32Z

>>”They continue to be accepted because they fit the data "better" than any competing theory.”<< And how exactly is fitting the data better, substantially or actually in any way different than accounting for all the data. It really isn’t, but reading between the lines it seems that you are saying that in some theories contradictory data is being ignored. Usually what occurs first in the case of contradictory data is that those supporting such a theory challenge the validity of the data. Why? Because they understand that the scientific process requires that they “must eventually account for all of the data.” Valid scientific theories cannot continue to be accepted unless they eventually account for all of the data. What I am describing is how things should be- what is required by the scientific method. Of course, we live in a real world where it is difficult and challenging to follow this method which might be viewed as a set of rules. The fact that the rules are not always being followed does not change the rules. What you seem to be describing as science might be applicable to certain aspects of science which have been well publicized, such as the “Big Bang” theory and some of the problems now being encountered in theoretical physics, but is really not applicable to most mundane scientific research. The background I am coming from here is that I have a Master of Science degree and have worked as a professional scientist all of my life. From my viewpoint, the “Big Bang” theory has no validity. There is more evidence that contradicts it than supports it and it seems to require more evidence (“dark matter”, “dark energy”) that is unlikely to be found. The main observations that support it (Hubble red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation) can be better explained in other ways. Some people seem to equate what is going on in this field with science since it is so often found in the media, but the entire process being used here is backwards. A theory should follow from observation via inductive reasoning. The reverse, devising a theory and then looking for supportive data (deductive reasoning), is generally less fruitful. The tendency to use this deductive approach in modern physics is what I believe has led you to this conclusion that theories don’t have to account for all the data. I think the best way to view this is that deductive theories should not be put in the same category as valid scientific theories. They should be considered theories in progress whose primary utility is to guide research that may lead to valid scientific theories- those that account for all of the data.

Rene 2005-11-17T17:32:32Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4598a062-da02-42d0-b7c8-db19401592fc 2005-11-17T01:10:05Z 2005-11-17T01:10:05Z

same answer

Entropy 2005-11-17T01:10:05Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#563d1525-58d5-43f0-ad04-f62217ee46f5 2005-11-17T01:06:02Z 2005-11-17T01:06:02Z

<"Any theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all the data.>" I still don't think this cuts it. Perhaps you're thinking of science in some sort of abstract ahistorical sense the way the logical positivists did in the beginning of the 20th century? I don't know what background theory you're coming from here, so I won't make assumptions. But looking at science as a historical socio-political process, we don't see theories continuing to be accepted by explaining all the data. We see theories continuing to be accepted (by *most* of the scientific community) because they arguably explain *most* of the data "better" than other competing theories. And sometimes you get a case where theory 1 explains A, B, and C, and theory 2 explains B, C, and D (theory choice is not always a simple matter). The practitioners of a particular scientific paradigm are generally *trying* to make the theory fit with ALL the data, but in practice even most of the best of todays theories fall short of this lofty aim. They continue to be accepted because they fit the data "better" than any competing theory. That's what I think is required for the survival of a theory.

VoodooChild 2005-11-17T01:06:02Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8a871249-21c5-4dcf-8d1f-24971cdc2135 2005-11-16T20:26:00Z 2005-11-16T20:26:00Z

>>"You can't even pick out the offensive language accurately."<< Perhaps because there is none, but I am glad you find this humerous. >>"As for what I get out of reading this thread"<, No one asked why you read it, only why write anything if you do not want to convince anyone about anything?- a question you still have not addressed.

Rene 2005-11-16T20:26:00Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#90dc7baf-18be-4fb8-a30a-043862797dcc 2005-11-16T20:11:01Z 2005-11-16T20:11:01Z

Actually, I would argue that it is your behavior that seems, "uncontrolled". You use antagonistic language, throughout this thread. It's already been pointed out before, by others. If you can't see why you piss people off, I am not going to take the time to explain it. You can't even pick out the offensive language accurately. Something which is humorous to me. As for what I get out of reading this thread, it is solely a better understanding of myself, and the definition of a word that I use to describe myself. For instance I never heard the "hard atheism" versus "soft atheism" breakdown before, yet it makes a lot of sense to me. The title of the thread makes a lot of sense as well. Those that like to argue about this stuff are welcome to. I am not here for your mental masturbation. You can hold court all you want, and posit infinite numbers of possible motivations, however, your limited views are just that, limited. Reread this thread, from beginning to end, and maybe have someone else point out to you why certain people take offense to your manner of engagement.

Entropy 2005-11-16T20:11:01Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c02ee712-bed7-4247-b4ec-d1fa58fe047d 2005-11-16T19:52:40Z 2005-11-16T19:52:40Z

>>’However, you project your perception of my motivations onto me, acting as if you "know" what it is I am trying to do by engaging in this thread”<< Hmm… it seems your reaction here is unwarranted. The apparently offensive statements began: “I wonder… and “Is it to…” both ending with question marks, asking you to explain a statement that appears inexplicable: “I would never try to convince anyone to think like I do.” Since you never addressed these questions, it still seems inexplicable, so I still have questions: Why express your opinions at all, if you are not trying to convince anyone about anything? Is it simply for exercise or maybe you simply have no control over it?

Rene 2005-11-16T19:52:40Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#340b4987-a716-48d5-ac2c-cc83b971e2c1 2005-11-16T19:34:40Z 2005-11-16T19:34:40Z

>>""The theory, in order to be accepted, must account for all the data." This is a misconception."<< I understand what you are trying to say here, but I would not characterize what I said as a "misconception". Instead, I would say that the statement above was perhaps not precise enough, so I will restate it: Any theory in order to continue to be accepted must eventually account for all the data.

Rene 2005-11-16T19:34:40Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#616e7e9c-3d6b-4bf5-9074-90b5d3d47f39 2005-11-16T17:33:37Z 2005-11-16T17:33:37Z

<"The theory, in order to be accepted, must account for all the data."> This is a misconception. In the history of science it is a rarity in the extreme to have a theory that accounts for ALL the data. Even most of our best theories of today fall short of this standard. Research happens, in part, to adjust the theory to fit the observable world and explain away the anomalies confronting the theory. This is what Thomas Kuhn refers to as "normal science". For an excellent encyclopedia of anomalies for current theories, see William Corliss's "Science Frontiers": http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0915554283/qid=1132162284/sr=8-10/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/102-6560910-3681745?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

VoodooChild 2005-11-16T17:33:37Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d470cc50-7821-440c-9e94-acabe9a9bb81 2005-11-16T14:57:10Z 2005-11-16T14:57:10Z

>>"If you boil the scientific view point to its essence it simply amounts to saying that what a scientist or an expert says is true, maybe its true, even when you don't damn understand how."<< This is a misconception. If we have an accepted scientific theory, it will be based on on objective data or experiments that have been published and you, I, or anyone could repeat the experiments and gather the same data. The theory, in order to be accepted, must account for all the data. There are times when multiple theories can explain the same data. In this case, they would all be equally valid. Except in instances where there is very little data, calling this "the best guess" does not seem like an accurate portrayal of the situation. Usually multiple lines of evidence support accepted scientific theories and although we can never proclaim 100% certainity, the probablility of many of them being proven totally incorrect is not high. At the same time any scientific theory must always be open to revision if new data is acquired that does not fit the theory.

Rene 2005-11-16T14:57:10Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6cf401f7-a33e-44c4-b40c-4c2ae05283f8 2005-11-16T14:44:34Z 2005-11-16T14:44:34Z

>>"A discussion does not need to be about winning. Exchanging ideas does not have to have a goal that you can perceive."<< I disagree. Any meaningful discussion has the goal of ferreting out the truth or at least something that makes the most sense from diverse viewpoints. It is not necessarily about winning or losing, but about both sides looking at things from different perspectives until they both gain greater understanding. If we have two diametrically opposed views, some would say there are three possibilities, (1) one is right and the other is wrong, (2) both contain some measure of the truth and are partly right, or (3) both are right. I would say #3 is not a possibility and #2 is probably most likely; for this reason discussions are often fruitful and both sides usually win. If someone is right and the other wrong, I would again say that both sides win because whoever was wrong should be grateful that they learned something new.

Rene 2005-11-16T14:44:34Z Pinemaker http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#0e4b0c66-0972-4a4c-80f5-378ffa04ca08 2005-11-16T12:05:09Z 2005-11-16T12:05:09Z

If you boil the scientific view point to its essence it simply amounts to saying that what a scientist or an expert says is true, maybe its true, even when you don't damn understand how. Science goes for the best guess they could and hope that for the time being it would suffice to be called a "natural law" though nature is not bound to follow it. it is arrogant to believe in anything, so much, that it obstruct us to see that it may in the end be wrong in some ways. I just want to point out that every scientific theory proceeds out first as imaginations that in the time being explain how things work but may be debunked in the future.

Pinemaker 2005-11-16T12:05:09Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#dce2b695-71fd-4be1-a60b-2bad9416db4c 2005-11-16T06:08:48Z 2005-11-16T06:08:48Z

I never "opened my mouth", if you want to pick nits... then let's. I wrote my thoughts on the subject. A discussion does not need to be about winning. Exchanging ideas does not have to have a goal that you can perceive. I have my desires, you have yours. Let's take this conversation as an example. You are apparently an ass, openly at times, somewhat muted at other times throughout this thread. Now I don't "know" if it is your desire to be an ass, and wouldn't state it that way. However, you project your perception of my motivations onto me, acting as if you "know" what it is I am trying to do by engaging in this thread... thus exemplifying why it is that agnostics piss of atheists, and atheists piss off agnostics. You are an ass, because I perceive you to be an ass by your demonstrable actions, however, I don't "know" that you are trying to be an ass, because that is something that is unknowable to me through your actions. Obviously agnositicism is not for you.

Entropy 2005-11-16T06:08:48Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ed9a2647-601f-405b-bee4-8bfe9e682376 2005-11-15T19:43:50Z 2005-11-15T19:43:50Z

">>Yes, agnostics are fearful, fearful of repeating an arrogance that brought the churches to their knees."<< I fail to see how it is arrogant to not believe in imaginary things. As I stated earlier, everyone actually does this to some degree or another. For some reason theists make an exception to this rule for some God or gods, and agnostics say making this exception is OK, even though they don't choose to make the exception and believe in this particular imaginary thing. Other exceptions, those generally not held by the majority, are still not OK. If you boil the agnostic viewpoint down to its essence it simply amounts to saying if enough people believe something, maybe its true, even though they personally can see no reason to believe it.

Rene 2005-11-15T19:43:50Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#626602db-6aa3-4208-bea6-25b8e316fcfd 2005-11-15T19:33:06Z 2005-11-15T19:33:06Z

"I would never try to convince anyone to think like I do." I wonder what then is the purpose of opening your mouth and speaking about your ideas, or writing about them online? Is it to express the ideas only for yourself or would you like someone to listen to you and take into account the things you might say? If you never try to convince anyone to think like you do, then you should never be found speaking in a situation where people have different opinions than yours. This conception of yours seems somewhat absurd. Knowledge and understanding can only be advanced by people all expressing their different ideas, all trying to convince everyone else that they have good ideas and at the same time being willing to accept other ideas and change your mind if someone else seems to be making sense. In this marketplace of ideas, the best ideas should prevail. All ideas are not equal or equally valid. To hold that they are is basically equivalent to giving up on the idea that we can understand anything at all about our world.

Rene 2005-11-15T19:33:06Z Pinemaker http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#aa5d2948-9195-4a8a-9c5e-84391f7f81a1 2005-11-15T13:48:50Z 2005-11-15T13:48:50Z

i see an agnostic as someone with the scienetific stand of accepting human knowledge and know how as an island in a sea of unknown truths. We may or may not live with the existence of a God in mind. Nor do i see, our existence as eternally blinded by a fog. We just choose to remove that damn wall that obstruct our view of a horizon that may offer surprises. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church burn to the stakes those they consider as against their belief. Yes, agnostics are fearful, fearful of repeating an arrogance that brought the churches to their knees.

Pinemaker 2005-11-15T13:48:50Z Entropy http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#f50bd531-e64a-4d10-9375-e64438c77273 2005-11-15T02:02:20Z 2005-11-15T02:02:20Z

I personally call myself agnostic, not cause I'm wishy washy, or intellectually sitting on the fence. It is precisely because "hard atheism" seems to me to be a belief system, just like religion, and I, myself, lack belief. Now that might put me in the "soft" atheist camp. But judging by the popular concepts of atheism, and agnosticism, I'll stick with agnostic with the common folk. And judging by the "hard" atheist banter in this post, I would say I'll stick with it here as well. I don't believe in anything, even math, to absolutes. And I would never try to convince anyone to think like I do.

Entropy 2005-11-15T02:02:20Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ee5b947a-5e43-4f84-be93-fe9ec02a1bfa 2005-11-08T06:05:50Z 2005-11-08T06:05:50Z

>>"Atheism is a belief system that rejects the concept of God." << Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply not believing in someone's imaginary fantasy without some evidence the fantasy may be real. >>"It is an ideology or dogma"<< It is not an ideology or dogma. Atheists have a wide range of philosophies, sharing only the idea that it is foolish to believe in imaginary things. Most people actually share this idea, including most theists, except they have chosen to make an exclusion to the principle in the case of God. I suppose you could say that saying "the king has no clothes" and hoping that people will stop ignoring reality is the narrow-minded, aggressive pursuit of spreading atheistic concepts, but it seems to be a wild distortion of the facts. More accurately; the zealous atheist is hoping that people display common sense, don't fall in love with their fantasies, and focus their time and effort on things that are real, rather than wasting time feeding their fantasies.

Rene 2005-11-08T06:05:50Z jody http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8a008f11-cf9e-4115-b12c-3917ac7d8d9a 2005-11-08T00:28:12Z 2005-11-08T00:28:12Z

I'm not sure why you feel you have to frame your arguments in pissy, mocking language, but okay. What I have put forward is far from being a stupid definition. Atheism is a belief system that rejects the concept of God. "Not accepting the existence of someone’s imaginary fantasy can never be considered belief." It sure the hell is when it becomes a philosophy that is advocated by people. It is an ideology or dogma like Marxism, Catholicism, Islam, any other, and many atheists are just as zealous and narrow-minded in their aggressive pursuit of spreading atheistic concepts. When one makes the declaration, "I am an atheist," one is stating belief in a philosophical concept.

jody 2005-11-08T00:28:12Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#92ad53b8-c0a5-4666-9154-fa8729eff770 2005-11-07T14:55:15Z 2005-11-07T14:55:15Z

>>“atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God or gods."<< Frankly put: this is a stupid definition. Not accepting the existence of someone’s imaginary fantasy can never be considered belief. If someone claimed that there are three-headed pink frogs running around in his basement, would you say that you have a belief in the non-existence of these frogs? No, you would say: I have never seen any three-headed pink frogs. I do not know anyone who has. From what I know about the natural world, three-headed pink frogs seem absurd and unlikely to exist, therefore I cannot accept that what you are telling me is true. This is exactly the same thing an atheist would say about gods. In no way can this be considered belief.

Rene 2005-11-07T14:55:15Z jody http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#516388d2-b8ea-4e66-9d62-9bf9e635bfb1 2005-11-07T08:00:26Z 2005-11-07T08:00:26Z

Since many "strong" atheists are very zealous in their quest to debunk theistic and metaphysical concepts, I would put forward a more suitable definition than that provided by the dictionary you cited. Namely, atheism is "a belief in the non-existence of God or gods." Notice the subtle semantic shift. The definition quoted from the dictionary suggests atheism is passive (and, arguably, non-committal). My definition is based on the observation that many atheists, especially in the scientific community, have adopted atheism as an active and firmly grounded belief system.

jody 2005-11-07T08:00:26Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6589649c-5312-4bbd-a5b8-91cac08cc596 2005-11-02T20:09:07Z 2005-11-02T20:09:07Z

">>There appears to be every possible reason to suspend disbelief and none whatsoever to believe.<< Correction: every possible reaon *not* to suspend disbelief From now on I am swearing off the word disbelief- as you can see it ends up confusing me and probably everyone else.

Rene 2005-11-02T20:09:07Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6b54f5ee-0b04-4813-8cf5-fa1d03d0f5f2 2005-11-02T19:59:03Z 2005-11-02T19:59:03Z

Now I would like to frame Lola’s argument in a different way. Imagine a criminal accused of a crime giving an “air tight” alibi which cannot be checked or verified in any way. According to Lola’s logic we should suspend disbelief in this case because the criminal has imagined a scenario which would depend entirely on faith to accept, just like the concept of God. Clearly, no one, including Lola, is likely to suspend disbelief in a case like this. Most likely, the “air tight” alibi would only raise our suspicions. Why does it not do the same for the concept of God. This concept of God is really nothing more than an alibi, invented by criminals of a different kind, which is used to try and force their whims on other people. If the “air tight” alibi does not make you suspicious would not these additional caveats- the carrot and the stick approach do it. This is the approach used by the Catholic Church: the carrot- faith (accepting unverifiable alibis without questioning) is portrayed as a “virtue” and the stick- if you do not believe you will burn in hell for all eternity. Just imagine a salesman coming to your door selling you shares of a gold mine in outer Loohallah. Would you suspend disbelief because he tells you neither Loohallah nor the gold itself can be verified, but if you have faith, he will give you a double share and additionally not kill you immediately and take your money? This is the line the God salesmen are using. There appears to be every possible reason to suspend disbelief and none whatsoever to believe.

Rene 2005-11-02T19:59:03Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#2332f6f5-e666-4ada-849e-a84449e9d96b 2005-11-02T19:56:40Z 2005-11-02T19:56:40Z

>>I think this is the opposite of what you meant to say. Don't you mean "suspend belief""<< Obviously- thank you for pointing this out.

Rene 2005-11-02T19:56:40Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#83a88099-39f2-4ff4-a246-c0c6f9525266 2005-11-02T17:19:22Z 2005-11-02T17:19:22Z

<"At the same time, it appears that there is absolutely no aspect of our existence that requires a God to explain, therefore the only sensible thing to do is to suspend disbelief in regards to this wholly unnecessary, non-explanatory concept."> I think this is the opposite of what you meant to say. Don't you mean "suspend belief"?

VoodooChild 2005-11-02T17:19:22Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#af5d7c68-adb5-47ff-978b-902c1afc9edb 2005-11-02T15:12:06Z 2005-11-02T15:12:06Z

"agnosticism", which is a philosophical statement regarding the impossibility to judge the existence of god" Let us stand back from this concept for a moment. We invent something in our minds, God, which by the nature of our definition cannot be proven or disproven in any way, then as an agnostic, we choose to suspend judgement because of the impossibility of judging God's existence which is a given already because this is how the concept was defined. Santa Claus is also an imaginary concept, exactly like God, but the important difference, as expressed by Lola, is that we did not define Santa Claus as something that cannot ever be known or judged, requiring faith, therefore denying the existence of Santa Claus is OK, whereas denying the existence of God is not. It seems like the essence of this arguement is that if one makes up a big enough lie, like God, we should suspend our disbelief, because the liar asked us to while at the same time creating a lie that could not be challanged by the nature of its definition. Now I suggest a more reasonable way to evaluate all of this. Rather than saying it is impossible to judge the existence of God which is really not an accurate statement, ask this question; what would necessarily be different about the world if there was a God vs. a universe with no God? If God is necessary to explain some aspect of the world, then whether there is any direct proof or not, it would be reasonable to suspend disbelief. If there is no aspect of the world that would be different, then it seems clear that suspending disbelief is simply not warranted. In my estimation there are many aspects of the world which simply make no sense, if there were any kind of imaginable God, so that believing in God would require some extraordinary rationalizations that cannot be justified. At the same time, it appears that there is absolutely no aspect of our existence that requires a God to explain, therefore the only sensible thing to do is to suspend disbelief in regards to this wholly unnecessary, non-explanatory concept.

Rene 2005-11-02T15:12:06Z lola darling http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#58b7ff96-7bd4-4e8c-ad66-9d5927ac5757 2005-11-02T09:16:31Z 2005-11-02T09:16:31Z

>Looks like still nobody has given much of a response >to Rene's argument that belief in god is as arbitrary >as any other imaginary belief Well, basically because it is a paradox. Look at the above sentence a bit closer. That said, there's a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Santa Claus, dragons, fairies and deity: deity requires what screenwriters would call "suspension of disbelief", and Christianity calls "faith", ie. believing with no evidence. Catholic theology considers faith the most sublime virtue. That's why it's so difficult to argue philosophically with theologists about the existence of God, because the very meaning of faith is founded on this *huge* logical leap. No one is asking the same for Santa, or dragons, or fairies, and as far as I'm concerned an agnostic could totally buy or reject the existence of aliens, without being accused of inconsistency. Personally I had evidences of my father putting presents under our Xmas tree, or fire ignited by the sunlight passing through a lens, and I know for sure that morning dew isn't produced by fairies' tears, so I don't have to believe in something bigger to explain that. Maybe Rene and many others are confusing a bit the concept of "agnosticism", which is a philosophical statement regarding the impossibility to judge the existence of god (I really can't stress that enough!!!), and "skepticism", which is a philosophical current stating that truth is impossible to establish. I know that language evolves, but it's important to mantain the distinction if you want to split the hair in 10 :P because a skepticist may well be an agnostic, but an agnostic hasn't to be a skepticist! Agnosticism doesn't apply to UFO, alternative healing systems, the revolution of quantum physichs and fairies, just because someone started using it as a synonym for skepticism.

lola darling 2005-11-02T09:16:31Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#12ff59bd-1cc7-4c4b-bfa2-fc210347fde0 2005-10-30T02:14:53Z 2005-10-30T02:14:53Z

Looks like still nobody has given much of a response to Rene's argument that belief in god is as arbitrary as any other imaginary belief. Or as he puts it: "All of the things that we can imagine to exist, that are unlikely to exist cannot be proven to be non-existnent in the same way that God cannot be proven to be non-existent. It is not possible to "prove" that anything is non-existent. Therefore the idea that you cannot prove God's non-existence is not pertinent in any way to the argument about whether you should proclaim "I do not believe in God" and say you are an atheist or whether you procalim yourself agnostic." I think this raises one of the most interesting questions for an agnostic to consider: If we are going to be "atheists" about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the invisible dragon in the garage, ect. why won't we be atheists about God? We can't *absolutley* disprove God for the same logical/epistemological reasons that we can't absolutely disprove any of these other figments of societal imagination (collective unconscious?). I argued in a previous post that you can actually make a pretty good case against most of these delusions (like the Christain God) if you examine them holistically and look at data from multiple fields of study. Thinking about the issue this way also helps get us out of the rigid, robotic headspace of 2 valued (true/false) logic, and into the more natural headspace of probabilistic logic. But the more abstract Deistic conception of god (or funkydoodle cosmic force, or whatever) does not fall prey so easily to arguments against its existence, since it's more vague and open-ended. Usually we "believe" in unobservables because they explain things. So to justify belief in a god, it would have to explain something. However unlikely this explanation might seem to the average "Bright", the existence of a god would explain why there is stuff rather than no stuff. Yes, this explanation leaves important questions unanswered, like "where the hell did this hoser called 'god' come from?", but then so does contemporary cosmology. "What" went "BANG!" and why the hell did that happen? Cosmology inherently involves paradox--after all, it is intelligence trying to explain the existence of intelligence. I don't rate the god explanation as all that likely, but I'm not ready to rule it out totally. I'm curious what new scientific revelations about our origins will come out in the next 20 years. The other thing some people seem to think a god can explain are mystical experiences. I suspect these will ultimately be best explained by neuroscience, but we're not quite there yet (last I checked). Nowadays one can have a mystical experience just by going into a drug trip with the right mindset. Being able to do it without drugs will probably turn out to be a matter of triggering some neural event by the right kind of physical activity. So I find the god hypothesis fairly unlikely. And a lot of people would label my views as "soft atheism", as I have at certain points. I prefer the term agnostic because for me it's scope goes beyond just the god issue. I tend to be agnostic about most unobservables and models, keeping in mind that they are OUR creations, they are not the things they represent, and that they are part of a historical mapmaking process that will not likely stop evolving today. The other reason I don't call myself an atheist is that I've met so damn many obnoxious atheists. "Hard atheists" who think they enjoy a state of enlightenment unknown to the ignorant benighted masses of sheep around them. People so imprisoned by their own beliefs that they can't even imagine anyone thinking differently than them. I've met these types in "free thought" and "skeptical" organizations and on the net. They make me want to throw things.

VoodooChild 2005-10-30T02:14:53Z $item.owner.firstName http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#bd77acff-7b7f-40bc-a0cb-2ea68eb19906 2005-10-29T10:25:01Z 2005-10-29T10:25:01Z

I've had a friend try to pigeon-hole my agnosticism by saying that I was an Athiestic-Agnostic. Meaning that I was more athiest than theist. I just laughed. I truly sit in the middle, no matter how much this frustrates people. I've always looked at it like this: Men/women are imperfect. It says so in the bible and Scientist state that men/women are incapable of using the entirety of their brains. Memory is fallible and so is reasoning. Science isn't even exact. Therefore, men/women are imperfect. So for either to say with unerring accuracy that they are right seems ludicrous to me. I can't trust either source regardless of how right they THINK they are. I won't even get into the argument of 'concept'. The thing that really pisses me off about religion is the fallacious 'appeal to fear'. If you don't fear God or try to accept him in your life ... 'insert consequence here'. I think that's the biggest bullshit way to try to convince anyone of anything. If the Christians are wrong and the Athiests are right ... I haven't wasted any time. It's all over ... when it's all over. If the Athiests are wrong and the Christians are right ... and God is a loving and forgiving God ... I imagine God will look at all of the other morons and excuse my neutrality ... perhaps even commend it. I haven't overlooked that Hindu's, Buddhists, Taoists, Islamists, or any other number of religions may be right too ... I just don't see any point in weeding through them all when according to their own teaching, I can never truly understand their God ... you know, being imperfect and all. That's assuming their God exists ... Either way ... I see no problems.

$item.owner.firstName 2005-10-29T10:25:01Z dc http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7b1422df-07d1-4cb6-b5c3-303159fb6eeb 2005-10-25T03:52:11Z 2005-10-25T03:52:11Z

I agree with you completely and your argument is well spoken. Personally, I have clung to the label "agnostic" more out of the desire to be hair-splittingly precise than anything. (The word tetrapyloctomy comes to mind for some reason). To me the the term agnostic is synonymous with the "I don't know" answer to the question of existence or non-existence of God. But I am quick to follow it with "but neither do you". And then almost as quick with "...but if I were a betting man..." and of course the bet would involve odds similar to those of the existence of purple bunnies speaking French, Santa Claus, etc. This, of course, puts me squarely in the "soft" atheist camp I suppose, and that's fine with me as long as our definitions are clear. Labels aside, this argument seems to wrap up pretty squarely (when I'm talking to myself anyway), and the discussion turns to the question of "what *do* I believe in", since I've already outlined what I don't believe in. The answer to this is "not much", but I do feel drawn to various philosophers and the secular humanist camp. Is this the same for you all too? Pray tell!

dc 2005-10-25T03:52:11Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a740d170-5b52-4dea-a2be-42d8b4274ffd 2005-10-22T03:54:06Z 2005-10-22T03:54:06Z

Well said, Rene. Do you write books about atheism? I totally agree that the atheist is not required to prove the non-existence of god. Though, in some cases, I think he can! We can't "prove" that bigoot doesn't exist, but we can prove the non-existence of four sided triangles, because the the concept is logically incoherent. It seems that if we can define God clearly enough (as most theists are perfectly happy to do) we can make an argument that his supposed atributes are inconsistent with the kind of world we take ourselves to be living in. I'm thinking of the anti-christian argument from the existence of "evil". If God is all knowing and all powerfull and and all good (how the hell did they get this idea out of the Bible?), then why does bad shit happen to good people? It seems that God is perfectly content to see people massacred in earthquakes, hurricanes, holocausts, wars, famine, etc. since he doesn't lift a divine finger to prevent these atrocities of human suffering. They are ended by the hard work of men (oh yeah, and women) and then superstitious folks call them "miracles". The limp christian "free will" response cuts no ice here because tsunamis are not the product of anyone's freewill. Regardless of how many passages from the Bible one has to forget to belive that this "theologian's God" is the Christian God, it seems to me that this concept of god leads logically to a world very different from ours. Or if you dig modal logic, this god exists in a possible world, but not in *our world*. We can further note that most nervous systems that attach themselves to this meme are indoctrinated in it from youth. Most young minds have the neural plasticity to adjust to any reality tunnel that they find themselves emersed in. Others become attracted to it in a survival chrisis situation, like severe drug abuse, etc which is a state when the brain will cling to anything that seems to help, especially a stable social network. And what's more, nearly every great advancement in the empirical sciences has been opposed by this authoritarian mind control conspiracy, often with brute force, violence, and righteous anger at the unbeliever. It wasn't a random historical accident that Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for being an outspoken Copernican and mystic. They knew the dangers of freethought and were scared that it might lead to a world like ours. They believe in free will, so long as it isn't used to threaten thier power. This is the knock-out paradigm case of what Lakatos would call a "degenerating research program". It has contributed nil to our empirical understanding of the world. It is forever stuck in the cycle of denying data, persecuting those who present new data, rationalizing away data, and eventually reinterpreting it's own central tenents to accomidate data that can no longer be denied if one wishes to avoid sounding ridiculous. But again I'm doing armchair psycology on groups I disagree with...So officially I didn't say any of that. I hereby repent my sins. p.s. Do you ever stop to consider the fact that there are 21st century Americans that sincerely thank Jesus after "their" baseball team wins?

VoodooChild 2005-10-22T03:54:06Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#096f00f7-9629-4946-95c9-763cbd6055d6 2005-10-21T21:54:24Z 2005-10-21T21:54:24Z

>>"The key here is the word "belief". The religious world view hinges on a belief that something *does* exist, and the atheist world view hinges on the belief that something *doesn't* exist." This statement goes back to the key issue that I brought up earlier which no one has really responded to. Saying an atheist world view hinges on the belief that God does not exist is exactly the same as saying the world view of most adults hinges on the belief that Santa Claus does not exist. Substitute any of an infinite number of things that we can imagine for Santa Claus or God and you will see that everyone's world view hinges on the belief that certain things are unlikely to exist, including all those proclaiming that they are following the "true path" of agnosticism. All of the things that we can imagine to exist, that are unlikely to exist cannot be proven to be non-existnent in the same way that God cannot be proven to be non-existent. It is not possible to "prove" that anything is non-existent. Therefore the idea that you cannot prove God's non-existence is not pertinent in any way to the argument about whether you should proclaim "I do not believe in God" and say you are an atheist or whether you procalim yourself agnostic. An atheist world view does not hinge on anything other than accepting what is real, tangible, or observable in some way as a piece in the puzzle of the meaning of existence. We can imagine an infinity of other possibilities, all of which are interesting, but not useful in solving the riddle unless there is some way to verify, cross check, and validate the ideas. If you choose to rely on other kinds of ideas, on the infinity of things we can imagine, but not verify, it is quite impossible to even begin to solve the riddle.

Rene 2005-10-21T21:54:24Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#79391407-b742-4a0b-b124-00e33432fb88 2005-10-21T21:50:03Z 2005-10-21T21:50:03Z

so you can we see why I suggest that "strong atheists" find their own word to define their position for their "belief" then yeah?

Rocky 2005-10-21T21:50:03Z dc http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#7d89661a-b83a-4de5-abb0-551975146690 2005-10-21T20:50:29Z 2005-10-21T20:50:29Z

To clarify... I am referring to "strong" atheism. But I see that OED defines atheism as a "disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.". And disbelieve as "unable to believe", which seems common to agnosticism. Interstingly, the OED defines agnostic as a person "who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.". These definitions leave a bit to be desired... I guess some clarity on the definitions need to be gained before I would chose a camp. I guess my point though is, if we have to rely on belief in our world view then we're on shaky ground... empiricism and reason are much better tools.

dc 2005-10-21T20:50:29Z dc http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#18e4f48b-8695-43a1-8110-292607f33615 2005-10-21T20:30:24Z 2005-10-21T20:30:24Z

The key here is the word "belief". The religious world view hinges on a belief that something *does* exist, and the atheist world view hinges on the belief that something *doesn't* exist. Both are "believers" not that distinct from one another. That's why the agnostic path is the only true path. It is ok to say "I don't know" when there is, in fact, no way of establishing the truth of the matter.

dc 2005-10-21T20:30:24Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#cbfc3608-89b3-44f0-a753-3cfa47acae16 2005-10-21T19:36:40Z 2005-10-21T19:36:40Z

Your comments about religious zeal remind me of the recent Bad Religion song "Atheist Peace". Good song. You all might find this interesting if you haven't seen it. Wikipedia's list of celebrity atheists and agnostics: http://www.celebatheists.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page

VoodooChild 2005-10-21T19:36:40Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b011cf41-ab84-4953-9c21-7ff0d664a463 2005-10-21T14:15:22Z 2005-10-21T14:15:22Z

Again, Agnostic "non-commital", & Atheist to be "a lack of belief". Agnostic - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something." --- Atheism - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" --- "Deist" - 1) "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." 2) "a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deist --- I don't accept strong atheism as a proper definition for atheist since it requires "a belief" when clearly Atheism is a "lack of belief". Seems to me, like the weak/strong thing is an attempt at some kind of political correctness. Those that adhere to "strong atheism" should find a new word to define their position. I'm atheist, especially when it comes to what I call "book religion".

Rocky 2005-10-21T14:15:22Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4a1a97b3-7ba1-4cee-aa0e-cf0bbc8bc04d 2005-10-21T13:57:42Z 2005-10-21T13:57:42Z

Geoff, All your points are well taken. Personally, I do not think I have ever met anyone who you would term a "hard" atheist. But then I grew up attending Catholic schools and ended up in Midland, Texas where it is unlikely you will ever even encounter someone claimly to be agnostic. This is the place George Bush calls his home town and Democrats don't even put up candidates for many elected positions. I have not wavered back and forth on this issue. Most of my life, I would just have said that I am agnostic and the issue of God does not really concern me very much. Recently, with the tentacles of a theocratic state being slowly unleashed upon the unsuspecting masses and crazy people flying airplanes into buildings in the name of God, I started thinking about the issue of God a little more and decided it is basically a crazy idea with no merit. A neutral position on the issue seems less effective in dealing with this madness than a strong stand attacking and destroying all the premises upon which religious belief in God is based. I am therefore proud to say I am an atheist, but a better term would be realist, because it makes no sense to define yourself with a negative. That is why people started using "brights" which I find too self-congratulatoy and definitely annoying just like you.

Rene 2005-10-21T13:57:42Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#627ccf22-0978-4521-ac50-68c307915029 2005-10-21T03:58:42Z 2005-10-21T03:58:42Z

I didn’t mention this in my initial post, but throughout the course of my life I’ve gone back and fourth between atheism and agnosticism, and I’ll probably do that some more. Right now I’m in an agnostic phase. For me, the line is pretty blurry. The way I see it, there are (at least) 2 types of people who call themselves atheists. The first group, which I think/hope most of the people on here belong to, are the ones who say things like “I have no belief in God”, or “there is no convincing evidence of God’s existence”. The second group who apparently see intellectual modesty as a vice, will proclaim that they are absolutely certain that God does not exist, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either brainwashed, afraid of the truth, out to exploit people for money, or just plain stupid. (I would mention that the very existence of people this moronic and conceited could be used as an argument against intelligent design, but then I’d be violating my own maxim of not doing armchair psychology on groups I don’t like.) Anyway, some atheists have tried to sort these folks out by calling the former “weak/soft atheists” and the latter “strong/hard atheists”. This didn’t really catch on, because who the hell wants to go around calling themselves a “weak atheist”? (And they’ve finally given up calling themselves “Brights”—maybe there is a god!) And to complicate things further, weak atheism slides naturally into agnosticism. Two individuals could share the same set of beliefs about the likelihood of God’s existence, but one might label themselves as a weak atheist, and the other an agnostic. And agnostics come in more than one flavor as well. Some lean more toward atheism (like me) and others more toward theism. To complicate things more, you can be more agnostic about some gods than others. When it comes to gods like Zeus, Vishnu, Marduk, Jehova, Allah, etc., I think we would have to be so massively wrong about so many things for them to actually exist, that I believe we can safely rule them out of the equation. But a creator god in the deist sense (or unknown “cosmic force”, or pick your favorite abstract metaphor for something we could not possibly understand in our current state of knowledge) does not seem totally ridiculous to me. We best keep in mind that Occam’s weapon of choice is a razor, not a broadsword of smiting +2. And when we try to attach the broad labels of “atheist” and “agnostic” to cover all this fine-grained nuance of belief, we’re playing a game of “pin the tail on the continuum” on a slippery slope, paved with ice, greased with Astroglide. And one can also interpret agnosticism in a broader philosophical sense. I don’t know what other peoples’ philosophical backgrounds are, but this “orientation” is sometimes labeled as skepticism, anti-realism, model agnosticism, constructive empiricism, falliblism, and other “isms” as well. The goddess wears many masks. Usually the issue turns on ones intuitions (ugh) about what we ought to believe about unobservable entities and theoretical models. We have never seen an electron, a gene, a quark, or natural selection at the phylogenetic level, but these concepts are extremely useful in explaining, predicting, and controlling what we can see. (Look over there while I sweep these anomalies under the rug.) But in what sense, if any, are they “really real”? Would that mean that these models have reached completion and can no longer be improved upon? That no flaws will ever be found in them? But I’m getting off on a gargantuan tangent here. Philosophers still make very comfortable livings arguing over this question, so I’m not going to pretend I can solve it this evening on tribe.net. And I still haven’t gotten around to Rene and Jon’s arguments about how the belief in god is as arbitrary as belief in fairies and I have my own take on that, but this is turning into a goddam treatise and I’m curious what the other agnostics have to say, so I’ll rant on that later.

VoodooChild 2005-10-21T03:58:42Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#b15d1304-2c92-4282-a340-845c7d31934e 2005-10-20T21:32:40Z 2005-10-20T21:32:40Z

Good to see that you have a sense of humor, Rene. I hate arguing with people who don't, and sometimes it's a little hard to tell how someone means something over the internet. And yes, my jab about doing armchair psychology about groups you disagree with applies at least as much to Anton's comment, though to some extent I was fishing for this in my initial post. As for the more substantive philosophical stuff, that will take a longer post, so I'll write something later when I'm not at work.

VoodooChild 2005-10-20T21:32:40Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#154375ec-52e0-460b-bf72-4ea78258df76 2005-10-20T19:13:53Z 2005-10-20T19:13:53Z

"You're just fucking with Lola, right?" There answer to this question is highly classified, top secret, and ultimately unknowable in any case, but please don't tell my wife.

Rene 2005-10-20T19:13:53Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#284c04d5-0c0a-4cdf-8b80-64da1cf1dd26 2005-10-20T18:56:45Z 2005-10-20T18:56:45Z

You seem to have failed to get my points because perhaps they were not stated precisely enough or perhaps you just did not want to address them, so I will restate them: We can imagine an infinite number of things that most likely do not exist. I am sure that you do judge some of them to be non-existent, so you are not fully agnostic towards all things that we can imagine that cannot be proven to be non-existent. Why, then are you agnostic towards the concept of God which has exactly the same possibility of existing as all the other infinite number of things we might imagine to exist that leave no trace in the world in which we exist, none of which can be proven to be non-existent. I think I said it better before, but surely this will make you happy. As far “doing armchair psychology on groups you disagree with”, I got off on this tack because someone suggested that atheism was rooted in “fear of the unknown” which is down right silly, leading me to play that silly game of turn the tables. No doubt, all your ideas are deeply rooted in a pure and intense intellectual quest to ferret out truth from the disparate elements of our existence which seem to block us at every turn and have nothing to do with emotions or personal psychology. But actually, I don’t feel that agnostics are a group I disagree with, I see them as me for most of my life when I would have said I was an agnostic. I looked it up in the rule book and it specifically states that one is allowed to do armchair psychology about yourself, so I hereby claim no foul was given and you cannot shoot any free throws, but as a concession, you can keep the ball and throw it in from out of bounds.

Rene 2005-10-20T18:56:45Z lola darling http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#4aa3d95a-7618-4298-9052-d86f6ba46490 2005-10-20T17:19:43Z 2005-10-20T17:19:43Z

Rene, I'm assuming with Geoff that you just want to be funny. So yeah, let's rock! :) >By this definition anyone of sound mind Sound mind? What's that? The epistemology of commonplaces? >The are an infinite number of things that do not exist This has to be the the paradox of non-metaphysics >I am quite sure that you do judge some >of them to be unlikely, so you are not fully >agnostic And this has to be the first corollary of anti-Aristotelian logic. Call me when you feel like talking seriously, ok? ;)

lola darling 2005-10-20T17:19:43Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#6052e905-8494-495c-9ef6-3decf5bb0e5f 2005-10-20T16:41:20Z 2005-10-20T16:41:20Z

"Consequently, in my view agnostics live in a constant fog; unable, or afraid to make any decisions, so sorry, I am not going to give you a break." Yay-fun with sweeping generalizations! Surely you're too bright to honestly, literally believe this! You're just fucking with Lola, right? If not, you need to be more wary of doing armchair psychology on groups you disagree with, or learn to somehow dissociate your own bias from your analyses of character.

VoodooChild 2005-10-20T16:41:20Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#ed9936fc-0716-4154-850b-6e2c379036d6 2005-10-20T15:33:43Z 2005-10-20T15:33:43Z

"an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe that it is possible to prove or not the existence of a God." By this definition anyone of sound mind, either atheist or theist, is an agnostic. This is because anyone of sound mind recognizes that it is totally, completely impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. We can prove that something exists by observing it. We cannot prove that something does not exist by not observing it. The are an infinite number of things that do not exist and you cannot prove the non-existence of any of them. Do you believe in this infinite number of things or are you willing to judge some of them to be unlikely? I am quite sure that you do judge some of them to be unlikely, so you are not fully agnostic. Why not make this same judgement where this concept of God is concerned? The bottom line of the agnostic position is that the true nature of the world cannot be resolved by our minds. That observing or not observing things is unimportant, that a concept is logically consistent is not important. Consequently, in my view agnostics live in a constant fog; unable, or afraid to make any decisions, so sorry, I am not going to give you a break.

Rene 2005-10-20T15:33:43Z lola darling http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#35322135-d12b-4297-b5b8-29aab4d4c5da 2005-10-20T08:07:45Z 2005-10-20T08:07:45Z

>Most atheists are perfectly willing to admit >that God might be hiding under the desk UH? Strange kind of atheists you know. Like Bush believing that a welfare is possible. >someone who does not know how to make up his mind Who gave this definition, Rene??! Because, as far as a know, an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe that it is possible to prove or not the existence of a God. I don't have to "make up my mind", my mind is totally made up: there's an epistemological impossibility, and to "make up my mind" I should switch the discussion to a metaphysical plan (but I just said that this is not what I'm interested in), and give up my cognitive priorities. Mind you, I'm not saying that atheists are wrong, I'm just saying we play in VERY different fields philosophically speaking. And since skepticism is my own light in the dark, why should I renounce to it, just because I have to "make up my mind" upon a totally irrelevant subject talking about disciplines I'm not even remotely interested in? Fear? Gimme a break.

lola darling 2005-10-20T08:07:45Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#e724eeb7-092d-40c8-bbcf-12021ea3c5ad 2005-10-20T03:31:24Z 2005-10-20T03:31:24Z

"I think the fear of the unknown is scary to most. I think it's really terrifying to the atheist." I think the fear factor is actually more appropriately applied to most agnostics. It is the fear of making a decision. If you walk into a classroom and all the children in the room are wearing glasses, would you be willing to say; "all these kids seem to be wearing glasses", or would you be afraid to say this because one of them might be hiding under a desk and you might be wrong. Most atheists are perfectly willing to admit that God might be hiding under the desk, we might have missed something, but at the same time we are willing to say unambiguously- this is where all the evidence points, all the kids are wearing glasses, there is no God. What the atheist feels towards the agnostic is not anger, but simply frustration with someone who does not know how to make up his mind.

Rene 2005-10-20T03:31:24Z Anton http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c89d10c9-3674-4bbe-8648-0c6db4bbe8bd 2005-10-20T03:14:23Z 2005-10-20T03:14:23Z

I think there is an innate human nature to "know" something. It's the driving force behind both religion, and science. If the religious folk can't know, then they must have "faith" or "believe" in something. I think the fear of the unknown is scary to most. I think it's really terrifying to the atheist. They must know that there is no deity, despite the fact that we can't really know that (IMO). I think fear is the motivation behind the atheistic anger towards agnostics. I'm ok without "knowing". It leaves me open to new information and experiences. Whenever I have some experience that convinces me either way...perhaps I'll change. But at present, I am truly agnostic. I feel the same way about aliens. There's a pretty good chance they exist...but I don't know yet.

Anton 2005-10-20T03:14:23Z Jon http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#0e683f7d-0bd0-4595-89d1-7ffd57a9410c 2005-10-19T20:39:41Z 2005-10-19T20:39:41Z

I had it misspelled. It's spelled correctly in the Wikipedia entry.

Jon 2005-10-19T20:39:41Z lola darling http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#fbd1148f-d8a0-4518-95e9-4e5c9666c018 2005-10-19T19:04:54Z 2005-10-19T19:04:54Z

Please, forgive my pain-in-the-ass-ness, but you quoted the principle I've based my life upon, so I feel like I can claim my right to be ridiculously meticulous ;) OccAm's razor -- named after William of Ockham (ok, now I'm going to kill the editors of this wiki-entry!) As for the question, my personal experience with atheists is quite good, and none of them has ever tried to... ahem, proselytize me (nor I feel "halfway" between believing and not believing!)

lola darling 2005-10-19T19:04:54Z Rocky http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#d4a831a2-045f-4e90-b7e5-5e97247f9ac9 2005-10-19T16:47:34Z 2005-10-19T16:47:34Z

I'll go with Jons comments & everyone else too really. I went throught this too. I like the quote - "An Atheist is an Agnostic that thought about it a little more" some folks really are afraid to come out of that closet. Especially if they were formerly xian/religious. It takes time & the experience varies for everyone. I suppose it is possible to be both for a while if one considers Agnostic to be non-commital, & Atheist to be "a lack of belief". I don't see a problem with riding that fence. ;

Rocky 2005-10-19T16:47:34Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#8980ad9a-eb57-4351-85c5-4ba2249d249d 2005-10-19T04:22:47Z 2005-10-19T04:22:47Z

>>"I just wrote a goddam essay replying to your posts and it got eaten by tribe when my login expired." Bum city. I have had the same thing happen. Yeah, it is a lot safer to work in Word and then cut and paste. So, to encourage you- we are interested in what you have to say.

Rene 2005-10-19T04:22:47Z Jon http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#f6294c26-6af6-4adf-a9c4-e6cc0ceefb18 2005-10-19T03:58:33Z 2005-10-19T03:58:33Z

Yuck. I hate it when that happens. I usually compose my replies in outlook to avoid this (and for spell check.) :P

Jon 2005-10-19T03:58:33Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#c2716a50-c2f8-4a37-b87c-633258d2677d 2005-10-19T03:28:05Z 2005-10-19T03:28:05Z

FUCK! I just wrote a goddam essay replying to your posts and it got eaten by tribe when my login expired. I'll try to remember some of it and re-write it later...

VoodooChild 2005-10-19T03:28:05Z Jon http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#a2cdc7b6-88eb-49db-8d0c-6bff28575a20 2005-10-18T20:15:07Z 2005-10-18T20:15:07Z

Ya, what Rene said. Also I feel some agnostics are consiously or subconsiously afraid to call a spade a spade when it comes to religion and god. This is caused the massive influence of Judeo-Christian ideas on culture. IMO, the path most atheists take to their philosophical viewpoint is the combination of two obvervations about our world. The invisible dragon in garage problem: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/st-drag.html and Occum's Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occum%27s_razor The agnostic takes the same path but lands at a different opinion at the end. They question the validity of Occum's Razor in this case.

Jon 2005-10-18T20:15:07Z Rene http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#2cf2902d-3d87-47dd-ab21-892d7a1bac55 2005-10-18T19:48:33Z 2005-10-18T19:48:33Z

I imagine most atheists go through an agnostic period. At least this was true in my case. One day you wake up and say to yourself; why am I holding this middle position between believing in God and not believing when it seems there are no more reasons to believe in God than to believe in the blue fairy or the giant, yellow fish at the center of the galaxy? I don't hold the middle postion about the blue fairy or the yellow fish, so why hold it about the big father guy in the sky? I don't think agnosticsim pisses off atheists; they just wish agnostics would treat the concept of God exactly the same as the concept of blue faires, unicorns, giant, invisible, yellow fish, and dragons and not try to pretend there is some difference when there isn't. Basically, I see agnostiscism as a way of lying to yourself about what you really believe and holding onto something, the concept of God, for mostly emotional reasons. It is not unlike breaking up with a lover. You go through a period of trying to believe in the love, despite the evidence it is lacking, before you finally learn to accept that there is nothing there.

Rene 2005-10-18T19:48:33Z VoodooChild http://agnosticism.tribe.net/thread/54e421bd-0480-4272-8249-8eeba575601b#3914de94-5893-4ff7-905f-703641a6b223 2005-10-18T18:22:47Z 2005-10-18T18:22:47Z

In my experience, when I talk to religious folks and tell them I am agnostic, they are interested to talk to me about religious issues, maybe even try to persuade me to join their religion (good luck!). But when I label myself as an agnostic to atheists, they get very annoyed. They think either I lack the reasoning skills to see that there is no god, or they think I have some sort of testosterone defficiency that causes me to be too afraid to proclaim my true atheism to the world. Their favorite saying is that "an agnostic is just a gutless atheist" (I believe this comes from Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary). I was just browsing an atheism tribe and these attitudes run rampant. What's with this pig-headed animostiy between fellow non-believers. As far as I can tell, we're all on the same side as far as opposing the fundamentalist religious fanatics who would restrict OUR liberty in the interest of THEIR god. Your thoughts?

VoodooChild 2005-10-18T18:22:47Z