|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2019 21:53:50 GMT
A prayer for Planet Arlon: "Please God, make the nasty logical thinking man go away, because he is rocking my delusional boat of religious nonsense and I don't like it. He challenges my credentials on scientific matters and Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger BOTH know that I know more about science than this internet whipper snapper" Please smite him., AYmen." There are things I would pray for, but being recognized by you or faustus5 are not among them. Luckily I/we don't ( though I am being presumptuous speaking for Faustus) recognise you. You are a delusional repetitious fool and the only reason I/we answer you ( like Heeeey as well) is to see what absolute drivel you will bring up next. Call it a hobby!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 21:54:50 GMT
Yes, but it seemed to me that he was saying "being agnostic is what makes you an atheist" and was then going on to describe himself as at least something of a gnostic (ie he claims to know that there is no prime mover who cares about people personally). Meaning either he's not an atheist or he didn't define atheism properly beforehand. Though as Graham clarified, what he was actually saying is "if you're not a gnostic theist, you're an atheist." I don't agree with that (I think you can be a theist without claiming to know anything), but I can accept it is at least not inconsistent. Read what Graham said again, and add to it my emphasis that "if you are NOT a theist (ie believing in God or gods) you are an atheist. It s that simple. What confused you was the differential I mentioned ie whether any given atheist has an alterative to God, or whether they admit lack of certain knowledge on the subject or somewhere in between. I see you're still trying to "write" definitions where parts of words mean the same as when they are parts of other words. Admirable as that is, it is not always practical. It is obviously especially difficult for you. You end up with definitions that serve no other purpose.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2019 22:15:46 GMT
My impression of many of the "scientific" people here is that they are afraid of discussing anything that is not as obvious and universally accepted as the boiling point of water. This is pretty rich from someone who, despite being repeatedly pressed, declines to tell us how old he thinks the cosmos is, what he would substitute to correct the purported failings of Einstenian physics - or even what sort of god he believes in! lol And again, given that Arlon has only lately had it that, apparently, "all definitions are arbitrary" which makes mutual agreement difficult, especially if one argues with dictionaries ("and wins") to suit a piece, this is rather an ironic objection.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 17, 2019 22:37:46 GMT
My impression of many of the "scientific" people here is that they are afraid of discussing anything that is not as obvious and universally accepted as the boiling point of water. This is pretty rich from someone who, despite being repeatedly pressed, declines to tell us how old he thinks the cosmos is, what he would substitute to correct the purported failings of Einstenian physics - or even what sort of god he believes in! lol And again, given that Arlon has only lately had it that, apparently, "all definitions are arbitrary" which makes mutual agreement difficult, especially if one argues with dictionaries ("and wins") to suit a piece, this is rather an ironic objection. I try to reply, usually "in kind," to people who have taken the time to read what I write. It is however getting more difficult lately to find a point in your comments to address. I am heartily sorry that I do not know how old the Earth is. I'm old, but not that old. The simple truth is that I do not know. I think it's fascinating how some people try to guess. Those are however still not well established, stilled mired deep in a guess. It does not mean that I do not care how old the Earth. Truth be told, the age of the Earth is not among issues I consider most pressing. I do like to consider it for recreation though. I realize that "powerful" people often pretend to be more certain of things than bears close scrutiny. I don't see any need to be "powerful" myself though, certainly not by dishonesty anyway. I doesn't bother me at all to admit I don't know how old the Earth might be exactly. Your lack of comprehension about the important difference between reality and the sets of symbols designed to represent reality continues to leave you out of intelligent conversation on developing useful symbols.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2019 22:42:58 GMT
Read what Graham said again, and add to it my emphasis that "if you are NOT a theist (ie believing in God or gods) you are an atheist. It s that simple. What confused you was the differential I mentioned ie whether any given atheist has an alterative to God, or whether they admit lack of certain knowledge on the subject or somewhere in between. I see you're still trying to "write" definitions where parts of words mean the same as when they are parts of other words. Admirable as that is, it is not always practical. It is obviously especially difficult for you. You end up with definitions that serve no other purpose. Planet Arlon, what is so difficult about the definition I gave above of the words 'theist' and 'atheist'?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 2:30:04 GMT
I see you're still trying to "write" definitions where parts of words mean the same as when they are parts of other words. Admirable as that is, it is not always practical. It is obviously especially difficult for you. You end up with definitions that serve no other purpose. Planet Arlon, what is so difficult about the definition I gave above of the words 'theist' and 'atheist'? It doesn't matter what you have on paper (or screens). It doesn't matter how well the parts fit together or have meaning on paper. It only matters whether what you have on paper matches reality. The inescapable reality is that there are three practical and recognizable categories, those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who do not engage the subject. Your childish tinkering with words does nothing to change the reality. It does nothing to describe the reality. It only hides the reality that you do not like.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 18, 2019 3:13:22 GMT
Planet Arlon, what is so difficult about the definition I gave above of the words 'theist' and 'atheist'? It doesn't matter what you have on paper (or screens). It doesn't matter how well the parts fit together or have meaning on paper. It only matters whether what you have on paper matches reality. The inescapable reality is that there are three practical and recognizable categories, those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who do not engage the subject. Your childish tinkering with words does nothing to change the reality. It does nothing to describe the reality. It only hides the reality that you do not like. No, those are your particularly inaccurate and stupid definitions. The reality is that there are people who believe in god(theists), people who lack that belief (atheists), and those who don't know (agnostics - who logically fit into the atheists category). It is really simple.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 18, 2019 3:31:06 GMT
This is pretty rich from someone who, despite being repeatedly pressed, declines to tell us how old he thinks the cosmos is, what he would substitute to correct the purported failings of Einstenian physics - or even what sort of god he believes in! lol And again, given that Arlon has only lately had it that, apparently, "all definitions are arbitrary" which makes mutual agreement difficult, especially if one argues with dictionaries ("and wins") to suit a piece, this is rather an ironic objection. I try to reply, usually "in kind," to people who have taken the time to read what I write. It is however getting more difficult lately to find a point in your comments to address. I am heartily sorry that I do not know how old the Earth is. I'm old, but not that old. The simple truth is that I do not know. I think it's fascinating how some people try to guess. Those are however still not well established, stilled mired deep in a guess. It does not mean that I do not care how old the Earth. Truth be told, the age of the Earth is not among issues I consider most pressing. I do like to consider it for recreation though. I realize that "powerful" people often pretend to be more certain of things than bears close scrutiny. I don't see any need to be "powerful" myself though, certainly not by dishonesty anyway. I doesn't bother me at all to admit I don't know how old the Earth might be exactly. Your lack of comprehension about the important difference between reality and the sets of symbols designed to represent reality continues to leave you out of intelligent conversation on developing useful symbols. I don't wonder that you are finding Flim Flam's comments difficult to address, because he has logically tied you up in knots with your own conflicting pronouncements on various topics such as dictionary definitions and your sudden coyness about your previously professed Creationism. I refer you to your own previous comment to me, and suggest that this more and more applies to YOU. You are the theist making the positive assertion of the existence of God, and I am the agnostic atheist with "nothing to NOT like'(if you will pardon the double negative.) I like reality very much. It is just the dodgyness of an unproven God and all the other crapola that goes with that, that I don't like.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,303
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 18, 2019 9:19:14 GMT
What confused you was the differential I mentioned ie whether any given atheist has an alterative to God, or whether they admit lack of certain knowledge on the subject or somewhere in between. That's not what confused me, I'm fully aware of that distinction. I agree, it is that simple. But that's not what Jillette said. He said: "You don't have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is 'I don't know'." But saying "I don't know" is neither sufficient nor necessary to be an atheist. It's not necessary as Jillette himself is an atheist who doesn't say "I don't know" as he elsewhere in the same book claims to know there is no prime mover who cares about people personally. It's not sufficient as there are theists who claim not to know. The problem is (as you correctly identified) theism vs atheism isn't about knowledge really, it's about belief. There are atheists (not all atheists by any means) who seem to apply a false modesty to atheism - "theists claim to know, but only atheists are humble enough to admit they don't know". It's bullshit. Sure there are theists who cannot even countenance that they might be wrong in their belief, but there are others who have doubts or admit they're taking leaps of faith or think their beliefs more likely that not to be true without claiming to know. Similarly there are atheists who, while they may well say quite truthfully they don't know the meaning of everything, are pretty certain there is no God at any rate (and it looks like Jillette himself is one of these). There are others who might say they simply lack a belief in God, but I imagine many of those suspect there isn't one. A thought experiment: suppose someone invents a device which if you plug into your brain will tell you with 100% accuracy everything about existence. If you plugged this into your brain, what would you expect it to reveal about whether God exists? Before they use that device, people's expectations would fit into one of five camps: A. Absolute certainty God will be shown to exist B. Thinking it more likely than not that God will be shown to exist C. Being completely on the fence whether God will be shown to exist D. Thinking it more likely than not that God will be shown not to exist E. Absolute certainty God will be shown not to exist If this false modesty was true modesty, atheists should mostly fit into Camp C, but I suspect very few people at all would be in Camp C. Most atheists would probably be in Camp D with a few in Camp E. The theists would probably be divided between Camps A and B. Those in Camp C could probably claim to be true agnostics.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 10:17:08 GMT
It doesn't matter what you have on paper (or screens). It doesn't matter how well the parts fit together or have meaning on paper. It only matters whether what you have on paper matches reality. The inescapable reality is that there are three practical and recognizable categories, those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who do not engage the subject. Your childish tinkering with words does nothing to change the reality. It does nothing to describe the reality. It only hides the reality that you do not like. No, those are your particularly inaccurate and stupid definitions. The reality is that there are people who believe in god(theists), people who lack that belief (atheists), and those who don't know (agnostics - who logically fit into the atheists category). It is really simple. What is very plain and simple is that you consider your beliefs "default" attitudes, or privileged attitudes that deserve to be called other than beliefs. You have a psychotic reaction to the word "belief" since you consider it a disease of the mind that you couldn't possibly have. The truth is that you are no more entitled to your attitude than anyone else is entitled to theirs. Quite many sensible people can see that and it is most annoying. Few "atheists" are really that stupid. You do not understand "burden of proof." I have explained before that it is not who speaks first. That would be ridiculous on these ongoing, loosely connected discussion boards. These issues are buried in the mists of history and there is no saying who spoke first. The burden of proof is generally agreed, when it ever is agreed, to fall on the challenger of the status quo. The status quo is another concept you do not understand. It means the way things are. If you wanted to argue that cars should have three wheels instead of four you would have the burden of proof because the way things are they have four. There are plenty of very good arguments for cars having three wheels, but you still have the burden of proof. People for keeping cars with four wheels have the obvious (to me anyway) advantage of working well with four wheels already. Similarly "god" is not some upstart idea. Various concepts of a god have been around for millennia and have served some purpose for that long. You are then the challenger of the status quo and have the burden of proof. Nevertheless I have never claimed victory thereby. I prefer to present the many good arguments I do have than to claim victory without effort the way you do. You still do not realize how ridiculous it is to try to "win" an argument by showing what facts a dictionary "establishes." Dictionaries do not establish any facts. They design labels that might fit well or in your case not fit well. You need to show how they fit without depending on the dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 18, 2019 10:32:43 GMT
My impression of many of the "scientific" people here is that they are afraid of discussing anything that is not as obvious and universally accepted as the boiling point of water. Your "impressions" of every subject under the sun seem to have almost nothing to do with any kind of objective reality. This case is no different.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 10:40:09 GMT
The Lost One said: [full text here]< clip >
... ... A thought experiment: suppose someone invents a device which if you plug into your brain will tell you with 100% accuracy everything about existence. If you plugged this into your brain, what would you expect it to reveal about whether God exists? Before they use that device, people's expectations would fit into one of five camps: A. Absolute certainty God will be shown to exist B. Thinking it more likely than not that God will be shown to exist C. Being completely on the fence whether God will be shown to exist D. Thinking it more likely than not that God will be shown not to exist E. Absolute certainty God will be shown not to exist If this false modesty was true modesty, atheists should mostly fit into Camp C, but I suspect very few people at all would be in Camp C. Most atheists would probably be in Camp D with a few in Camp E. The theists would probably be divided between Camps A and B. Those in Camp C could probably claim to be true agnostics. That is a very good picture that seems a fair assessment of most people. I'm surprised. I think it is important to remember though that there is no such device with 100 percent accuracy. It is then pointless to discuss "certain knowledge" of a god. We might speak of "certain knowledge" whether some book is on some table because a book and a table are things most everyone can see and agree what they are. The concept of a god is far too abstract, and the experiences of gods are far too individual for a public standard of "knowledge." If you put "very strong belief" in place of "certain knowledge" your table would still work fine.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 10:43:27 GMT
My impression of many of the "scientific" people here is that they are afraid of discussing anything that is not as obvious and universally accepted as the boiling point of water. Your "impressions" of every subject under the sun seem to have almost nothing to do with any kind of objective reality. This case is no different. And you haven't made your own case, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 18, 2019 10:49:45 GMT
Your "impressions" of every subject under the sun seem to have almost nothing to do with any kind of objective reality. This case is no different. And you haven't made your own case, as usual. My case is that you are completely full of shit. All you have to do to refute me is issue evidence demonstrating that your characterization of those of us who have hitched our wagons to the scientific mainstream actually matches your profile of us. You can't and you won't even try, since it is, in fact, nonsense.
Your inability to back up your characterization is all that is required to support my case.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 11:05:31 GMT
goz said: [full text here]< clip >
I like reality very much. It is just the dodgyness of an unproven God and all the other crapola that goes with that, that I don't like. I think it is rather obvious that you do not like "belief." You have a psychotic reaction to the word as though it's some disease. I am willing to admit that belief in science has saved some people's lives even though they were obviously not capable of science themselves. That's because I don't care about pretending to have all the answers and being the "boss." The "gang" of atheists still on this board (you know who you are, there are exceptions) have that problem. You cling to a false certainty because you fear the loss of power that uncertainty would leave you. I'm sorry there are so many troublesome people who claim belief in a god, but people can be just as troublesome with blind faith in science. That can go terribly wrong too.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 18, 2019 11:08:45 GMT
I don't know how much of the Jesus story is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is a mix of the two. I don't think it really matters for the purpose of the quote, or for the purposes of extracting the significance of the story. I'll never understand the literalist obsession with needing things to have really happened in order to get meaning from it; and that's not just with religion. I've known people who think films "based on a true story" are better because the stories "really happened," which doesn't make any sense to me either. The crossing of the red sea is almost certainly fictitious given that Jews were never Egyptian slaves, making all of Exodus a fiction. The Bible is probably about as concerned with "facts" as any comic book is. Meaning there are factual places and (frequently) people, but the main characters and events are fictitious. Rest of your post is typical rambling Arl(n)onsense. It remains a "fact" that your opinions by no means carry as much weight as the Bible, whatever might be in the Bible. That entirely depends on who's doing the weighing.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2019 18:58:02 GMT
This is pretty rich from someone who, despite being repeatedly pressed, declines to tell us how old he thinks the cosmos is, what he would substitute to correct the purported failings of Einstenian physics - or even what sort of god he believes in! lol And again, given that Arlon has only lately had it that, apparently, "all definitions are arbitrary" which makes mutual agreement difficult, especially if one argues with dictionaries ("and wins") to suit a piece, this is rather an ironic objection. I try to reply, usually "in kind," to people who have taken the time to read what I write. It is however getting more difficult lately to find a point in your comments to address. I am heartily sorry that I do not know how old the Earth is. I'm old, but not that old. The simple truth is that I do not know. I think it's fascinating how some people try to guess. Those are however still not well established, stilled mired deep in a guess. It does not mean that I do not care how old the Earth. Truth be told, the age of the Earth is not among issues I consider most pressing. I do like to consider it for recreation though. I realize that "powerful" people often pretend to be more certain of things than bears close scrutiny. I don't see any need to be "powerful" myself though, certainly not by dishonesty anyway. I doesn't bother me at all to admit I don't know how old the Earth might be exactly. Your lack of comprehension about the important difference between reality and the sets of symbols designed to represent reality continues to leave you out of intelligent conversation on developing useful symbols. I am naturally sorry that you do not know or find the two simple points I made. Perhaps reading up on what, based on a range of different reasons, the current scientific consensus is, would help resolve one of them. But I know it won't. I am not sure why you would mention symbols in this context since it is easy to demonstrate (from your own words) that your notion of God, being fairly traditional, i.e. supernatural, deliberate and even - as we learnt only just recently in this thread - one apparently amenable to personal prayers, is not at all 'symbolic'.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 21:19:06 GMT
It remains a "fact" that your opinions by no means carry as much weight as the Bible, whatever might be in the Bible. That entirely depends on who's doing the weighing. I believe it has been thoroughly established here that your pals do not represent the adults in the room.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 18, 2019 21:46:38 GMT
There are things I would pray for, but being recognized by you or faustus5 are not among them. Luckily I/we don't ( though I am being presumptuous speaking for Faustus) recognise you. You are a delusional repetitious fool and the only reason I/we answer you ( like Heeeey as well) is to see what absolute drivel you will bring up next. Call it a hobby! Or PKB
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 18, 2019 22:18:11 GMT
What confused you was the differential I mentioned ie whether any given atheist has an alterative to God, or whether they admit lack of certain knowledge on the subject or somewhere in between. That's not what confused me, I'm fully aware of that distinction. I agree, it is that simple. But that's not what Jillette said. He said: "You don't have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is 'I don't know'." But saying "I don't know" is neither sufficient nor necessary to be an atheist. It's not necessary as Jillette himself is an atheist who doesn't say "I don't know" as he elsewhere in the same book claims to know there is no prime mover who cares about people personally. It's not sufficient as there are theists who claim not to know. The problem is (as you correctly identified) theism vs atheism isn't about knowledge really, it's about belief. There are atheists (not all atheists by any means) who seem to apply a false modesty to atheism - "theists claim to know, but only atheists are humble enough to admit they don't know". It's bullshit. Sure there are theists who cannot even countenance that they might be wrong in their belief, but there are others who have doubts or admit they're taking leaps of faith or think their beliefs more likely that not to be true without claiming to know. Similarly there are atheists who, while they may well say quite truthfully they don't know the meaning of everything, are pretty certain there is no God at any rate (and it looks like Jillette himself is one of these). There are others who might say they simply lack a belief in God, but I imagine many of those suspect there isn't one. A thought experiment: suppose someone invents a device which if you plug into your brain will tell you with 100% accuracy everything about existence. If you plugged this into your brain, what would you expect it to reveal about whether God exists? Before they use that device, people's expectations would fit into one of five camps: A. Absolute certainty God will be shown to exist B. Thinking it more likely than not that God will be shown to exist C. Being completely on the fence whether God will be shown to exist D. Thinking it more likely than not that God will be shown not to exist E. Absolute certainty God will be shown not to exist If this false modesty was true modesty, atheists should mostly fit into Camp C, but I suspect very few people at all would be in Camp C. Most atheists would probably be in Camp D with a few in Camp E. The theists would probably be divided between Camps A and B. Those in Camp C could probably claim to be true agnostics. Great post. I only however, have one reaction to your existential conundrum. A. are the only theists. The rest are atheists ( admittedly somewhere on the scale ).. In essence we are saying the same thing.
|
|