|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 0:39:49 GMT
People who join debates believe something or they doubt something. Here is the relationship between doubt and belief. If you believe it is raining then you doubt it is not raining. On the other hand if you believe it is not raining then you doubt it is. A doubt is exactly like a belief except for perspective. Similarly a "disproof" is exactly like a proof with the same rules and procedures except for a difference in perspective. A "disbelief" is typically a belief with a different of perspective. More on that presently though. A person who "joins" a debate only to ask whether anyone wants pizza is not counted here as joining the debate unless it is a debate about pizza, and the questioner might well for all we know lack any belief on the debate topic. Expressing "doubts" in a debate is entirely different and the same as expressing a belief in the opposite. Which is nonsense, since many Christians have expressed sincere and natural doubts in varying aspects of their faith, but have not been deemed atheist. relevantmagazine.com/god/7-prominent-christian-thinkers-who-wrestled-doubt/ One set of doubts led to the Reformation. In fact even your Christ had his moments. Condescension noted. It is when you inevitably start talking like this, with mild insults instead of real points, one knows you are becoming defensive. Not even those Scotsmen who truly lack beliefs? I see. LOL There is no reason why people cannot join debates, say just for the pleasure of discussing matters, or to have their interests covered. (Part of the training in rhetoric has always been to argue a case as convincingly as possible from both sides) Or, confirm their suspicions about the level and type of argument. And so on. Naturally people do join a debate to have their prejudices confirmed too. But unless someone affirms a view you simply have no reason, other than assumption, to know what they ultimately think, since as already mentioned to you twice (and which you continue to ignore) one can simply express a lack a belief in God and still ultimately be inclined to think it might or might not exist. And moreover there is also no compulsion to be sincere in religious debates. As David Hume remarked, one is under no obligation not to lie to the insane or children. The modern example might be a troll like Heeeeyyyyy. This may be the case or not, but you ought to remember the contradiction I noted was between your usual "definitions must be mutually agreed" and the more recent "all definitions are arbitrary". It is hard to ensure to agree on something which is always arbitrary. This is a false equivalence since you have yet to provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists. That is I know (no need to pussy-foot with 'believe') that Carbon exists since I can see it measured and described. But since one cannot know for sure about the transcendental, speaking personally, I cannot make final, knowing judgements about it although can form reasonable suspicions. Also, doubt is not like a belief in strength and I am surprised you would assert that. For instance I may doubt, or suspect, that it won't rain tomorrow but that does not mean I believe it will not. Or, I might suspect you are out of your depth and are the one here who needs to learn English, but am still too optimistic to really believe it. (And your paragraph is unintentionally ironic given your well-attested lack of belief in carbon dating!) Thank you for acknowledging the obvious. That would be a QED then. Now in regards to atheism and disbelief in God, go away and look up the difference between hard (positive) and sof t (weak) atheism before I have cause to remind you of these now-standard categories of disbelief again. But we have been here before.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 0:59:26 GMT
You are missing my point. If you are expressing your own thoughts in a debate then you must have a belief. So when I ask to see the verifiable evidence for your specific alleged deity Arlon, what belief does it indicate as to whether I think it exists or not? I would suggest that it is more because I don't have a final view that I ask for more information.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 8:02:08 GMT
Yes, I have made the distinction several times. There are indeed people who "lack" beliefs, but they do not join debates. If you lack beliefs about pizza, then you do not join debates about pizza. If you lack beliefs about 12carbon, then you do not join debates about 12carbon. If you lack beliefs about the existence of god you do not join debates about the existence of god. When you join a debate you are expressing someone's beliefs, if perhaps not your own. I put people in categories according to outward signs whereas your criteria for putting people in categories often do not exist. There are no outward signs for establishing that a person is "gnostic" and yet you seem to think a distinction between gnostic and anything else is useful. There is no putting people into categories with your "definitions." That is total nonsense. ANYONE can join a debate. That is what we are here for! DUH! You said it yourself. I think you are confused and illogical. I'm not confused and it is not difficult to understand. To join debates a belief is absolutely required. It might be your belief or the belief of someone else, but some belief is required. An atheist cannot claim to "lack" belief simply because he has a proofreader who lacks belief.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 8:40:30 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clips >
[1] ,,, many Christians have expressed sincere and natural doubts in varying aspects of their faith, but have not been deemed atheist. [2] ... It is hard to ensure to agree on something which is always arbitrary. [3] ... [ 12C}, a false equivalence since you have yet to provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists 1) You are obviously having difficulty recognizing the universe of possibilities. Let's review. There are a) people who believe there is a god, b) people who believe there is no god, and c) people who lack belief. That is the entire universe of possibilities for belief in a god. While it seems to you that you have "discovered" yet another possibility, you have not. What you have discovered is that some people can waver between two or more of the possibilities. They can believe there is a god on Wednesday and believe there is no god on Friday. You have not added any new possibilities. You have an amazing capacity to miss the point. When they join debates people must believe something, when they cease to join all bets are off. 2) Yet there are arbitration "boards" or "committees." 3) Aha! There it is! You are claiming to "lack" belief because you imagine your belief is "justifiable." I will address the issue of justifiable beliefs in another thread for a more thorough examination of that problem. Suffice it to say here that there are indeed beliefs that are rightfully considered justifiable, but that is not what atheists do in debates. What they actually do is use their own definition of a god they have designed to make their position justifiable. If I argue for a "god" that is actually a complex system of ethics and you "lack" belief because there is no old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds you have not really debated me. You debated a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 8:45:48 GMT
You are missing my point. If you are expressing your own thoughts in a debate then you must have a belief. So when I ask to see the verifiable evidence for your specific alleged deity Arlon, what belief does it indicate as to whether I think it exists or not? I would suggest that it is more because I don't have a final view that I ask for more information. You are obviously confused about definitions. When you insist on a definition of god that does not likely exist and demand I present evidence for it, you are not "asking" me for evidence of a god as I define it. You are debating a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 6, 2019 10:03:12 GMT
Yes, I have made the distinction several times. There are indeed people who "lack" beliefs, but they do not join debates. If you lack beliefs about pizza, then you do not join debates about pizza. If you lack beliefs about 12carbon, then you do not join debates about 12carbon. If you lack beliefs about the existence of god you do not join debates about the existence of god. When you join a debate you are expressing someone's beliefs, if perhaps not your own. I put people in categories according to outward signs whereas your criteria for putting people in categories often do not exist. There are no outward signs for establishing that a person is "gnostic" and yet you seem to think a distinction between gnostic and anything else is useful. There is no putting people into categories with your "definitions." That is total nonsense. ANYONE can join a debate. That is what we are here for! DUH! You said it yourself. I think you are confused and illogical. Indeed. Arlon10 started another thread that highlights this. The only belief you need to have when you make a post is that what you write is worth posting. Other beliefs may be that what you post will be visible. But it has nothing to do with belief in the subject.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 10:50:22 GMT
Let's review. There are a) people who believe there is a god, b) people who believe there is no god, and c) people who lack belief. That is the entire universe of possibilities for belief in a god. I think we can both agree on that. Why then, do you insist that b & c must be logically contingent on one another? I don't know either. QED. This has already been covered. Repeating your misapprehension does not make it any truer. Holding an abiding interest, or intellectual curiosity in a topic is not the same as holding a belief, duh. Once again: people join a discussion for all sorts of reasons, not just to indulge their pre-set prejudices. There are plenty of people who are honest enough to say "I don't know" about the big questions. They are are called agnostics. There are people who lack belief, perhaps hold no more than a suspicion as to how things might turn out to be, but affirm nothing. These are the folk you make sweeping assumptions of, for reasons already outlined. But you have been told this, over and over. I shan't tell you again, but instead in future refer you back to this paragraph as I suspect that many are growing as bored of it as I am, Not at least in an informal setting as this - exactly where you say definitions are arbitrary I remember. Unless you mean the court of public opinion. How well do you think you fare there? Please quote where I have made this claim. Surely the opposite would be true, that one loses disbelief when belief is overwhelmingly the most reasonable response? And here you are lazily conflating your b & c above, in a different form of words, to which the same answer applies. Again. And don't tell me what I imagine, since that is doing that assumptive thing again of someone who is not a hard or positive atheist, i.e. has not affirmed anything. We can both agree that when people speak of God they can mean everything from the purely symbolic up to the traditional, anthropomorphic and personal variety of old time religion (a type you cannot appear to find in scripture when pressed lol). But when atheists say they lack belief it is usually in reference to the theistic position not a woolier deistic one, for logical reasons I am happy to explain in greater detail. I hope that helps. But it won't.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 10:55:51 GMT
So when I ask to see the verifiable evidence for your specific alleged deity Arlon, what belief does it indicate as to whether I think it exists or not? I would suggest that it is more because I don't have a final view that I ask for more information. You are obviously confused about definitions. When you insist on a definition of god that does not likely exist and demand I present evidence for it, you are not "asking" me for evidence of a god as I define it. You are debating a straw man. But I am not asking for a definition, Arlon. Here I am only asking for verifiable, positive evidence for God, such as you already presumably define it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 11:06:39 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clip >
... Holding an abiding interest, or intellectual curiosity in a topic is not the same as holding a belief In the sense that you change your beliefs from day to day and even minute to minute, that can be true. However my point remains that when you take a side in a debate you are expressing your beliefs or something that could not be said without someone somewhere believing it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 11:23:19 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: But I am not asking for a definition, Arlon. Here I am only asking for verifiable, positive evidence for God, such as you already presumably define it. No, you are not asking for a definition, you are ignoring the ones I have discussed. While it is true I have not given you "my" definition of a god I have provided sound evidence for several different possible defined gods. By one definition of god as "a center of human activity" I have proved that one exists as certainly as baseball does since there are many buildings with large attendance. By another as the agency responsible for the first life on a previously molten planet, I have shown that one is required. By another as a "guiding force in human policy" I have reminded you that world leaders typically resort to scriptures to guide policy. Your annoyingly simple mind constantly conflates and misunderstands these obvious truths with your personal misconceptions of a god..
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 11:36:20 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clip >
... Holding an abiding interest, or intellectual curiosity in a topic is not the same as holding a belief In the sense that you change your beliefs from day to day and even minute to minute, that can be true. However my point remains that when you take a side in a debate you are expressing your beliefs or something that could not be said without someone somewhere believing it. But, hey, this is a change. Up until now (and indeed in the 'Justifiable beliefs' you have recently started where you say ".. whether they join debates, if they do, they have some belief") there's been no such qualification. As I have already shown, merely asking trenchant and difficult questions of the credulous, such as what positive evidence there is for an alleged God is not 'taking sides', unless of course the interlocutor feels exceptionally persecuted. As I have already shown, there is a long list of major Christian thinkers who have struggled with doubts on quite understandable basis - but they are not usually considered 'taking the atheist side'.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 11:58:20 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: But I am not asking for a definition, Arlon. Here I am only asking for verifiable, positive evidence for God, such as you already presumably define it. No, you are not asking for a definition, you are ignoring the ones I have discussed. While it is true I have not given you "my" definition of a god I have provided sound evidence for several different possible defined gods. By one definition of god as "a center of human activity" I have proved that one exists as certainly as baseball does since there are many buildings with large attendance. By another as the agency responsible for the first life on a previously molten planet, I have shown that one is required. By another as a "guiding force in human policy" I have reminded you that world leaders typically resort to scriptures to guide policy. Your annoyingly simple mind constantly conflates and misunderstands these obvious truths with your personal misconceptions of a god.. Here you seem to want to have your cake ('I won't define God such as I believe in') and eat it ('only God could do this'). But I have not asked for a definition of god, as it is something this thread is not about and so your diversion is noted. However let us briefly play your game: since (as you have lately told us) all definitions are arbitrary, suppose I define God as something supernatural but which is unwilling, or unable, to create life. That would mean that your objection to abiogenesis is 'defined' by me out of existence, does it not? Or, suddenly as a deist, I define God as disinterested and removed from centers of human activity. That makes another of your proofs of existence weak, I think. And so on. But you still have not answered the question: that, when I ask to see the verifiable evidence for your specific alleged deity Arlon, what belief does it indicate as to whether I think it exists or not? Is there a problem? Your lack of direct answer is an answer in itself. Incidentally, because world leaders typically resort to scriptures to guide policy this does not mean much by way of evidence. Different states use different scriptures. Nancy Reagan, a big influencer on her husband, consulted astrologers. Is this really the best you have? "Annoyingly simple mind" : ad hominems are not arguments. I have told you this before.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 13:01:23 GMT
filmflaneur said: [full text here]< clips >
[1] ... suppose I define God as something supernatural but which is unwilling, or unable, to create life. [2] ... when I ask to see the verifiable evidence [3] ... ad hominems are not arguments. I have told you this before. 1) If I show that the intelligent designer is not found in nature and you define "god" as peppermint tea that does nothing to show that an intelligent designer is found in nature. Peppermint tea is not an intelligent designer, true. You are failing to address my arguments, not the other way around. 2) It means you're denying that I have already shown it to you. 3) And I have told you before that if some idiot pretends to represent some argument in society, do not believe he does represent it at all, never mind well.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 15:55:09 GMT
You are failing to address my arguments, not the other way around. This is somewhat ironic as I still await the answer to the question whether that, when I ask to see the verifiable evidence for your specific alleged deity what belief does it indicate as to whether I think it exists or not? You know I will keep asking. This is perfectly true, and cuts both ways of course - especially when one if confronted by someone like yourself who prefers, for reasons of convenience, not to define god at all! (See below for how this moveable feast of faith affects any purported 'evidence') That is, just because one thinks 'supernatural Creator' is a definition of god - which I feel is, at the very least, what we can say for sure about your own deliberately opaque beliefs - I agree: it does nothing to show magical work over the due processes of nature. (In fact you have never shown this) But more: as an atheist it is not obligatory me to say what god is, or how its works can be specifically discerned and attributed, as I merely lack belief in how it is defined by some others: those who are making a positive claim for a preferred god's existence. This lack of contingency has been to done to death already. Errr .. but since you here refuse to define the sort of god you believe in, (and apparently definitions are arbitrary in a casual setting anyway, as you recently told us) then any 'evidence' is necessarily moot, is it not? And even then, the only 'evidence' you regularly present is that of God of the Gaps: that is you use something science is not currently explaining to presume the necessary presence and working of your favoured supernatural. Either that or, lately you have suggested that the evidence is that the transcendental is presumed at the centre of human activity. Oh yes, and that leaders of some nations consult holy books to form policy. lol But this is just another diversion from the main thread. Which shows you have run out of ideas. Good advice, but when reading you I already bear it in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 18:45:03 GMT
It appears I will have to remind you yet again that I am not discussing what you (singular) believe, believe not, or lack belief in. Rather I am simply showing how to tell who lacks belief in the general case, it being obvious. I would quickly grant that you (singular) lack belief in anything I say since you have no idea what it is yet. Obviously you cannot believe or disbelieve anything until you have some vague notion at least what it is. By the same token a lump of clay lacks belief. How you imagine yourself showing that there is no human activity that places a god (variously described) at its center I cannot guess. Do you think people attend baseball games to discuss macrame? No, it's baseball. Likewise people who attend religious services discuss a god. How you imagine yourself showing that world leaders do not consult scriptures I cannot guess. Donald Trump obviously pretends to consult scripture, I am not sure he does, nevertheless he pretends. With other leaders it can be obvious they do consult scripture. That short RNA chains have the competitive advantage over long ones where no life exists yet is plain to see in any laboratory setting. How you imagine yourself showing such short chains authoring life I cannot guess. Your attitude would seem to suggest that you believe I am in error in all three cases despite that you have no sane argument to the contrary. Again though, I would not presume to guess what you (singular) believe or not.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2019 21:24:50 GMT
Let's review. There are a) people who believe there is a god, b) people who believe there is no god, and c) people who lack belief. That is the entire universe of possibilities for belief in a god. I think we can both agree on that. Why then, do you insist that b & c must be logically contingent on one another? I don't know either. QED. This has already been covered. Repeating your misapprehension does not make it any truer. Holding an abiding interest, or intellectual curiosity in a topic is not the same as holding a belief, duh. Once again: people join a discussion for all sorts of reasons, not just to indulge their pre-set prejudices. There are plenty of people who are honest enough to say "I don't know" about the big questions. They are are called agnostics. There are people who lack belief, perhaps hold no more than a suspicion as to how things might turn out to be, but affirm nothing. These are the folk you make sweeping assumptions of, for reasons already outlined. But you have been told this, over and over. I shan't tell you again, but instead in future refer you back to this paragraph as I suspect that many are growing as bored of it as I am,Not at least in an informal setting as this - exactly where you say definitions are arbitrary I remember. Unless you mean the court of public opinion. How well do you think you fare there? Please quote where I have made this claim. Surely the opposite would be true, that one loses disbelief when belief is overwhelmingly the most reasonable response? And here you are lazily conflating your b & c above, in a different form of words, to which the same answer applies. Again. And don't tell me what I imagine, since that is doing that assumptive thing again of someone who is not a hard or positive atheist, i.e. has not affirmed anything. We can both agree that when people speak of God they can mean everything from the purely symbolic up to the traditional, anthropomorphic and personal variety of old time religion (a type you cannot appear to find in scripture when pressed lol). But when atheists say they lack belief it is usually in reference to the theistic position not a woolier deistic one, for logical reasons I am happy to explain in greater detail. I hope that helps. But it won't. You are much more patient than I am with Arlon. I now just see him as that cranky old man shaking his fist at the local kids yelling... 'Get of my lawn of belief"!
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jul 6, 2019 21:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2019 10:05:20 GMT
It appears I will have to remind you yet again that I am not discussing what you (singular) believe, believe not, or lack belief in. Rather I am simply showing how to tell who lacks belief in the general case, it being obvious. Which is odd, since I thought it was more the case that you were originally arguing that atheists necessarily hold beliefs. I was only using myself an example of someone who does not express a view about God all the while lacking belief. QED. Yes I agree: in your case for instance and the vague notions we have to glean as to what you believe god is (or how old you think the earth is, come to that lol), especially as we know now that your definitions must be arbitrary.. Good, it is best when you do not guess what others imagine. But here you are.. I do not claim that the transcendental has not always been of concern to humans. I simply wonder why this means it can be evidenced as real, let along necessitates it as the Cause of all reality. For which the same observation applies. People discuss the stories in soap operas too, but that does not mean that they are real histories. Again, I do not dispute that leaders use religion as a prop and justification, or that Nancy Reagan used astrology. Different regimes refer to different gods. But your suggestion is just the same old argument from popularity is it not? One notes that you are happy to use the findings of science when it is convenient, and yet apparently cannot conceive of anything more than the God of the Gaps to oppose it with! This is not positive evidence for anything. As I have shown this is not the case, with my reasons. None of these example proves or evidences the reality of a supernatural First Cause. And, current diversion over, you still didn't answer my repeating question, as to what I say in a question necessarily reveals an affirmative view about god. Funny that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 13:20:28 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [text here]< clip >
... I thought it was more the case that you were originally arguing that atheists necessarily hold beliefs. I will immediately address your statement there, but it will be by way of long explanation. There are two very different things that people often get mixed up. One is our set of symbols to describe reality, and the other is reality itself. In ideal conditions it would seem there should be a such a match that confusing the two should not lead to problems. Yet somehow problems arise. Perhaps you've noticed that some "fundamentalists" can be very obsessed with your acceptance of "Jesus" all out of proportion to their capacity to describe exactly what that word means, or live according to what that word means, whatever that this. Scientists sometimes attempt to move forward by inventing terms for their guesses about reality. Much of particle physics lately is working with terms whose manifestation in reality is largely inferred. Lay persons often mistake those terms for "known" reality. They are not. In debates about "god" people forget that "god" is just a word that various people apply to quite different things and often very abstract things at that. I noticed that on this board when it was still actually IMDb that debates about the "existence" of god were really about the definition of one. At last to address your statement, I never said exactly that atheists necessarily hold beliefs, what I did say is that there are people who hold a belief that there is no god and we need a term for them and that term has traditionally been "atheist." Do not confuse mere terminology with reality. Don't worry because terminology is flexible. You can call them "B2s" if you like. Others (you?) want the term "atheist" to apply to two very different sorts of people, those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief in a god. That's like wanting one term for fish and chicken. It is not reasonable. It is not practical. People get upset who wanted fish and got chicken. People get upset who wanted chicken and got fish. It is reasonable to have separate terms for chicken and fish. It is reasonable to have separate terms for people who believe there is no god and people who lack belief in a god. In my thread on justifiable belief I explained how some mentally retarded people might not be able to distinguish believing there is no god and lacking belief in a god because they have no idea what the word "god" should mean. They invent "gods" that no one could possibly "believe" in. Then totally oblivious of the fact they have done that insist they lack belief. I had assumed that you had at least some inkling about how terms can be problematic, but lately it appears you still have serious difficulty yourself distinguishing reality and the sets of terms to describe reality that can become practical or not. I would guess that you, or many like you anyway, want to lack belief there is a god, want desperately to lack belief. Many of you have an unhealthy obsession with avoiding belief. You fear it. You imagine that it is the source of evil in the world. Many of you have become obsessed with a simplicity that is not realistic. I have a sort of "obsession" myself with truth, I hope it is a healthy obsession. I am though aware how elusive truth can be. I am aware that our set of symbols to describe the truth can fail especially with the very abstract truths. We might have to work with terms of uncertain connection to the unknown reality beyond our front yards like the scientists working in particle physics. We might have to work with beliefs. I suppose you've seen people whose "beliefs" have wrecked their lives and worse the lives of others. I won't deny there are a few people like that. Maybe that is why you fear belief. I would suggest however that the real problem is simplicity. They don't understand reality because their set of symbols to deal with reality is too simple and not working. Atheists can have the same problem. They can't deal with complex reality well because they demand a simplicity from all expression that is totally unrealistic. As I said several times fundamentalists and atheists are often like two sides of the same bad coin.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 7, 2019 14:10:07 GMT
I never said exactly that atheists necessarily hold beliefs, what I did say is that there are people who hold a belief that there is no god and we need a term for them and that term has traditionally been "atheist." ... Others (you?) want the term "atheist" to apply to two very different sorts of people, those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief in a god. That's like wanting one term for fish and chicken. It is not reasonable. It is not practical. People get upset who wanted fish and got chicken. People get upset who wanted chicken and got fish. It is reasonable to have separate terms for chicken and fish. It is reasonable to have separate terms for people who believe there is no god and people who lack belief in a god. There ARE separate terms for "those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief in a god", and these terms have been in use for a very long time, but both of them include the word "atheist". One term is "positive atheist", and the other is "negative atheist". So, it is correct to refer to either person as an "atheist". And in the context of most discussions, simply "atheist" is sufficient. If a topic will require greater precision of terms, then making a distinction between positive and negative atheist has use. But it's usually not necessary.
|
|