Wait, what? Atheism is defined by disbelief in gods. What is your definition of atheism if it is not this?
And he does explicitly disbelieve in everything but an extremely loose idea of a watchmaker god that he won't defend the existence of.
Whereas an atheist would disbelieve in that one as well.
Also, for all intents and purposes is an important part of my statement
Which is an incorrect statement, and I don't like people presuming that other people are part of their religious demographic when they aren't.
You wrote this:
If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Which is wrong. An atheist disbelieves in deities. If one does not disbelieve in deities, one is not atheist.
I think we are all talking past each other because we seem to all have different ideas of what "agnostic" and "deism" means. Can't say I'm in the mood for a good old semantic argument. So, lets see if I can forgo labels for a bit as they seem to only be confusing the issue.
Essentially, the claim I am trying to make is the origin of this universe is completely unknown. The closer we get to the big bang, the more our understanding of physics breaks down. At 'time equals zero' all bets are off, nothing makes sense. It is as far outside of our experience as you can get, and natural laws have long(ok, not long, like picoseconds ago) since completely broken down. Thus, to claim you feel the event at t=0 happened for a reason is just as sound as saying it didn't happen for a reason, as in, both are pure conjecture.
Now -I would like to stress- it is my understanding the difference between saying "reason" or "no reason" when talking about the start of the universe the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist. One claims that there is no reason(or 'mind' if you like) behind existence, and the other claims there is a reason. All I am saying is I am "betting" there is a reason for existence. I would also like to stress I am making no other claims. I am not commenting on the nature of this "reason" in anyway other than to say I'm "betting" there is one. I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
Now, many would claim that having a "reason" would be to anthropomorphize the event. Most things don't have the ability to assign a reason to something. Thus, many would claim that to say the event had "no reason" would -statically- be more reasonable than to say the event had a "reason," since it would require a property we view as rare.
For example, if I asked you to speculate on the color of my shirt, you would -rightfully- say the guess "it's not brown" would be more reasonable than the guess "it's brown." In guessing, you understand that my shirt might be brown, but -based on your experience with shirts- you would place more credence in the "not brown" guess than the "brown" guess. More shirts -based on your experience with shirts- aren't brown than are brown. Thus, it's more reasonable to guess "not brown."
However, this analogy becomes strained if we were to talk about something outside of human experience.
Let's say I asked you to speculate on whether or not the Zezzite(from planet Zezzen) you're meeting will wear cloths. You don't know anything about Zezzites, so this becomes a more speculative question than the brownness of my shirt. You might -however- say to guess they'd not wear cloths is more reasonable than to say they would. You could go into all of the reasons humans wear clothing and the nature of making clothing to assume that it is less likely to have all that happened on another planet. Thus -using your knowledge- you would make the guess that this Zezzite you're meeting will be naked. Now -in leading up to this meeting- I show you a picture of a Zezzite wearing a green jumpsuit, you would change your guess. You would make an new guess, based on your new knowledge, that this Zezzite will be wearing cloths when you meet it. You might not think it will be wearing a green jumpsuit, but you would now find it more reasonable to guess it will be wearing cloths, based on your experience with the picture. You would understand that one case isn't enough to establish a pattern. But -with only one data point and being asked to speculate- you would make an educated guess.
So, what about the start of this universe. Do we have any examples of universe creation to draw on for this guess?
While I understand the math behind the theory each black hole has its own universe inside is sound, it's still very theoretical. However, I do know of one kind of universe that we have observed the creation of, a simulated universe. Everyday, many of these tiny simulated universes are created and destroyed in physics programs. We -in fact- might be in such a simulation without knowing it.[1] What is something all of these simulated universes have in common? They were created for a reason.
Now, as I said with the Zezzite example, one data point doesn't constituent a pattern. This universe isn't the same as the ones created by Theoretical Nuclear Physicists. So, it would be silly to say we know this universe was also created for a reason. But -with only one data point and being asked to speculate- you could make an educated guess.
I guess some kind of semantic argument was inevitable.... Continue reading in the following spoiler for the exciting spilling-of-hairs between me and FoxBlade!
If you are using misdirection, implication, obfuscation and deflection, and know that you are doing so, then you aren't being truthful. You are presenting something you know is a falsehood.
In my own personal code, there is a huge difference between those things and saying something you know to be outright false. You try teaching high school without some slight of hand and you'll likely be fired within the day. However, while I might use some trickery sometimes, I wouldn't try to pass off something with I know to be false as true.
You might have some other definition of the term I go with #1 & #3 on dictionary.com. You might not like it or agree with it, but that's likely what makes it MY personal code, not yours.
It would be like if someone stole the money out of your wallet and then when questioned about it they go, "I don't know what happened to the money" and then reason that they didn't lie, they only used misdirection. What you’re saying makes no sense to me.
Sounds like a lie to me. They know they stole it, but are claiming they don't know. They are saying something they know to be false, lie.
If the question was only meant for Highroller, perhaps this conversation would have been better off in a private message then, yes? As it is, you’ve posted this in a public forum and as such it seems to me that the arguments you present here are up for examination by the forum’s users.
When I make a post, I normally imagine I am talking to the persons I am responding to. For example, right now I feel like I am talking to you, FoxBlade. Thus, when I used "you" in that case I mean "FoxBlade." That's more or less the function of pronouns, like -for example- 'you.'
I(Taylor) am sorry if you(FoxBlade) find that(the way I[Taylor] use pronouns) confusing, but I(Taylor) am likely not going to change it(the way I[Taylor] use pronouns) just for you(FoxBlade). Because others(posters on this forum not you[Foxblade]) don't seem to have a problem with it(the way I[Taylor] use pronouns). Additionally, as you(FoxBlade) can see, trying to specify each pronoun is tedious.PS: You(FoxBlade) didn't provide an example of me claiming I know a deist god exited, as you asserted I did. From now on -until you do- I am going to claim you where incorrect in that assertion, since -to the best of my recollection- you are. I won't claim you lied about it, but it does seem possible; certainly, it seems you did based on your definition of the term, but maybe not mine.
Essentially, the claim I am trying to make is the origin of this universe is completely unknown. The closer we get to the big bang, the more our understanding of physics breaks down. At 'time equals zero' all bets are off, nothing makes sense. It is as far outside of our experience as you can get, and natural laws have long(ok, not long, like picoseconds ago) since completely broken down. Thus, to claim you feel the event at t=0 happened for a reason is just as sound as saying it didn't happen for a reason, as in, both are pure conjecture.
Now -I would like to stress- my understanding the difference between saying "reason" or "no reason" when talking about the start of the universe the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist. One claims that there is no reason(or 'mind' if you like) behind existence, and the other claims there is a reason.
Let's examine this for a bit, because "reason" is ambiguous. A reason for the universe existing can mean a reason "how" the universe came to be or it can mean a reason "why" the universe came to be.
And it's not as clear cut as atheists believe there is no why and theists believe there is a why. Obviously Christians believe there's a why, but not every faith believe there is a why behind existence. Buddhists don't. I'm pretty positive deists don't either.
All I am saying is I am "betting" there is a reason for existence.
By reason do you mean there is a reason how the universe was created, or a reason for why the universe was created?
Because I'm sure most people would bet there's a reason how the universe came to be. That doesn't lead to any religious stance.
I would also like to stress I am making no other claims. I am not commenting on the nature of this "reason" in anyway other than to say I'm "betting" there is one. I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
Do you recognize that this isn't what a deist does, and why it's problematic to claim you are one?
Now, many would claim that having a "reason" would be to anthropomorphize the event.
Again, it goes back to whether you're saying there's a reason how the universe came to be or a reason why the universe came to be. If it's why, recognize that to say there's a reason why requires there to be a will behind the event taking place.
While I understand the math behind the theory each black hole has its own universe inside is sound,
Wait, what? What is this theory? A black hole is an incredibly dense sphere. Why would it have a universe inside of it?
As to the rest of your post and the whole Zezzite thing and the guessing of brown shirts and whatever: why are you making guesses? If you believe you do not know enough to make any sort of educated guess on the subject... why make a guess? Why not acknowledge that? Why not honestly admit that you don't know instead of randomly guessing?
The problem here is you seem to really want to be labeled a deist even when you're clearly not one. Why?
Do you recognize that this isn't what a deist does, and why it's problematic to claim you are one?
Guess it depends on the Deist. I've always taken Deism to be the base theistic claim, stripped of all the bells and whistles that make something a religion. If this is incorrect, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you have a better term I should use instead, please let me know.
As to the rest of your post and the whole Zezzite thing and the guessing of brown shirts and whatever: why are you making guesses? If you believe you do not know enough to make any sort of educated guess on the subject... why make a guess? Why not acknowledge that?
Because I was uncomfortable being a pure agnostic. I found not at least making a speculative guess was against my nature.
The problem here is you seem to really want to be labeled a deist even when you're clearly not one. Why?
I didn't pick "agnostic deist" because I liked the sound of it. I genially thought it was the most accurate label for what I am. If I misunderstood the definition of those terms, then I will accept so without rancor.
If you feel there is a better shorthand term I could use -so when someone asks "what religion are you anyway?" I have a ready answer that doesn't take 20 minutes to say- please let me know.
Guess it depends on the Deist. I've always taken Deism to be the base theistic claim, stripped of all the bells and whistles that make something a religion. If this is incorrect, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you have a better term I should use instead, please let me know.
No, the basic theistic claim would be "There exists a deity or deities." Deism claims more than that.
Because I was uncomfortable being a pure agnostic. I found not at least making a speculative guess was against my nature.
Except you're still agnostic even if you are making guesses.
I didn't pick "agnostic deist" because I liked the sound of it. I genially thought it was the most accurate label for what I am.
It's not an accurate label for anything, any more than "square circle" is. The whole point of deism is that God exists, and can be known and proven. The whole point of agnosticism is that the divine is ultimately unknowable. Deism and agnosticism oppose each other.
If you feel there is a better shorthand term I could use -so when someone asks "what religion are you anyway?" I have a ready answer that doesn't take 20 minutes to say- please let me know.
Essentially, the claim I am trying to make is the origin of this universe is completely unknown. The closer we get to the big bang, the more our understanding of physics breaks down. At 'time equals zero' all bets are off, nothing makes sense. It is as far outside of our experience as you can get, and natural laws have long(ok, not long, like picoseconds ago) since completely broken down. Thus, to claim you feel the event at t=0 happened for a reason is just as sound as saying it didn't happen for a reason, as in, both are pure conjecture. Now -I would like to stress- it is my understanding the difference between saying "reason" or "no reason" when talking about the start of the universe the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist.
One claims that there is no reason(or 'mind' if you like) behind existence, and the other claims there is a reason. All I am saying is I am "betting" there is a reason for existence.
This is alright, except that you seem to misunderstand atheism. Atheism doesn’t say the universe happened for no reason, it only says that no deities exist. There is a reason(s) for why the universe exists. Where the disagreement comes in is whether or not there was a divine intelligence (or some other supernatural explanation) that created a universe for a reason(s) that are unknown to us or whether the universe exists due to natural causes that can be backed up by evidence.
There very well could be a god out there with no mind at all, in which case we can discuss this possibility because now god has an attribute; lacking a mind.
In either case, this does not illuminate anything. Both atheism and theism believe that the universe exists for a reason. The disagreement is what those reasons are and what constitutes as evidence.
Quote from Taylor »
I am not commenting on the nature of this "reason" in anyway other than to say I'm "betting" there is one. I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
Right, okay but this doesn’t tell us anything about what the reason is or what you believe is the reason and if you want to say that it can’t be known, then I refer you to the argument I’ve already made about your standard for knowledge and also remind you that this type of reasoning is not productive in this sort of discourse.
Quote from Taylor »
Now, many would claim that having a "reason" would be to anthropomorphize the event. Most things don't have the ability to assign a reason to something. Thus, many would claim that to say the event had "no reason" would -statically- be more reasonable than to say the event had a "reason," since it would require a property we view as rare.
I’m not sure who would say that. I would say that the reason the universe exists is more likely to have natural reasons/causes rather than supernatural ones. The other point you’re raising here is who has the burden of proof – the one who makes a claim or the one who rejects the claim?
I would caution against reasoning that no one has the burden of proof, unless you want to open the flood gates, which in my opinion is just as unproductive as claiming that things can’t be known.
Quote from Taylor »
Let's say I asked you to speculate on whether or not the Zezzite(from planet Zezzen) you're meeting will wear cloths. You don't know anything about Zezzites, so this becomes a more speculative question than the brownness of my shirt. You might -however- say to guess they'd not wear cloths is more reasonable than to say they would. You could go into all of the reasons humans wear clothing and the nature of making clothing to assume that it is less likely to have all that happened on another planet. Thus -using your knowledge- you would make the guess that this Zezzite you're meeting will be naked. Now -in leading up to this meeting- I show you a picture of a Zezzite wearing a green jumpsuit, you would change your guess. You would make an new guess, based on your new knowledge, that this Zezzite will be wearing cloths when you meet it. You might not think it will be wearing a green jumpsuit, but you would now find it more reasonable to guess it will be wearing cloths, based on your experience with the picture. You would understand that one case isn't enough to establish a pattern. But -with only one data point and being asked to speculate- you would make an educated guess.
I’m not sure, we’d have a lot of questions to ask, many more than you’re mentioning here or that I’m about to mention. What is the planet like? What kind of weather do they have? Do they even wear clothes? Why would they wear clothes? Are they social? How are they social? Does being social tie into what types of clothes they wear if they do wear clothes? Do they make clothes themselves? If so, what would they make them out of? Etc. etc. etc.
Any questions we’d answer here could only be conjecture and based on faith. Then you introduce a piece of evidence, a picture with a green jumpsuit. Now we have evidence that Zezzites do wear green jumpsuits/clothes. But we don’t know that Zezzites will be wearing clothes when we meet one.
Perhaps clothes are only for the rich. Maybe just for people in charge. Maybe that Zezzites was forced to wear it. All we know based on evidence is that Zezzites have been shown to wear green jumpsuits or clothes on at least one occasion. We have more questions that need to be answered, but at least we’ve come a little closer to answering whether or not Zezzites wear clothes; we now know that they do, but we don’t know all the reasons why.
The important thing here is that we are moving forward, being productive, and progressing in trying to answer many of these questions.
Quote from Taylor »
So, what about the start of this universe. Do we have any examples of universe creation to draw on for this guess?
When something is created, it means that it was made with some kind of purpose. So we’re left to ask, how do we know that the universe was created and isn’t a result of natural causes with no purpose?
Quote from Taylor »
While I understand the math behind the theory each black hole has its own universe inside is sound, it's still very theoretical.
Scientific theory is very different from just theory. Scientific theory is evidence based, not simply a guess. It’s a knowledge claim that is backed up with evidence, like the picture of a green jumpsuit wearing Zezzite, we have evidence they do wear clothes.
This is a stark difference between claiming that the universe was created for a reason or that ‘X’ is made with a purpose in mind. There’s no evidence to back that claim up, so one has to rely on faith in order to make this claim, unless one has some evidence to back that claim.
Quote from Taylor »
However, I do know of one kind of universe that we have observed the creation of, a simulated universe. Everyday, many of these tiny simulated universes are created and destroyed in physics programs. We -in fact- might be in such a simulation without knowing it.[1] What is something all of these simulated universes have in common? They were created for a reason.
Yes and we know that they were created for a reason, we even know the reason. We don’t know that the universe was created. By saying something is created, this implies that it was made with a purpose, like your examples of a simulated universe.
I’m arguing that we can’t make a knowledge claim of ‘the universe was created’.
Quote from Taylor »
Now, as I said with the Zezzite example, one data point doesn't constituent a pattern. This universe isn't the same as the ones created by Theoretical Nuclear Physicists. So, it would be silly to say we know this universe was also created for a reason.
Right so… I guess we agree? I’m not really sure, this doesn’t seem consistent with the above quote or anything that you’ve been saying overall.
Quote from Taylor »
But -with only one data point and being asked to speculate- you could make an educated guess.
Right we can make guesses for why Zezzites wear clothes, but we won’t understand everything about zezzite cloth wearing tendencies until we get more evidence. But, according to your example, we do know that Zezzites wear clothes. There’s a picture of one wearing a green jump suit that we can point to as an example of one wearing clothes.
Contrast this with theism; the theist doesn’t offer you a picture and offers no evidence at all. The theist tells you that Zezzites wear green jump suits and that they are making this assumption because they have faith that it is true.
According to what you’ve said in this post, one of these two examples is silly and it looks like you’re advocating at least one of them. Which one are you advocating and which one do you think is silly?
If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Which is wrong. An atheist disbelieves in deities. If one does not disbelieve in deities, one is not atheist.
I can kind of see what might be meant there. If a 'god' made an ignition switch for the universe, pressed it, then never did/does anything ever again, from the perspective of humanity this is functionally equivalent to not existing. Whether it was God or spontaneous universe manifestation at the beginning, present-day humanity can have all the opulent churches, sanctimonious priests, sincere worshippers, tithes, good works, acceptance of Christ-as-saviour, etc. they want - and it won't make a lick of difference, because there's no Heaven, no Hell, no Nirvana, no Sheol, no death on the cross, no divinely-created afterlife.
That kind of deism seems to me like it's just giving the Big Bang a name, and calling it God rather than Fred. (And it sounds an awful lot like atheism.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I can kind of see what might be meant there. If a 'god' made an ignition switch for the universe, pressed it, then never did/does anything ever again, from the perspective of humanity this is functionally equivalent to not existing.
The claim that God created the universe is "functionally equivalent" to the claim that God does not exist?
I can kind of see what might be meant there. If a 'god' made an ignition switch for the universe, pressed it, then never did/does anything ever again, from the perspective of humanity this is functionally equivalent to not existing.
The claim that God created the universe is "functionally equivalent" to the claim that God does not exist?
That doesn't make any sense.
If something happened uncounted millennia ago to start the universe, then never interacted with humanity again and never will, then you can call it Big Bang, or God, or Deity, or Turnip for all I care. It's functionally equivalent to atheism in that it denies every theistic religion I know of; they all seem to involve God having an interaction with humanity that extends beyond 'turned the Universal Lightswitch on billions of years ago'. What I get (from what ECP said) is that if the deist explicitly denies every form of theism except that they want to name the Big Bang God, they might as well be atheist.
How would someone behave any differently if they believed that the Big Bang originated from a completely-non-interventionist deity, as opposed to pure coincidence? There's no imposed moral code, no afterlife, no church, no worship - I think the answer is 'no differently'. Hence why I said 'functionally equivalent' (and I think why ECP said 'for all intents and purposes').
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Wait, what? Atheism is defined by disbelief in gods. What is your definition of atheism if it is not this?
And he does explicitly disbelieve in everything but an extremely loose idea of a watchmaker god that he won't defend the existence of.
Whereas an atheist would disbelieve in that one as well.
Also, for all intents and purposes is an important part of my statement
Which is an incorrect statement, and I don't like people presuming that other people are part of their religious demographic when they aren't.
You wrote this:
If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Which is wrong. An atheist disbelieves in deities. If one does not disbelieve in deities, one is not atheist.
I did write that. Had I see nwhat grant wrote I might have just said "what grant said" since I tabled for Planned Parenthood for the last 7 hours,yeesh.
What I'm saying is that its really really really similar. I'm not conscripting Taylor. What I'm saying is that the stuff being described (particularly the part where there is no positive defense of the deism god) is functionally similar to weak atheism. It has to do with the formulation and it can get fuzzy
If something happened uncounted millennia ago to start the universe, then never interacted with humanity again and never will, then you can call it Big Bang, or God, or Deity, or Turnip for all I care. It's functionally equivalent to atheism
Functionally equivalent to atheism how, exactly?
Atheism denies that God exists and that God created the universe.
Deism affirms that God exists and that God created the universe.
It's the opposite of atheism.
in that it denies every theistic religion I know of;
Except, y'know, deism.
What I get (from what ECP said) is that if the deist explicitly denies every form of theism except that they want to name the Big Bang God, they might as well be atheist.
If someone affirms the existence of God, they might as well be atheist?
Do you notice how it's not making any more sense the more you repeat it?
How would someone behave any differently if they believed that the Big Bang originated from a completely-non-interventionist deity, as opposed to pure coincidence?
Well I know one way they would behave differently - they would believe in the existence of God.
There's no imposed moral code, no afterlife, no church, no worship - I think the answer is 'no differently'. Hence why I said 'functionally equivalent' (and I think why ECP said 'for all intents and purposes').
That also applies to agnostics and atheists. However, we do not claim that they're the same thing, because they're not the same thing.
(EDIT: Well apparently ECP claims they're the same thing, but we shouldn't claim they're the same thing.)
What I'm saying is that its really really really similar.
Except for the parts where it's completely opposite.
What I'm saying is that the stuff being described (particularly the part where there is no positive defense of the deism god) is functionally similar to weak atheism.
Except it's not that either. Agnosticism, however confused, is not the same as atheism.
Taylor has argued that there's equal rationale for arguing there is a God as arguing there isn't one. That's not an atheist.
How would someone behave any differently if they believed that the Big Bang originated from a completely-non-interventionist deity, as opposed to pure coincidence?
Well I know one way they would behave differently - they would believe in the existence of God.
And apart from that? That's a belief, not a behaviour - how would this impact their actions?
There's no imposed moral code, no afterlife, no church, no worship - I think the answer is 'no differently'. Hence why I said 'functionally equivalent' (and I think why ECP said 'for all intents and purposes').
That also applies to agnostics and atheists. However, we do not claim that they're the same thing, because they're not the same thing.
Again, notice ECP's use of 'for all intents and purposes' and my use of 'functionally equivalent'. These do not mean the same thing as identical. Abstract away from the label, look at actions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
And apart from that? That's a belief, not a behaviour
Beliefs don't matter in a discussion about religious beliefs?
Again, notice ECP's use of 'for all intents and purposes' and my use of 'functionally equivalent'. These do not mean the same thing as identical. Abstract away from the label, look at actions.
All I'm seeing are two people who are saying, "Well, these two things are basically the same if we ignore all of the things in which they are not at all the same."
Which is a pointless statement to make. To argue that deists are "functionally equivalent" to atheists is just incorrect, because they do not function in a way that is equivalent!
Taylor says he is not willing to argue that the belief is true, just that its not justifiable to dismiss it.
You, rightly, called out aspects of what he believes as being inconsistent/weird/whatever. The thing he wants to defend is something that I myself would defend as consistent with my own beliefs. It is a belief that fits more closely with the weak atheist position than with the deist position since, as you pointed out, he doesn't really fall into the category for which he has named for himself.
Taylor says he is not willing to argue that the belief is true, just that its not justifiable to dismiss it.
You, rightly, called out aspects of what he believes as being inconsistent/weird/whatever. The thing he wants to defend is something that I myself would defend as consistent with my own beliefs. It is a belief that fits more closely with the weak atheist position than with the deist position since, as you pointed out, he doesn't really fall into the category for which he has named for himself.
Correct, Taylor is not a deist. However, I disagree with saying his beliefs are "functionally atheist." He's arguing that God not existing is no more likely or has any more evidence going for it than God existing. He's saying we have equal evidence for either; that is to say, none at all.
So he's not an atheist. He's an agnostic. He's arguing that it's no more justified to disbelieve in God as to believe in him.
Except not worshiping a god but thinking its a possibility puts one more in the atheist position than the agnostic position. Particularly when the only god he grants that possibility to is the deistic one. Straight up Agnosticism means that one just doesn't know. That kind of agnosticism puts the christian god, the muslim god, and the deism god on the same kind of playing field. Taylor doesnt do that so it isn't the best word for him.
He is, in fact, using Agnostic Deist accurately, in a sense, since he is agnostic towards the deistic idea of god, but an atheist to every other kind of god.
Wanna know who else is agnostic towards the deistic idea of god, but an atheist to every other type of god?
Me and Blinking Spirit.
You know what we call that kind of person? A weak/agnostic atheist.
Except not worshiping a god but thinking its a possibility puts one more in the atheist position than the agnostic position. Particularly when the only god he grants that possibility to is the deistic one.
He's saying it's no more rational to be atheist than theist, Piper. So clearly no, he's not atheist.
He is, in fact, using Agnostic Deist accurately, in a sense, since he is agnostic towards the deistic idea of god, but an atheist to every other kind of god.
... So am I more atheist than theist given that most theistic religions have had many gods while I only worship one? After all, by your logic, I am atheist to every deity except one.
Atheism has a definition, ECP. A belief system either fulfills it, or it does not. To say that deism is functionally the same as atheism is like trying to argue that a circle is basically the same thing as a square.
Wanna know who else is agnostic towards the deistic idea of god, but an atheist to every other type of god?
Me and Blinking Spirit.
Blinking Spirit has, unless I'm mistaken, indicated he disbelieves in a deistic interpretation of God's existence. So no, he's not agnostic towards the concept. He disbelieves in the concept. Atheism requires disbelief in a deity. Agnosticism neither believes nor disbelieves in the concept of God. Notice how these are different.
You might as well be arguing that a circle is basically a square, ECP. Neither deism nor agnosticism function like atheism, so no, they're not functionally identical. They don't function identically.
... So am I more atheist than theist given that most theistic religions have had many gods while I only worship one? After all, by your logic, I am atheist to every deity except one.
Atheism has a definition, ECP. A belief system either fulfills it, or it does not. To say that deism is functionally the same as atheism is like trying to argue that a circle is basically the same thing as a square.
I didn't say deism is functionally atheism. I said taylors beliefs are functionally atheist. Pay attention. I listed beliefs that Taylor has espoused and pointed out how those exact beliefs are shared by atheists.
And, well, you are an atheist relative to every deity but one. When someone believes in Jesus and doesn't believe in the rest, boom, Christian. When someone disbelieves in them all, boom, strong atheism. when someoen disbelieves in all but leaves open the possibility of the deistic god (or, IOW, is agnostic towards the idea of a deistic god) we call that person a weak atheist.
Quote from HR »
He's saying it's no more rational to be atheist than theist, Piper. So clearly no, he's not atheist.
On this he is simply wrong, but I'll wait until he tries to argue something as contentious as this before factoring it in.
Quote from HR »
Blinking Spirit has, unless I'm mistaken, indicated he disbelieves in a deistic interpretation of God's existence. So no, he's not agnostic towards the concept. He disbelieves in the concept. Atheism requires disbelief in a deity. Agnosticism neither believes nor disbelieves in the concept of God. Notice how these are different.
You might as well be arguing that a circle is basically a square, ECP. Neither deism nor agnosticism function like atheism, so no, they're not functionally identical. They don't function identically.
Post 56 he says that the little bit that makes him a weak atheist rather than a strong one is that he leaves open the possibility of god. Generally, and he can correct me on this, the only gods left open are the ones like deism where its just a non-interventionist kickstarter type like the one commonly believed in, or said to be reasonable, by people like Taylor (note his "are the aliens wearing clothes" analogy)
This idea of god is basically formless. It exists to fill a gap in our knowledge of how the universe functions since adding nearly anything to the kickstarter deism god is basically impossible because it runs into stuff we actually know things about
Remember how he described himself? Agnostic deist? That he won't argue that deism is true, just that its not able to be completely dismissed. Remember how we both agree the words he is using to describe himself are not that accurate?
Your solution is for him to simply be an agnostic, but this doesn't work, because he is only agnostic to a specific form of god while he doesn't believe in the rest.
And I've been trying to say, that outside of the terms he is using to describe his beliefs, the beliefs themselves are similar, if not identical, to the ones of weak atheism. Go re-read post 82 of his. He thinks that the ultimate cause might be a god of some sort but we can't be sure either way because our understanding of physics simply breaks down before a certain point. He is agnostic because their is a lack of knowledge. He is a deist because the only kind of god that fits in the scenario is a deistic kickstarter type. The belief is motivated by an (accurate) knowledge of our lack of knowledge before a certain point.
This is the same thing weak atheists do.
Go read post 82. Re-read other posts of his. understand that he doesn't worship a god, doens't believe in any of the worlds religions and about deism he is unsure because, hey, we don't know for sure so he leaves it open.
Then try to figure out how thats all that different from weak formulations of atheism.
Stop saying its square circles. Stop appealing to his stated beliefs even as you yourself have said they are incoherant and are trying to find a new term to describe him. Read what he actually says in post 82 and argue how its all that different from weak atheism. Remember, HR, he doesn't actually believe in the god of deism. He is explicitly agnostic about it.
Then again, I'm pretty sure I said the same thing like 3 years ago. If someone doesn't worship a god, does not believe in any of the world religions, and the only supernatural thing they don't explicitly disbelieve in is the kind of unknowable, untestable, non interventionist precursor god of deism than for all intents and purposes they are an atheist.
Deists can also be described by this.
I listed beliefs that Taylor has espoused and pointed out how those exact beliefs are shared by atheists.
Except Taylor is an agnostic, and no, he's not functionally atheist. He's agnostic.
And, well, you are an atheist relative to every deity but one. When someone believes in Jesus and doesn't believe in the rest, boom, Christian. When someone disbelieves in them all, boom, strong atheism. when someoen disbelieves in all but leaves open the possibility of the deistic god (or, IOW, is agnostic towards the idea of a deistic god) we call that person a weak atheist.
Except Taylor believes there's equal reason to believe or disbelieve.
On this he is simply wrong, but I'll wait until he tries to argue something as contentious as this before factoring it in.
Oh you can disagree with Taylor all you want, ECP, but that's the point of what I'm saying: you disagree with him. Taylor doesn't believe (or "functionally believe") the same thing you do. So claiming he does is false.
Post 56 he says that the little bit that makes him a weak atheist rather than a strong one is that he leaves open the possibility of god.
Yes, correct, he leaves open the possibility he might be incorrect. Someone can accept the possibility of being incorrect and still believe otherwise.
Remember how he described himself? Agnostic deist?
Remember how I demonstrated he's not actually a deist and he recanted on that? Remember how the word "agnostic" is also in there? How, precisely, do you get atheist from this?
That he won't argue that deism is true, just that its not able to be completely dismissed. Remember how we both agree the words he is using to describe himself are not that accurate?
The deist part, yes. But agnostic works just fine unless I've missed anything to the contrary.
Your solution is for him to simply be an agnostic, but this doesn't work, because he is only agnostic to a specific form of god while he doesn't believe in the rest.
Even if that were correct, he would still not be functionally atheist because he does not disbelieve in the idea of the deist God, whereas atheism is defined by its doing so.
But reread what he's posted. He's agnostic to every form of God, he's merely chosen deism out of a desire to pick a reason for the world's existence, but he's done so as a form of guess, he doesn't actually believe in it. He's agnostic.
And I've been trying to say, that outside of the terms he is using to describe his beliefs, the beliefs themselves are similar, if not identical, to the ones of weak atheism.
Except you are completely wrong in that regard for the reasons I have demonstrated. Atheism is defined by its disbelief. Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves.
A circle cannot be argued to be a square, nor can an agnostic be argued to be an atheist.
understand that he doesn't worship a god, doens't believe in any of the worlds religions and about deism he is unsure because, hey, we don't know for sure so he leaves it open.
Yes, and given that he does not believe or disbelieve, we define him as agnostic. An atheist would disbelieve in deism.
Then try to figure out how thats all that different from weak formulations of atheism.
I've only been repeating it throughout this page.
Stop saying its square circles.
Why? I like that analogy, it works really well.
Remember, HR, he doesn't actually believe in the god of deism. He is explicitly agnostic about it.
Right, which means he doesn't disbelieve in it either. Which means he's not atheist. How are you missing this?
HR - agnostics can be atheist. All that is required is nonbelief in a god(s). I am not sure if Taylor is agnostic-atheist, from what he has been saying, at least in my view, is a bit confusing. He describes himself as an agnostic-theist and I am trying to figure out why. That is what is throwing me off, because what he describes himself as is different from how he is describing his beliefs.
False. I have explicitly said that its Taylors belief I am talking about, the belief that we agree he is describing in a way inconsistent with the label he has chosen. I am not talking about deism. I am talking about Taylor.
Get this through your head.
Quote from HR »
Deists can also be described by this.
A deist believes in this kind of god.
Taylor is agnostic towards this kind of god.
This is the difference that matters.
Quote from HR »
Except Taylor is an agnostic, and no, he's not functionally atheist. He's agnostic.
He is agnostic towards deism. He is atheist towards the rest of the worlds religions. We have a name for this kind of belief. It's called weak atheism.
Quote from HR »
Except Taylor believes there's equal reason to believe or disbelieve.
Quote from HR »
Oh you can disagree with Taylor all you want, ECP, but that's the point of what I'm saying: you disagree with him. Taylor doesn't believe (or "functionally believe") the same thing you do. So claiming he does is false.
The only god he gives any chance to is a kickstarter god and even on that he is unsure, only defending the possibility because we can't discount it since the formulation of god here is a pre-big bang kickstarter type that we, by definition, do not have any knowledge of. He believes its equal since there is no information available either way to tilt the scales. This kind of belief is functionally identical to atheism. Especially when we are in real world terms of how people actually act since Taylor bases no actions, no precepts, no nothing on this idea of god. What could he base on this god, even in theory?
Quote from HR »
Yes, correct, he leaves open the possibility he might be incorrect. Someone can accept the possibility of being incorrect and still believe otherwise.
And another way of saying that is unsure. If one was certain, they would not leave open the possibility. Therefore, like myself, there is one formulation of the idea of god that I, BS, and Taylor are unsure on. That is the deistic (or kickstarter, or however you want to refer to it) idea of god. Blinking spirit calls himself a weak atheist. I called myself an agnostic atheist. These terms mean pretty much the same thing. Taylor called himself an agnostic deist to refer to being unsure whether or not deism is true, but doesn't believe in the rest of the worlds religion, and yet, here we are.
Quote from HR »
Remember how I demonstrated he's not actually a deist and he recanted on that? Remember how the word "agnostic" is also in there? How, precisely, do you get atheist from this?
Remember? The term has played heavily in my argument. As to how I get atheist from this thats what I've been repeatedly telling you
Quote from HR »
The deist part, yes. But agnostic works just fine unless I've missed anything to the contrary.
Agnostic doesn't work fine because he is only agnostic to the deist god.
Quote from HR »
Even if that were correct, he would still not be functionally atheist because he does not disbelieve in the idea of the deist God, whereas atheism is defined by its doing so.
But reread what he's posted. He's agnostic to every form of God, he's merely chosen deism out of a desire to pick a reason for the world's existence, but he's done so as a form of guess, he doesn't actually believe in it. He's agnostic.
Quote from HR »
Except you are completely wrong in that regard for the reasons I have demonstrated. Atheism is defined by its disbelief. Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves.
A circle cannot be argued to be a square, nor can an agnostic be argued to be an atheist.
Quote from HR »
Yes, and given that he does not believe or disbelieve, we define him as agnostic. An atheist would disbelieve in deism.
You don't understand atheism then. The entire point of contention between weak and strong atheism is whether gods can be disproven as an idea completely or whether there are a few, select formulations of god that can't be and, as a matter of philosophical or scientific rigor, are then left open for the time being. This is also referred to as gnostic or agnostic atheism.
And he is agnostic to every form of god? Really? If that was the case then, 1., I highly doubt he would have bothered with the deist part of agnostic deist, and 2, why is his last post in this thread concerned solely with kickstarter gods and thought experiments about things we have no knowledge of. Plus, you know, Post 54 of his he explicitly says he is no longer a True Agnostic. You'll also note that he has had arguments in the past, when he described himself as true agnostic, about how dissimilar those specific beliefs were from being a weak/agnostic atheist. Trying to parse the tiny distinctions he was trying to make was pages, upon pages, of discussion. Now his beliefs have further shifted and now match up, quite strikingly, with that of the agnostic or weak atheist position.
To reitterate, here is the weak atheist position that both I and blinking spirit ascribe to.
1. Doesn't believe in the vast majority of gods
2. Leaves open the possibility (IE, is agnostic towards) kickstarter/deist/whatever gods
Here is Taylors position
1. Doesn't believe in the vast majority of gods
2. Is agnostic towards the deistic/kickstarter/whatever gods (IE, leaves open the possibility they exist)
Quote from HR »
I've only been repeating it throughout this page.
Quote from HR »
Why? I like that analogy, it works really well.
Based upon misunderstandings of what atheism actually is, specifically the weak/agnostic formulation and what Taylor actually believes. I've been trying to correct you and you've simply been repeating yourself. This isn't even about your argument, its about your not knowing various core details about the discussion (your use of terms like atheist, agnostic, and deist without the accompanying words that everyone else is using is a big part of this) and repeating yourself on things that are not only not accurate, but will never be accurate until you update them to reflect the information being discussed.
Please do this.
Quote from HR »
Right, which means he doesn't disbelieve in it either. Which means he's not atheist. How are you missing this?
Blinking Spirit has, unless I'm mistaken, indicated he disbelieves in a deistic interpretation of God's existence. So no, he's not agnostic towards the concept. He disbelieves in the concept.
Correct. Russell's teapot argument (echoing which is basically all I'm doing here) applies to the deist as well as the interventionist God.
Post 56 he says that the little bit that makes him a weak atheist rather than a strong one is that he leaves open the possibility of god. Generally, and he can correct me on this, the only gods left open are the ones like deism where its just a non-interventionist kickstarter type like the one commonly believed in, or said to be reasonable, by people like Taylor (note his "are the aliens wearing clothes" analogy)
No, interventionist Gods are logically possible too. Remember that the scientific method is inductive, and must draw general conclusions from specific observations. Just because we have not specifically observed intervention does not mean we can logically rule out that he has intervened somewhere we have not been observing. For that matter, if we admit the possibility of a deceptive God, he could be intervening constantly right in front of our noses and then further intervening to cloud our senses or alter our memories so we fail to observe it. The only way we could say that this is impossible is to find some sound a priori logical disproof of the idea, like Descartes thought he had in the Meditations. Until then, we can only make the best observations we can, and infer that the rest of the universe is more or less like the bits of it we're observing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Right, yes, I agree. Interventionist tricky/evil gods play a nifty role in "Problem of Good" arguments and other fun debates. I've gotten a bit tunnel visioned in trying to demonstrate similarities between the "leaves some ideas of gods as possibilities" in both the weak atheist and the thing Taylor is trying to describe and I left that concept out. My bad.
Although, and this might be kind of dickish to Taylor, the impression I've gotten from the guy is that he knows all this (the stuff you just said) but he really doesn't like the idea of being an atheist and is holding on for some sort of, presumably, emotional reason. Outside the scope of debate, I know, I know, but since you mentioned Russel it just keeps coming back to me that he is basing this stuff off of a lack of knowledge, not on anything positive, and it strikes me as curious.
He is agnostic towards deism. He is atheist towards the rest of the worlds religions. We have a name for this kind of belief. It's called weak atheism.
First of all, where do you get this? You keep repeating it, despite the fact that Taylor has not only never stated such in this thread, and in fact his most recent posts, in which he details the claims he is making, indicate he is a true agnostic. Indeed, he claimed deism largely out of a misunderstanding of what deism actually is, thinking it is a rudimentary theistic claim, which it is not.
It's very clear that Taylor is agnostic, and thus neither believes nor disbelieves in a deity. For reference, view posts 52-55.
Now as for "weak atheism," no, of course he is not, because even if he were to only be agnostic to the deist God, if he does not explicitly disbelieve in the deistic God, he is not atheist.
Taylor, as you repeatedly say, does not.
Therefore, he is not atheist. He is agnostic.
Once again, you are akin to a man who seeks to argue a circle a square.
The only god he gives any chance to is a kickstarter god and even on that he is unsure, only defending the possibility because we can't discount it since the formulation of god here is a pre-big bang kickstarter type that we, by definition, do not have any knowledge of. He believes its equal since there is no information available either way to tilt the scales.
Yes, he is agnostic.
This kind of belief is functionally identical to atheism.
*Sigh* No, it isn't, because he doesn't disbelieve in the deity! Therefore, he cannot be atheist!
And another way of saying that is unsure. If one was certain, they would not leave open the possibility. Therefore, like myself, there is one formulation of the idea of god that I, BS, and Taylor are unsure on.
No, you're missing the obvious difference.
Blinking Spirit, as he himself explicitly stated, disbelieves that God, or any deity of any kind, exists. He admits that he could be wrong through his own human fallibility, but maintains the belief that no deity of any kind exists.
Taylor, by contrast, does not believe any claim can be made about the existence or nonexistence of a deity.
These are not the same.
Remember? The term has played heavily in my argument. As to how I get atheist from this thats what I've been repeatedly telling you
You've been repeating a garbage argument.
You're trying to argue "disbelieves in God" to be the same as "neither believes nor disbelieves in God." That's completely ridiculous! It is a ridiculous as saying a circle is the same as a square.
You don't understand atheism then. The entire point of contention between weak and strong atheism is whether gods can be disproven as an idea completely or whether there are a few, select formulations of god that can't be and, as a matter of philosophical or scientific rigor, are then left open for the time being.
Except you're missing, again, the obvious:
Atheists are defined by DISBELIEF in deities. Disbelief. Whether they be gnostic or agnostic atheists, they are still atheists, the core of atheism being the disbelief in deities.
Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves in God. Ergo, he is not an atheist.
See, this is the problem with what you're doing: you're trying to lump someone as an atheist because he does not believe in a deity of any kind. But absence of belief =/= the presence of disbelief.
Yes, you may both believe that the deistic deity can never truly be known or disproven. But recognize that doesn't change the fact that your stance is defined by your disbelief in the existence of a deity, and Taylor's stance is defined by the fact that he neither believes nor disbelieves in a deity. Because atheism is defined by disbelief, Taylor's stance cannot possibly be atheism.
To reitterate, here is the weak atheist position that both I and blinking spirit ascribe to.
1. Doesn't believe in the vast majority of gods
2. Leaves open the possibility (IE, is agnostic towards) kickstarter/deist/whatever gods
No, that's misrepresenting Blinking Spirit (and you, presumably). Blinking Spirit disbelieves in the deist God.
Whereas Taylor does not believe or disbelieve in the deist God. Therefore, Taylor cannot be atheist.
You are arguing that a circle is a square. It will not work regardless of how many times you try, ECP.
Right, yes, I agree. Interventionist tricky/evil gods play a nifty role in "Problem of Good" arguments and other fun debates. I've gotten a bit tunnel visioned in trying to demonstrate similarities between the "leaves some ideas of gods as possibilities" in both the weak atheist and the thing Taylor is trying to describe and I left that concept out. My bad.
Although, and this might be kind of dickish to Taylor, the impression I've gotten from the guy is that he knows all this (the stuff you just said) but he really doesn't like the idea of being an atheist and is holding on for some sort of, presumably, emotional reason. Outside the scope of debate, I know, I know, but since you mentioned Russel it just keeps coming back to me that he is basing this stuff off of a lack of knowledge, not on anything positive, and it strikes me as curious.
There's also those of us that have understood the arguments to quite a degree, but choose to ignore them based on an emotional and socio-cultural reason. There are those who are secularists that engage in practice as a way to preserve culture and it becomes it gives them a sense of "feeling good." Take Buddhism, as one example, while the Tibetan form as a theocratic state was hegemonic and just as grueling as the medieval to early modern period Catholic Church. Now, whereas, a lot of Buddhism, such as the Dahli Lama since exile has formulated a much better philosophical and religious framework to which has actually helped to advance science. Tibetan Buddhism, under this Dahli Lama, has said that if Buddhism is wrong then it is up to Buddhism to change.
This is where we have to look at Byzantium's advance as a Roman culture up until Byzantine Iconoclasm issues helped to thwart cultural advance, whereas the Muslims during the early Caliphates made a number of advances in sciences and the arts and was well ahead of the West. Sharia law is seen is "good" that brought justice to the desert, while westernization brought misery to the Middle East. Granted after Al-Ghazali Islam has become much more rigid and less questioning of it's faith, whereas if you study the Reformation and Counter-Reformation alongside the development of the Commercial Revolution along with the Great Age of Sail really set the seeds for the industrial revolution.
So what am I saying? Keeping an open mind within the religious is a good thing that can foster a good relationship with other human beings, the First Crusaders who settled in the Crusader states themselves were actually rather defensive of their Muslim neighbors from new comers as one example. The point is to keep the dynamism within the culture going, and right now I feel that with religion has taken a step backwards. Islam is going through some sort of "Crusader Era" just as Christianity went through prior to perhaps a reactionist sect or new movement to counter Salafism.
With regard to American Christianity, we have to consider that there's different generational cycles as well as periods of a "Great Awakening." However, the "rigid conservative thinking" that comes with the "Protestant Work Ethic" is very similar in some ways to Confuscianism and Chinese Legalism, if you read Han Fei Tzu. Now with regard to the rise of the 1980's Moral Majority and other hegemonic groups that formed the New Right were molded out of a reaction to the liberalism of the New Left and Hippies who evolved into Yuppies and sought to keep a conservative era "for the children." We also have to remember that this was the same time period that Ayn Rand was becoming more popular,economics was more in vogue, as well as the concept of rational actor theory. That we presume that people act rationally when they know the rules, which over time has cemented itself into zero tolerance policies and "get tough on crime" approach that you see today. Yet, the religious conservatives have lost a concept of redemptive nature within the society that has lost base with the totality of the Christian religion.
I believe that it is the compatibility and ease of syncretecism that Christianity has, as attempted by Jesuits during the colonial era who were most successful in peaceful conversions, which is why places such as South Korea readily accept it. Lee Kuan Yew has also said in an interview that Singapore's Muslims were converted by merchants and not by the sword like the Middle East was. So their own Muslims have a different identity than those in the Middle East, and with the tendency of merchants to be more forgiving of people so as they can trade with them adds another comparative point whenever considering why people continue traditions or break away from them.
Furthermore, the sense of "talking to someone" offers up a point about meditation. Since meditation has had the capacity to help people ranging from ADHD to PTSD, we must consider that the science that guides practice also requires an emotional hook. If there is anything with marketing that can teach someone, is that without an emotional or relational hook people will not engage in the behavior for long. If you consider Mark Rosewater has stated that most players last for about 8 years and tend to leave the Magic because of major life changes or their play group falling apart.
It is the relational aspect of religion that keeps people ingrained, and considering different personality types as seen through things like the Jungian Myerrs-Briggs test and other such things. We must begin to look at the conceptual framework and biases from earlier cultural phases and gradualism on where philosophy and theology intersect with the science. Emotion+Reason=Sale. There's an old saying with sales, "You buy based on emotion, and justify through logic."
Being informed about reason is one thing, if you want to understand the reason towards emotional you must understand the decision making process itself and the role that emotions play. I disagree with Aristotle's axiom that Man is a rational animal, we must consider that "Humans are a social animal." Hence why religion is important, since it informs pair bonding and gives other socio-cultural benefits such as regularity and stability to schedule. It is probably the reason why Islam, it was Malcolm Shabazz who pushed the Nation of Islam to start looking for converts in jails, has been popular with conversions in jails since they tend to offer rigor, structure, and community to people who lacked that before. Granted NOI has had it's issues and other mainstream Islamic groups have taken over Shabazz's strategy, but it very much works.
What atheism's aim has been it seems is more towards the informed middle class shnook who reads books, rather than reaching out to the "unwashed masses" with a sort of communalistic philosophy. Which is frankly where "humanism" if it had more doctrinal base would be better.
My own philosophical outlook tends to be rather classical with stoic roots, since I rejected Objectivism a long time ago and other ego-centric philosophies. Religion has offered me a sense of "companionship" towards meditation and the thought process. Now whether that inner dialogue and analytic process is "crazy," I just have to look at the capacity for the human mind's emotional capacity with imagination to create leaps of thought. The ego-centric philosophies, which I tend to find rather unrefined and rather immature, are equal to post Al Ghazali Islam or Iconoclastic Byzantine Orthodoxism.
To discuss metacognition on the own self, I have to take into consideration my own motivations tend to be "other" motivated than "self" motivated. Equally that "self" has a preference to engage in imaginative dialogue with people and figures to act as sounding boards for ideas and concepts. It is easier in some ways to place specific constructs by anthropomorphizing them or at the very least using metaphor and story to construct a more easily recognizable series of ideas or a gestalt.
Relationships help me grow, I am a social animal, therefore I prefer a relational external being when thinking. Companionship.
God for metacognition purposes is a cultural gestalt that is able to shadow the collective and individual will through a relational framework. Which is why religion will never die, God is a hyper evolved imaginary best friend meme that plays to the social animal within us and fights our greatest fears; death and being alone. For a social being ostracized is death.
Whereas an atheist would disbelieve in that one as well.
Which is an incorrect statement, and I don't like people presuming that other people are part of their religious demographic when they aren't.
You wrote this:
Which is wrong. An atheist disbelieves in deities. If one does not disbelieve in deities, one is not atheist.
Essentially, the claim I am trying to make is the origin of this universe is completely unknown. The closer we get to the big bang, the more our understanding of physics breaks down. At 'time equals zero' all bets are off, nothing makes sense. It is as far outside of our experience as you can get, and natural laws have long(ok, not long, like picoseconds ago) since completely broken down. Thus, to claim you feel the event at t=0 happened for a reason is just as sound as saying it didn't happen for a reason, as in, both are pure conjecture.
Now -I would like to stress- it is my understanding the difference between saying "reason" or "no reason" when talking about the start of the universe the fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist. One claims that there is no reason(or 'mind' if you like) behind existence, and the other claims there is a reason. All I am saying is I am "betting" there is a reason for existence. I would also like to stress I am making no other claims. I am not commenting on the nature of this "reason" in anyway other than to say I'm "betting" there is one. I'm guessing, acknowledging I'm guessing, and not going any further down this speculative path.
Now, many would claim that having a "reason" would be to anthropomorphize the event. Most things don't have the ability to assign a reason to something. Thus, many would claim that to say the event had "no reason" would -statically- be more reasonable than to say the event had a "reason," since it would require a property we view as rare.
For example, if I asked you to speculate on the color of my shirt, you would -rightfully- say the guess "it's not brown" would be more reasonable than the guess "it's brown." In guessing, you understand that my shirt might be brown, but -based on your experience with shirts- you would place more credence in the "not brown" guess than the "brown" guess. More shirts -based on your experience with shirts- aren't brown than are brown. Thus, it's more reasonable to guess "not brown."
However, this analogy becomes strained if we were to talk about something outside of human experience.
Let's say I asked you to speculate on whether or not the Zezzite(from planet Zezzen) you're meeting will wear cloths. You don't know anything about Zezzites, so this becomes a more speculative question than the brownness of my shirt. You might -however- say to guess they'd not wear cloths is more reasonable than to say they would. You could go into all of the reasons humans wear clothing and the nature of making clothing to assume that it is less likely to have all that happened on another planet. Thus -using your knowledge- you would make the guess that this Zezzite you're meeting will be naked. Now -in leading up to this meeting- I show you a picture of a Zezzite wearing a green jumpsuit, you would change your guess. You would make an new guess, based on your new knowledge, that this Zezzite will be wearing cloths when you meet it. You might not think it will be wearing a green jumpsuit, but you would now find it more reasonable to guess it will be wearing cloths, based on your experience with the picture. You would understand that one case isn't enough to establish a pattern. But -with only one data point and being asked to speculate- you would make an educated guess.
So, what about the start of this universe. Do we have any examples of universe creation to draw on for this guess?
While I understand the math behind the theory each black hole has its own universe inside is sound, it's still very theoretical. However, I do know of one kind of universe that we have observed the creation of, a simulated universe. Everyday, many of these tiny simulated universes are created and destroyed in physics programs. We -in fact- might be in such a simulation without knowing it.[1] What is something all of these simulated universes have in common? They were created for a reason.
Now, as I said with the Zezzite example, one data point doesn't constituent a pattern. This universe isn't the same as the ones created by Theoretical Nuclear Physicists. So, it would be silly to say we know this universe was also created for a reason. But -with only one data point and being asked to speculate- you could make an educated guess.
I guess some kind of semantic argument was inevitable....
Continue reading in the following spoiler for the exciting spilling-of-hairs between me and FoxBlade!
You might have some other definition of the term I go with #1 & #3 on dictionary.com. You might not like it or agree with it, but that's likely what makes it MY personal code, not yours.
Sounds like a lie to me. They know they stole it, but are claiming they don't know. They are saying something they know to be false, lie.
While I can't recall a specific instant, it does seem probable. I'm not about to lie and claim I've never lied. I have, but I try hard not to. When I make a post, I normally imagine I am talking to the persons I am responding to. For example, right now I feel like I am talking to you, FoxBlade. Thus, when I used "you" in that case I mean "FoxBlade." That's more or less the function of pronouns, like -for example- 'you.'
I(Taylor) am sorry if you(FoxBlade) find that(the way I[Taylor] use pronouns) confusing, but I(Taylor) am likely not going to change it(the way I[Taylor] use pronouns) just for you(FoxBlade). Because others(posters on this forum not you[Foxblade]) don't seem to have a problem with it(the way I[Taylor] use pronouns). Additionally, as you(FoxBlade) can see, trying to specify each pronoun is tedious.
PS: You(FoxBlade) didn't provide an example of me claiming I know a deist god exited, as you asserted I did. From now on -until you do- I am going to claim you where incorrect in that assertion, since -to the best of my recollection- you are. I won't claim you lied about it, but it does seem possible; certainly, it seems you did based on your definition of the term, but maybe not mine.
And it's not as clear cut as atheists believe there is no why and theists believe there is a why. Obviously Christians believe there's a why, but not every faith believe there is a why behind existence. Buddhists don't. I'm pretty positive deists don't either.
By reason do you mean there is a reason how the universe was created, or a reason for why the universe was created?
Because I'm sure most people would bet there's a reason how the universe came to be. That doesn't lead to any religious stance.
Do you recognize that this isn't what a deist does, and why it's problematic to claim you are one?
Again, it goes back to whether you're saying there's a reason how the universe came to be or a reason why the universe came to be. If it's why, recognize that to say there's a reason why requires there to be a will behind the event taking place.
Wait, what? What is this theory? A black hole is an incredibly dense sphere. Why would it have a universe inside of it?
As to the rest of your post and the whole Zezzite thing and the guessing of brown shirts and whatever: why are you making guesses? If you believe you do not know enough to make any sort of educated guess on the subject... why make a guess? Why not acknowledge that? Why not honestly admit that you don't know instead of randomly guessing?
The problem here is you seem to really want to be labeled a deist even when you're clearly not one. Why?
Guess it depends on the Deist. I've always taken Deism to be the base theistic claim, stripped of all the bells and whistles that make something a religion. If this is incorrect, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you have a better term I should use instead, please let me know.
http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566 Because I was uncomfortable being a pure agnostic. I found not at least making a speculative guess was against my nature. I didn't pick "agnostic deist" because I liked the sound of it. I genially thought it was the most accurate label for what I am. If I misunderstood the definition of those terms, then I will accept so without rancor.
If you feel there is a better shorthand term I could use -so when someone asks "what religion are you anyway?" I have a ready answer that doesn't take 20 minutes to say- please let me know.
I'll have to read it later.
Except you're still agnostic even if you are making guesses.
It's not an accurate label for anything, any more than "square circle" is. The whole point of deism is that God exists, and can be known and proven. The whole point of agnosticism is that the divine is ultimately unknowable. Deism and agnosticism oppose each other.
Agnosticism?
This is alright, except that you seem to misunderstand atheism. Atheism doesn’t say the universe happened for no reason, it only says that no deities exist. There is a reason(s) for why the universe exists. Where the disagreement comes in is whether or not there was a divine intelligence (or some other supernatural explanation) that created a universe for a reason(s) that are unknown to us or whether the universe exists due to natural causes that can be backed up by evidence.
There very well could be a god out there with no mind at all, in which case we can discuss this possibility because now god has an attribute; lacking a mind.
In either case, this does not illuminate anything. Both atheism and theism believe that the universe exists for a reason. The disagreement is what those reasons are and what constitutes as evidence.
Right, okay but this doesn’t tell us anything about what the reason is or what you believe is the reason and if you want to say that it can’t be known, then I refer you to the argument I’ve already made about your standard for knowledge and also remind you that this type of reasoning is not productive in this sort of discourse.
I’m not sure who would say that. I would say that the reason the universe exists is more likely to have natural reasons/causes rather than supernatural ones. The other point you’re raising here is who has the burden of proof – the one who makes a claim or the one who rejects the claim?
I would caution against reasoning that no one has the burden of proof, unless you want to open the flood gates, which in my opinion is just as unproductive as claiming that things can’t be known.
I’m not sure, we’d have a lot of questions to ask, many more than you’re mentioning here or that I’m about to mention. What is the planet like? What kind of weather do they have? Do they even wear clothes? Why would they wear clothes? Are they social? How are they social? Does being social tie into what types of clothes they wear if they do wear clothes? Do they make clothes themselves? If so, what would they make them out of? Etc. etc. etc.
Any questions we’d answer here could only be conjecture and based on faith. Then you introduce a piece of evidence, a picture with a green jumpsuit. Now we have evidence that Zezzites do wear green jumpsuits/clothes. But we don’t know that Zezzites will be wearing clothes when we meet one.
Perhaps clothes are only for the rich. Maybe just for people in charge. Maybe that Zezzites was forced to wear it. All we know based on evidence is that Zezzites have been shown to wear green jumpsuits or clothes on at least one occasion. We have more questions that need to be answered, but at least we’ve come a little closer to answering whether or not Zezzites wear clothes; we now know that they do, but we don’t know all the reasons why.
The important thing here is that we are moving forward, being productive, and progressing in trying to answer many of these questions.
When something is created, it means that it was made with some kind of purpose. So we’re left to ask, how do we know that the universe was created and isn’t a result of natural causes with no purpose?
Scientific theory is very different from just theory. Scientific theory is evidence based, not simply a guess. It’s a knowledge claim that is backed up with evidence, like the picture of a green jumpsuit wearing Zezzite, we have evidence they do wear clothes.
This is a stark difference between claiming that the universe was created for a reason or that ‘X’ is made with a purpose in mind. There’s no evidence to back that claim up, so one has to rely on faith in order to make this claim, unless one has some evidence to back that claim.
Yes and we know that they were created for a reason, we even know the reason. We don’t know that the universe was created. By saying something is created, this implies that it was made with a purpose, like your examples of a simulated universe.
I’m arguing that we can’t make a knowledge claim of ‘the universe was created’.
Right so… I guess we agree? I’m not really sure, this doesn’t seem consistent with the above quote or anything that you’ve been saying overall.
Right we can make guesses for why Zezzites wear clothes, but we won’t understand everything about zezzite cloth wearing tendencies until we get more evidence. But, according to your example, we do know that Zezzites wear clothes. There’s a picture of one wearing a green jump suit that we can point to as an example of one wearing clothes.
Contrast this with theism; the theist doesn’t offer you a picture and offers no evidence at all. The theist tells you that Zezzites wear green jump suits and that they are making this assumption because they have faith that it is true.
According to what you’ve said in this post, one of these two examples is silly and it looks like you’re advocating at least one of them. Which one are you advocating and which one do you think is silly?
That kind of deism seems to me like it's just giving the Big Bang a name, and calling it God rather than Fred. (And it sounds an awful lot like atheism.)
That doesn't make any sense.
How would someone behave any differently if they believed that the Big Bang originated from a completely-non-interventionist deity, as opposed to pure coincidence? There's no imposed moral code, no afterlife, no church, no worship - I think the answer is 'no differently'. Hence why I said 'functionally equivalent' (and I think why ECP said 'for all intents and purposes').
I did write that. Had I see nwhat grant wrote I might have just said "what grant said" since I tabled for Planned Parenthood for the last 7 hours,yeesh.
What I'm saying is that its really really really similar. I'm not conscripting Taylor. What I'm saying is that the stuff being described (particularly the part where there is no positive defense of the deism god) is functionally similar to weak atheism. It has to do with the formulation and it can get fuzzy
Atheism denies that God exists and that God created the universe.
Deism affirms that God exists and that God created the universe.
It's the opposite of atheism.
Except, y'know, deism.
If someone affirms the existence of God, they might as well be atheist?
Do you notice how it's not making any more sense the more you repeat it?
Well I know one way they would behave differently - they would believe in the existence of God.
That also applies to agnostics and atheists. However, we do not claim that they're the same thing, because they're not the same thing.
(EDIT: Well apparently ECP claims they're the same thing, but we shouldn't claim they're the same thing.)
Except for the parts where it's completely opposite.
Except it's not that either. Agnosticism, however confused, is not the same as atheism.
Taylor has argued that there's equal rationale for arguing there is a God as arguing there isn't one. That's not an atheist.
And apart from that? That's a belief, not a behaviour - how would this impact their actions?
Again, notice ECP's use of 'for all intents and purposes' and my use of 'functionally equivalent'. These do not mean the same thing as identical. Abstract away from the label, look at actions.
All I'm seeing are two people who are saying, "Well, these two things are basically the same if we ignore all of the things in which they are not at all the same."
Which is a pointless statement to make. To argue that deists are "functionally equivalent" to atheists is just incorrect, because they do not function in a way that is equivalent!
Taylor says he is not willing to argue that the belief is true, just that its not justifiable to dismiss it.
You, rightly, called out aspects of what he believes as being inconsistent/weird/whatever. The thing he wants to defend is something that I myself would defend as consistent with my own beliefs. It is a belief that fits more closely with the weak atheist position than with the deist position since, as you pointed out, he doesn't really fall into the category for which he has named for himself.
So he's not an atheist. He's an agnostic. He's arguing that it's no more justified to disbelieve in God as to believe in him.
He is, in fact, using Agnostic Deist accurately, in a sense, since he is agnostic towards the deistic idea of god, but an atheist to every other kind of god.
Wanna know who else is agnostic towards the deistic idea of god, but an atheist to every other type of god?
Me and Blinking Spirit.
You know what we call that kind of person? A weak/agnostic atheist.
... So am I more atheist than theist given that most theistic religions have had many gods while I only worship one? After all, by your logic, I am atheist to every deity except one.
Atheism has a definition, ECP. A belief system either fulfills it, or it does not. To say that deism is functionally the same as atheism is like trying to argue that a circle is basically the same thing as a square.
Blinking Spirit has, unless I'm mistaken, indicated he disbelieves in a deistic interpretation of God's existence. So no, he's not agnostic towards the concept. He disbelieves in the concept. Atheism requires disbelief in a deity. Agnosticism neither believes nor disbelieves in the concept of God. Notice how these are different.
You might as well be arguing that a circle is basically a square, ECP. Neither deism nor agnosticism function like atheism, so no, they're not functionally identical. They don't function identically.
I didn't say deism is functionally atheism. I said taylors beliefs are functionally atheist. Pay attention. I listed beliefs that Taylor has espoused and pointed out how those exact beliefs are shared by atheists.
And, well, you are an atheist relative to every deity but one. When someone believes in Jesus and doesn't believe in the rest, boom, Christian. When someone disbelieves in them all, boom, strong atheism. when someoen disbelieves in all but leaves open the possibility of the deistic god (or, IOW, is agnostic towards the idea of a deistic god) we call that person a weak atheist.
On this he is simply wrong, but I'll wait until he tries to argue something as contentious as this before factoring it in.
Post 56 he says that the little bit that makes him a weak atheist rather than a strong one is that he leaves open the possibility of god. Generally, and he can correct me on this, the only gods left open are the ones like deism where its just a non-interventionist kickstarter type like the one commonly believed in, or said to be reasonable, by people like Taylor (note his "are the aliens wearing clothes" analogy)
This idea of god is basically formless. It exists to fill a gap in our knowledge of how the universe functions since adding nearly anything to the kickstarter deism god is basically impossible because it runs into stuff we actually know things about
Remember how he described himself? Agnostic deist? That he won't argue that deism is true, just that its not able to be completely dismissed. Remember how we both agree the words he is using to describe himself are not that accurate?
Your solution is for him to simply be an agnostic, but this doesn't work, because he is only agnostic to a specific form of god while he doesn't believe in the rest.
And I've been trying to say, that outside of the terms he is using to describe his beliefs, the beliefs themselves are similar, if not identical, to the ones of weak atheism. Go re-read post 82 of his. He thinks that the ultimate cause might be a god of some sort but we can't be sure either way because our understanding of physics simply breaks down before a certain point. He is agnostic because their is a lack of knowledge. He is a deist because the only kind of god that fits in the scenario is a deistic kickstarter type. The belief is motivated by an (accurate) knowledge of our lack of knowledge before a certain point.
This is the same thing weak atheists do.
Go read post 82. Re-read other posts of his. understand that he doesn't worship a god, doens't believe in any of the worlds religions and about deism he is unsure because, hey, we don't know for sure so he leaves it open.
Then try to figure out how thats all that different from weak formulations of atheism.
Stop saying its square circles. Stop appealing to his stated beliefs even as you yourself have said they are incoherant and are trying to find a new term to describe him. Read what he actually says in post 82 and argue how its all that different from weak atheism. Remember, HR, he doesn't actually believe in the god of deism. He is explicitly agnostic about it.
Deists can also be described by this.
Except Taylor is an agnostic, and no, he's not functionally atheist. He's agnostic.
Except Taylor believes there's equal reason to believe or disbelieve.
Oh you can disagree with Taylor all you want, ECP, but that's the point of what I'm saying: you disagree with him. Taylor doesn't believe (or "functionally believe") the same thing you do. So claiming he does is false.
Yes, correct, he leaves open the possibility he might be incorrect. Someone can accept the possibility of being incorrect and still believe otherwise.
Remember how I demonstrated he's not actually a deist and he recanted on that? Remember how the word "agnostic" is also in there? How, precisely, do you get atheist from this?
The deist part, yes. But agnostic works just fine unless I've missed anything to the contrary.
Even if that were correct, he would still not be functionally atheist because he does not disbelieve in the idea of the deist God, whereas atheism is defined by its doing so.
But reread what he's posted. He's agnostic to every form of God, he's merely chosen deism out of a desire to pick a reason for the world's existence, but he's done so as a form of guess, he doesn't actually believe in it. He's agnostic.
Except you are completely wrong in that regard for the reasons I have demonstrated. Atheism is defined by its disbelief. Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves.
A circle cannot be argued to be a square, nor can an agnostic be argued to be an atheist.
Yes, and given that he does not believe or disbelieve, we define him as agnostic. An atheist would disbelieve in deism.
I've only been repeating it throughout this page.
Why? I like that analogy, it works really well.
Right, which means he doesn't disbelieve in it either. Which means he's not atheist. How are you missing this?
False. I have explicitly said that its Taylors belief I am talking about, the belief that we agree he is describing in a way inconsistent with the label he has chosen. I am not talking about deism. I am talking about Taylor.
Get this through your head.
A deist believes in this kind of god.
Taylor is agnostic towards this kind of god.
This is the difference that matters.
He is agnostic towards deism. He is atheist towards the rest of the worlds religions. We have a name for this kind of belief. It's called weak atheism.
The only god he gives any chance to is a kickstarter god and even on that he is unsure, only defending the possibility because we can't discount it since the formulation of god here is a pre-big bang kickstarter type that we, by definition, do not have any knowledge of. He believes its equal since there is no information available either way to tilt the scales. This kind of belief is functionally identical to atheism. Especially when we are in real world terms of how people actually act since Taylor bases no actions, no precepts, no nothing on this idea of god. What could he base on this god, even in theory?
And another way of saying that is unsure. If one was certain, they would not leave open the possibility. Therefore, like myself, there is one formulation of the idea of god that I, BS, and Taylor are unsure on. That is the deistic (or kickstarter, or however you want to refer to it) idea of god. Blinking spirit calls himself a weak atheist. I called myself an agnostic atheist. These terms mean pretty much the same thing. Taylor called himself an agnostic deist to refer to being unsure whether or not deism is true, but doesn't believe in the rest of the worlds religion, and yet, here we are.
Remember? The term has played heavily in my argument. As to how I get atheist from this thats what I've been repeatedly telling you
Agnostic doesn't work fine because he is only agnostic to the deist god.
You don't understand atheism then. The entire point of contention between weak and strong atheism is whether gods can be disproven as an idea completely or whether there are a few, select formulations of god that can't be and, as a matter of philosophical or scientific rigor, are then left open for the time being. This is also referred to as gnostic or agnostic atheism.
And he is agnostic to every form of god? Really? If that was the case then, 1., I highly doubt he would have bothered with the deist part of agnostic deist, and 2, why is his last post in this thread concerned solely with kickstarter gods and thought experiments about things we have no knowledge of. Plus, you know, Post 54 of his he explicitly says he is no longer a True Agnostic. You'll also note that he has had arguments in the past, when he described himself as true agnostic, about how dissimilar those specific beliefs were from being a weak/agnostic atheist. Trying to parse the tiny distinctions he was trying to make was pages, upon pages, of discussion. Now his beliefs have further shifted and now match up, quite strikingly, with that of the agnostic or weak atheist position.
To reitterate, here is the weak atheist position that both I and blinking spirit ascribe to.
1. Doesn't believe in the vast majority of gods
2. Leaves open the possibility (IE, is agnostic towards) kickstarter/deist/whatever gods
Here is Taylors position
1. Doesn't believe in the vast majority of gods
2. Is agnostic towards the deistic/kickstarter/whatever gods (IE, leaves open the possibility they exist)
Based upon misunderstandings of what atheism actually is, specifically the weak/agnostic formulation and what Taylor actually believes. I've been trying to correct you and you've simply been repeating yourself. This isn't even about your argument, its about your not knowing various core details about the discussion (your use of terms like atheist, agnostic, and deist without the accompanying words that everyone else is using is a big part of this) and repeating yourself on things that are not only not accurate, but will never be accurate until you update them to reflect the information being discussed.
Please do this.
One must wonder, eh?
No, interventionist Gods are logically possible too. Remember that the scientific method is inductive, and must draw general conclusions from specific observations. Just because we have not specifically observed intervention does not mean we can logically rule out that he has intervened somewhere we have not been observing. For that matter, if we admit the possibility of a deceptive God, he could be intervening constantly right in front of our noses and then further intervening to cloud our senses or alter our memories so we fail to observe it. The only way we could say that this is impossible is to find some sound a priori logical disproof of the idea, like Descartes thought he had in the Meditations. Until then, we can only make the best observations we can, and infer that the rest of the universe is more or less like the bits of it we're observing.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Although, and this might be kind of dickish to Taylor, the impression I've gotten from the guy is that he knows all this (the stuff you just said) but he really doesn't like the idea of being an atheist and is holding on for some sort of, presumably, emotional reason. Outside the scope of debate, I know, I know, but since you mentioned Russel it just keeps coming back to me that he is basing this stuff off of a lack of knowledge, not on anything positive, and it strikes me as curious.
It's very clear that Taylor is agnostic, and thus neither believes nor disbelieves in a deity. For reference, view posts 52-55.
Now as for "weak atheism," no, of course he is not, because even if he were to only be agnostic to the deist God, if he does not explicitly disbelieve in the deistic God, he is not atheist.
Taylor, as you repeatedly say, does not.
Therefore, he is not atheist. He is agnostic.
Once again, you are akin to a man who seeks to argue a circle a square.
Yes, he is agnostic.
*Sigh* No, it isn't, because he doesn't disbelieve in the deity! Therefore, he cannot be atheist!
No, you're missing the obvious difference.
Blinking Spirit, as he himself explicitly stated, disbelieves that God, or any deity of any kind, exists. He admits that he could be wrong through his own human fallibility, but maintains the belief that no deity of any kind exists.
Taylor, by contrast, does not believe any claim can be made about the existence or nonexistence of a deity.
These are not the same.
You've been repeating a garbage argument.
You're trying to argue "disbelieves in God" to be the same as "neither believes nor disbelieves in God." That's completely ridiculous! It is a ridiculous as saying a circle is the same as a square.
Except you're missing, again, the obvious:
Atheists are defined by DISBELIEF in deities. Disbelief. Whether they be gnostic or agnostic atheists, they are still atheists, the core of atheism being the disbelief in deities.
Taylor neither believes nor disbelieves in God. Ergo, he is not an atheist.
See, this is the problem with what you're doing: you're trying to lump someone as an atheist because he does not believe in a deity of any kind. But absence of belief =/= the presence of disbelief.
Yes, you may both believe that the deistic deity can never truly be known or disproven. But recognize that doesn't change the fact that your stance is defined by your disbelief in the existence of a deity, and Taylor's stance is defined by the fact that he neither believes nor disbelieves in a deity. Because atheism is defined by disbelief, Taylor's stance cannot possibly be atheism.
No, that's misrepresenting Blinking Spirit (and you, presumably). Blinking Spirit disbelieves in the deist God.
Whereas Taylor does not believe or disbelieve in the deist God. Therefore, Taylor cannot be atheist.
You are arguing that a circle is a square. It will not work regardless of how many times you try, ECP.
There's also those of us that have understood the arguments to quite a degree, but choose to ignore them based on an emotional and socio-cultural reason. There are those who are secularists that engage in practice as a way to preserve culture and it becomes it gives them a sense of "feeling good." Take Buddhism, as one example, while the Tibetan form as a theocratic state was hegemonic and just as grueling as the medieval to early modern period Catholic Church. Now, whereas, a lot of Buddhism, such as the Dahli Lama since exile has formulated a much better philosophical and religious framework to which has actually helped to advance science. Tibetan Buddhism, under this Dahli Lama, has said that if Buddhism is wrong then it is up to Buddhism to change.
This is where we have to look at Byzantium's advance as a Roman culture up until Byzantine Iconoclasm issues helped to thwart cultural advance, whereas the Muslims during the early Caliphates made a number of advances in sciences and the arts and was well ahead of the West. Sharia law is seen is "good" that brought justice to the desert, while westernization brought misery to the Middle East. Granted after Al-Ghazali Islam has become much more rigid and less questioning of it's faith, whereas if you study the Reformation and Counter-Reformation alongside the development of the Commercial Revolution along with the Great Age of Sail really set the seeds for the industrial revolution.
So what am I saying? Keeping an open mind within the religious is a good thing that can foster a good relationship with other human beings, the First Crusaders who settled in the Crusader states themselves were actually rather defensive of their Muslim neighbors from new comers as one example. The point is to keep the dynamism within the culture going, and right now I feel that with religion has taken a step backwards. Islam is going through some sort of "Crusader Era" just as Christianity went through prior to perhaps a reactionist sect or new movement to counter Salafism.
With regard to American Christianity, we have to consider that there's different generational cycles as well as periods of a "Great Awakening." However, the "rigid conservative thinking" that comes with the "Protestant Work Ethic" is very similar in some ways to Confuscianism and Chinese Legalism, if you read Han Fei Tzu. Now with regard to the rise of the 1980's Moral Majority and other hegemonic groups that formed the New Right were molded out of a reaction to the liberalism of the New Left and Hippies who evolved into Yuppies and sought to keep a conservative era "for the children." We also have to remember that this was the same time period that Ayn Rand was becoming more popular,economics was more in vogue, as well as the concept of rational actor theory. That we presume that people act rationally when they know the rules, which over time has cemented itself into zero tolerance policies and "get tough on crime" approach that you see today. Yet, the religious conservatives have lost a concept of redemptive nature within the society that has lost base with the totality of the Christian religion.
I believe that it is the compatibility and ease of syncretecism that Christianity has, as attempted by Jesuits during the colonial era who were most successful in peaceful conversions, which is why places such as South Korea readily accept it. Lee Kuan Yew has also said in an interview that Singapore's Muslims were converted by merchants and not by the sword like the Middle East was. So their own Muslims have a different identity than those in the Middle East, and with the tendency of merchants to be more forgiving of people so as they can trade with them adds another comparative point whenever considering why people continue traditions or break away from them.
Furthermore, the sense of "talking to someone" offers up a point about meditation. Since meditation has had the capacity to help people ranging from ADHD to PTSD, we must consider that the science that guides practice also requires an emotional hook. If there is anything with marketing that can teach someone, is that without an emotional or relational hook people will not engage in the behavior for long. If you consider Mark Rosewater has stated that most players last for about 8 years and tend to leave the Magic because of major life changes or their play group falling apart.
It is the relational aspect of religion that keeps people ingrained, and considering different personality types as seen through things like the Jungian Myerrs-Briggs test and other such things. We must begin to look at the conceptual framework and biases from earlier cultural phases and gradualism on where philosophy and theology intersect with the science. Emotion+Reason=Sale. There's an old saying with sales, "You buy based on emotion, and justify through logic."
Being informed about reason is one thing, if you want to understand the reason towards emotional you must understand the decision making process itself and the role that emotions play. I disagree with Aristotle's axiom that Man is a rational animal, we must consider that "Humans are a social animal." Hence why religion is important, since it informs pair bonding and gives other socio-cultural benefits such as regularity and stability to schedule. It is probably the reason why Islam, it was Malcolm Shabazz who pushed the Nation of Islam to start looking for converts in jails, has been popular with conversions in jails since they tend to offer rigor, structure, and community to people who lacked that before. Granted NOI has had it's issues and other mainstream Islamic groups have taken over Shabazz's strategy, but it very much works.
What atheism's aim has been it seems is more towards the informed middle class shnook who reads books, rather than reaching out to the "unwashed masses" with a sort of communalistic philosophy. Which is frankly where "humanism" if it had more doctrinal base would be better.
My own philosophical outlook tends to be rather classical with stoic roots, since I rejected Objectivism a long time ago and other ego-centric philosophies. Religion has offered me a sense of "companionship" towards meditation and the thought process. Now whether that inner dialogue and analytic process is "crazy," I just have to look at the capacity for the human mind's emotional capacity with imagination to create leaps of thought. The ego-centric philosophies, which I tend to find rather unrefined and rather immature, are equal to post Al Ghazali Islam or Iconoclastic Byzantine Orthodoxism.
To discuss metacognition on the own self, I have to take into consideration my own motivations tend to be "other" motivated than "self" motivated. Equally that "self" has a preference to engage in imaginative dialogue with people and figures to act as sounding boards for ideas and concepts. It is easier in some ways to place specific constructs by anthropomorphizing them or at the very least using metaphor and story to construct a more easily recognizable series of ideas or a gestalt.
Relationships help me grow, I am a social animal, therefore I prefer a relational external being when thinking. Companionship.
God for metacognition purposes is a cultural gestalt that is able to shadow the collective and individual will through a relational framework. Which is why religion will never die, God is a hyper evolved imaginary best friend meme that plays to the social animal within us and fights our greatest fears; death and being alone. For a social being ostracized is death.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>