This is demonstratively false, and we have several posters on this forum alone that identify as Hard Atheists. I does seem to come as a shock sometimes to agnostic atheists, but there are plenty of people who are certain there is no God.
"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."[3]
Maybe you know of other studies you could cite to back up your claims?
Maybe he only answers prayers done on a wednesday. Maybe he only answers prayers from those with 12% or less body fat. Maybe he only answers prayers done from noon to midnight
Wow, that would make the whole thing pretty ****ing stupid, hu? If God was that crazy and fickle about it. But, maybe you're right...
The point is he is under no obligation to listen to any prayers and just because he did not listen to your prayers does not disqualify the rest of humanities chances of having their prayers answered.
We may never know why exactly he answer some prayers and others not. There may be a thousands of variables he has to consider to decide whether it is good to answer a specific prayer. Many of which may transcend our understanding.
Lets say for instance you pray to get a promotion. Unbeknownst to you there is another person who is also up for this promotion. Lets say he has a bad case of depression and if the promotion goes to you he may just fell helpless enough to end his own life.
You would off course know nothing about this other person's problems and if the promotion does not come your way you may just shrug at the unfairness of it all and you question why exactly your reasonable request was not answered.
There may be mitigating circumstances that we were just simply never aware of that makes God not willing to answer a prayer.
My examples may be simplistic but I do think it illustrates a point on why sometimes the most basic of request may have a bad effect on people that we would never be aware of.
The point is he is under no obligation to listen to any prayers and just because he did not listen to your prayers does not disqualify the rest of humanities chances of having their prayers answered.
How do we distinguish between a God who doesn't answer prayer and a God whose prayer answering can't be tested?
The point is he is under no obligation to listen to any prayers and just because he did not listen to your prayers does not disqualify the rest of humanities chances of having their prayers answered.
We may never know why exactly he answer some prayers and others not. There may be a thousands of variables he has to consider to decide whether it is good to answer a specific prayer. Many of which may transcend our understanding.
Lets say for instance you pray to get a promotion. Unbeknownst to you there is another person who is also up for this promotion. Lets say he has a bad case of depression and if the promotion goes to you he may just fell helpless enough to end his own life.
You would off course know nothing about this other person's problems and if the promotion does not come your way you may just shrug at the unfairness of it all and you question why exactly your reasonable request was not answered.
There may be mitigating circumstances that we were just simply never aware of that makes God not willing to answer a prayer.
My examples may be simplistic but I do think it illustrates a point on why sometimes the most basic of request may have a bad effect on people that we would never be aware of.
But if he is in fact answering some prayers, regardless of how obscure the reasons for selecting which to answer might be, that would still show up in aggregate statistics. If we go back to the medical outcomes example, if he's answering anyone's prayers for a better outcome, then we would see that in the overall statistics. Unless you're suggesting that he kills someone else who would have recovered just to balance things out?
I will admit I was venting a little while writing my post, so I apologize if I came off as hostile
However, I believe my point still stands.
It's a matter of definition. All agnostics are atheists, but there is a reason the word "agnostic" exists.
Indeed, it is all a matter of definition. That's what makes it so important that we define the terms properly.
That may be what you hear but nobody in this thread stated that nor do I expect all of us have shared similar experiences. Not only that, but there really are people who believe as fervently in a lack of a god as those who believe in a god. I don't see why a complete disbelief in a deity would seem an impossible idea to hold whereas complete belief in a deity would not. Why is the existence of the inverse philosophy so difficult to accept?
Well, before I try and affirm the rather blanket statements I made, I'd like to point out that complete faith in a deity is required to subscribe to religion while there is always room for doubt in atheism, therefore we cannot argue inverses since the two systems are, despite the opposing semantics, not true inverses.
Nobody is being dishonest. That is the definition of the word. I am fairly certain the christian god is a demonstrably false one. That doesn't mean I will stop calling myself a pure agnostic when specificity is required.
And here I wish to tackle the meat of the issue.
Again, I'll bring up the issue of the unicorn (and other mythological beasts). If I am pretty darn sure that a unicorn doesn't exist based on evidence, but I am completely open to theories of there being alternate universes/dimensions/solar systems/futures/etc. where unicorns exist- well, then I'd say I'm a unicorn atheist. I could call myself a unicorn agnostic, but then wouldn't I be an everything agnostic? When I walk into McDonald's, I cannot fully affirm that the box of Chicken McNuggets in front of me exists (or does not exist) because we might be in the Matrix. Does that mean I'm a Chicken McNugget agnostic?
Now this is a little bit confusing because I couldn't figure out a way to elegantly organize my points, but here we are arguing definitions (indeed, even beyond Merriam-Webster). I'm arguing atheism through practicality. You can definitely affirm the negative and still be open to possibility. As I explained above, it's what we do everyday. The amount of possibility does not matter. Us being in the Matrix is the same as us not being in it simply because us being in the Matrix is completely out of control. We can analogize it to the possibility of there being a creator-being out there somewhere. But does it actually matter? What matters more, not being sure whether there is something greater out there, or being sure that none of Earth's religions have given viable proof for their own brand of deity? As you said:
I am fairly certain the christian god is a demonstrably false one.
I'd like to take the liberty of assuming that you don't believe in any other gods of any religion either.
So we can either tackle the issue through the eyes of agnosticism and say that absolutely nothing can be proved, which is definitely true, but when you start applying it to mundane things it becomes not only quite silly, but it doesn't even mean anything...
Or we can look at it from a practical standpoint. If you don't believe in any specific deity, you can affirm the negative and be open to possibility. This is why agnostics are, in fact, atheists. Agnosticism by itself means absolutely nothing.
This is also the point I was trying to illustrate with the atheism meter. If you don't believe in possibility, no matter how slight, you are irrational. If you are arguing that irrational people exist in this world, I agree. I'll revise my statement. Few, if any, atheists reject even the slightest possibility of a creator being.
But back to the argument. Again, calling yourself an agnostic means nothing.
Which brings us all the way back to my huge spiel about the stigma of atheism. If calling yourself an agnostic means nothing, why do it? The rational reason lies right in front of us. Calling yourself an atheist draws hate. I don't have statistics or anything, but there are plenty of news stories about atheist kids refusing to pray that get ostracized by their communities. Not to mention we can look at atheism historically. Did you know that in addition to being built to house Jews, political rivals, and homosexuals, concentration camps were built to house atheists?
As I stated (rather unclearly I might add) in my previous post, this choice does not have to be conscious. Indeed, I'll throw out a number out there and say that 95% of people who call themselves "agnostic" don't make the choice between atheism and agnosticism consciously. They look at the two words and unconsciously figure that because they're open to possibility, they're agnostic, when in fact they're atheist, simply because they unconsciously view atheism in a negative light.
But seriously, who here is stigmatizing atheists? Certainly not me since I am an atheist. To whom are you referring? You're most likely preaching to the choir.
I apologize if it felt like I was targeting you in particular. However, I'd say that since the world is the web, and most of the world is theist, I'm probably not preaching to the choir. I'd argue that most theists don't view atheism in a positive way because of their belief system. I don't have any numbers and I doubt they'd be of use anyways. People don't have to show prejudice outwardly. Ever see a white woman huddle a bit closer with her kids when a black man walks by? Or an old lady roll up the windows when a burly guy comes out of a tattoo shop? Atheists get that and more, because it's acceptable to hate them.
I argue definitions because I think it's important for atheists to face their beliefs, and calling oneself "agnostic" is anything but.
The point is he is under no obligation to listen to any prayers and just because he did not listen to your prayers does not disqualify the rest of humanities chances of having their prayers answered.
We may never know why exactly he answer some prayers and others not. There may be a thousands of variables he has to consider to decide whether it is good to answer a specific prayer. Many of which may transcend our understanding.
Lets say for instance you pray to get a promotion. Unbeknownst to you there is another person who is also up for this promotion. Lets say he has a bad case of depression and if the promotion goes to you he may just fell helpless enough to end his own life.
You would off course know nothing about this other person's problems and if the promotion does not come your way you may just shrug at the unfairness of it all and you question why exactly your reasonable request was not answered.
There may be mitigating circumstances that we were just simply never aware of that makes God not willing to answer a prayer.
My examples may be simplistic but I do think it illustrates a point on why sometimes the most basic of request may have a bad effect on people that we would never be aware of.
But if he is in fact answering some prayers, regardless of how obscure the reasons for selecting which to answer might be, that would still show up in aggregate statistics. If we go back to the medical outcomes example, if he's answering anyone's prayers for a better outcome, then we would see that in the overall statistics. Unless you're suggesting that he kills someone else who would have recovered just to balance things out?
Have you ever asked a doctor if he has ever seen a remarkable comeback from illness? He may not be 100% if the person prayed for better health but remarkable recoveries could very easily be from divine intervention of some sort.
It could be more common of a event as which you give it credit for.
I bet they've also seen remarkable turns for the worse, when someone who should have been fine just didn't pull through. Maybe that's evidence that evil hexes work?
Obviously, we should expect that natural variance of outcomes means that sometimes people who statistically had a low chance of survival will get better, and sometimes people who had a high chance won't. That's not some sort of unexplained mystery, that's just how the world works - outliers are uncommon, but they do happen.
Have you ever asked a doctor if he has ever seen a remarkable comeback from illness? He may not be 100% if the person prayed for better health but remarkable recoveries could very easily be from divine intervention of some sort.
It could be more common of a event as which you give it credit for.
How do we know that such recoveries come from divine intervention?
Have you ever asked a doctor if he has ever seen a remarkable comeback from illness? He may not be 100% if the person prayed for better health but remarkable recoveries could very easily be from divine intervention of some sort.
It could be more common of a event as which you give it credit for.
Do people NOT recover if no one prays for them? Do atheists with atheist friends recover less often than christians with christian friends? How do we know there is an effect above the baseline? By studies, and we've cited the results. However, you seem to be claiming it's scientifically impossible to measure the effects of prayer. Ok, that's what I, Zaphrasz, and Tiax are ALSO claiming. We all agree!
See,
If it's scientifically impossible to measure the difference prayer makes, then it doesn't physically make any difference.
Have you ever asked a doctor if he has ever seen a remarkable comeback from illness? He may not be 100% if the person prayed for better health but remarkable recoveries could very easily be from divine intervention of some sort.
It could be more common of a event as which you give it credit for.
Do people NOT recover if no one prays for them? Do atheists with atheist friends recover less often than christians with christian friends? How do we know there is an effect above the baseline? By studies, and we've cited the results. However, you seem to be claiming it's scientifically impossible to measure the effects of prayer. Ok, that's what I, Zaphrasz, and Tiax are ALSO claiming. We all agree!
See,
If it's scientifically impossible to measure the difference prayer makes, then it doesn't physically make any difference.
Or maybe you scientific methods are inadequate to discern the truth of the matter. Really what scientific method can really tell us whether there is a God(s) or whether he is able to answer prayers.
Really what scientific method can really tell us whether there is a God(s) or whether he is able to answer prayers.
Did you mean to say: "Really what scientific method can really tell us is NOT whether there is a God(s) BUT whether he is able to answer prayers."
Because than I agree.
Currently, the scientific method cannot tell us if a God does or does not exist. However, it can be used to see if the methods that people use in the hopes that God will physically affect the world work or not. We can use it to see if pray works to heal the sick just as easily as we can use it to tell if a new kind of medicine does.
If God 'touches' the physical world, then the effects of that touch can be determined by the scientific method.
Well, before I try and affirm the rather blanket statements I made, I'd like to point out that complete faith in a deity is required to subscribe to religion while there is always room for doubt in atheism, therefore we cannot argue inverses since the two systems are, despite the opposing semantics, not true inverses.
Really? So you're allowed to doubt yourself about your belief in the existence of god while a religious folks cannot? So when one believes in a religion, there is absolutely cannot be a doubt in their mind? Huh.
Again, I'll bring up the issue of the unicorn (and other mythological beasts). If I am pretty darn sure that a unicorn doesn't exist based on evidence,
I'll stop you right there. You say that the unicorn doesn't exist based on evidence, but the difference is that you cannot even begin to bring out evidence that God doesn't exist, if nothing else because of rhetorical reasons.
You need to separate Christianity from God. I know it sounds bizarre, but disproving claims made by Christians do not necessarily prove that God doesn't exist. It can certainly prove that the religion is based off ridiculous claims and is bunk; but that doesn't mean that the Christian God cannot exist.
but I am completely open to theories of there being alternate universes/dimensions/solar systems/futures/etc. where unicorns exist- well, then I'd say I'm a unicorn atheist. I could call myself a unicorn agnostic, but then wouldn't I be an everything agnostic? When I walk into McDonald's, I cannot fully affirm that the box of Chicken McNuggets in front of me exists (or does not exist) because we might be in the Matrix. Does that mean I'm a Chicken McNugget agnostic?
The relevant part here is that you're twisting the word to fit your needs and ignoring the general meaning of both atheism and agnosticism as it's used to most others.
As for your chicken nugget claim. You would be right if we lacked every and all ability to prove the existence of things in front of me. As it stands, I can reasonably prove that it is a laptop in front of me that I am typing on instead of air. As for whether we're actually in the Matrix and I only think I'm typing, then sure. Maybe that could be true. But there's absolutely no way for me to test that unless I have Morpheus approach me with a red or blue pill, so as such I can only be an agnostic regarding the existence of the Matrix.
That is the basic premise of agnosticism. We simply lack the ability to make any genuine determination on the existence of something, and as such making a judgment one way or another is silly.
Atheism is surety. Agnosticism is uncertainty. Both in the face of currently existing and available evidence.
But how can you say that you're sure of anything that doesn't exist in a closed system (not sure if this is the right word, but just to clarify- a convention for writing, for example). Isn't that being about as bull-headed as religious folks?
Keep in mind that religious folks have plenty of evidence to support their beliefs (the most general and frequent being claims of miraculous healing, which I do believe I've seen). The issue is that you folks do not accept those evidence for perfectly valid reasons.
Which brings us all the way back to my huge spiel about the stigma of atheism. If calling yourself an agnostic means nothing, why do it? The rational reason lies right in front of us. Calling yourself an atheist draws hate. I don't have statistics or anything, but there are plenty of news stories about atheist kids refusing to pray that get ostracized by their communities. Not to mention we can look at atheism historically. Did you know that in addition to being built to house Jews, political rivals, and homosexuals, concentration camps were built to house atheists?
And being a Christian in many very non-religious communities also get you lots of unwanted attention. The minority always get **** upon by the majority.
Did you know that Catholics in France massacred hundreds of thousands of Protestants?
People hate those with religious differences is what I take away from here.
I apologize if it felt like I was targeting you in particular. However, I'd say that since the world is the web, and most of the world is theist, I'm probably not preaching to the choir. I'd argue that most theists don't view atheism in a positive way because of their belief system. I don't have any numbers and I doubt they'd be of use anyways. People don't have to show prejudice outwardly. Ever see a white woman huddle a bit closer with her kids when a black man walks by? Or an old lady roll up the windows when a burly guy comes out of a tattoo shop? Atheists get that and more, because it's acceptable to hate them.
This is ignoring the general pattern that like-minded folks coalesce around themselves.
Yes. It may be the case that most of the world population is theist (Honestly not sure though), but the vast majority of the internet using population may not be. I strongly believe that theists are in the minority on this particular website though. So you may be preaching to the choir here.
Did you know that Catholics in France massacred hundreds of thousands of Protestants?
Yes so much so that they ( French Protestants ) were willing to relocate themselves to the Southern Parts of Africa and helped kick start a nation all on their own.
Do you say that faster-than-light travel may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, faster-than-light travel doesn't exist?
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that faster than light travel does not exist.
Finally,
Do you say that 'not-God' may or may not exist because a lack of evidence isn't evidence, or do you say, 'not-God' doesn't exist?
This is you shifting the burden of proof. The phrase "not-God" still requires the assumption that God is an actual thing; and therein you have to entertain the God claim. I don't say "not-God", just like I don't say "not-Santa", because I can just say "where's your proof of your extraordinary claim of this thing called God." But I'm not saying "not-God", I'm saying "there is no God". I am not making a claim, I'm simply rejecting the claim already presented.
I've had this debate elswhere and there is no reason why a deist conception of God is any more reasonable than Allah. The specificity of a deity claim has no effect on the burden of proof. The claims fall apart equally due to a lack of evidnece.
In logic there is no "default position," and making one only stifles thought.
There is logic in a default position:
Person A claims X.
Person B asks for evidence of X.
Person A fails to provide evidence for X.
Person B rejects claim X.
Person B returns to the default position and can go further in stating that claim X does not exist due to lack of evidence.
But here's what you're saying:
Person A claims X.
Person B asks for evidence of X.
Person A fails to provide evidence for X.
Person B rejects claim X but decides to accept the possibility of Person A's claim simply because they thought of or imagined claim X.
Am I wrong in thinking that you believe thought alone makes something possible?
Default positions are a starting point. They don't stifle thought, they create the basis for innovation and imagination. Having the default belief that one will wake up tomorrow doesn't make us do nothing today, it frees us to make long term goals and meet them.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
You can only say may or may not exist for all of those. You lack understanding of basic logic if you say otherwise, and you're only letting your emotions get in the way if you do understand basic logic.
Here's a much easier example for you to understand.
"I've yet to get a 180 on my LSAT PT. Therefore, I will never get a 180 on my LSAT PT."
Or
"We've yet to land a man on Mars. Therefore, we will never land a man on Mars."
Note that everything you wrote above effectively translates to my examples.
Does that make sense?
In terms of logic, you cannot make a conclusion that is supported by the nonexistence or lack of of something.
Your examples show a total lack of reading comprehension.
I'm saying: Without evidence, claim 'x' can be rejected.
You're saying: Something hasn't been done yet; therefore it won't be done.
Not the same at all sir.
Here's what I'm gathering from all the "pure logic" brainiacs here:
Joe is accused of theft.
Joe is found to be innocent due to a lack of evidence to convict him.
You all are seem to be saying that I must hold that Joe may or may not be innocent and not make a conclusion.
I'd say Joe is innocent. The claim of theft was never proven in the first place, therefore we return to a default position of innocence.
I see plenty of logic in coming to such a conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong.
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
Person B returns to the default position and can go further in stating that claim X does not exist due to lack of evidence.
So, since the Greeks had no evidence that the Earth circles the Sun, the Earth doesn't circle the Sun?
That's what you're saying. And that is ridiculous.
Random Greek guy A says "The Sun doesn't circle Earth! Earth circles the Sun!"
Random Greek guy B says "Where's your evidence for this claim!?!"
Random Greek guy A says "Err. I don't have any. I've been told this from some guy from the future that it's absolutely true though."
Random Greek guy B says "Bull****. Time travel doesn't exist. Since you don't have any evidence, I have no choice but to reject your claim. Furthermore, since you have no evidence supporting your claim, it must not be true."
That is why the lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence for anything.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude aliens don't exist.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that faster than light travel does not exist.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that those planets do not exist.
Well, you have a consistent worldview, but I guess it likely took you longer than most to obtain object permanence.
This is you shifting the burden of proof. The phrase "not-God" still requires the assumption that God is an actual thing; and therein you have to entertain the God claim. I don't say "not-God", just like I don't say "not-Santa", because I can just say "where's your proof of your extraordinary claim of this thing called God." Until there is proof that even the concept of "God" is even an acual thing, I can say such a thing doesn't exist.
When formulating something from pure logic, the belief in "not-God" is simply the the belief in the negation of God: B(G) and B(¬G). Where "B" is the function of "belief in" and 'G' would be 'God.'
A undoubting theist would have B(G) and an undoubting atheist would have B(¬G), while a pure agnostic would have ¬B(¬G) and ¬B(G).
Because both B(¬G) AND B(G) would have to be justified.
I've had this debate elswhere and there is no reason why a deist conception of God is any more reasonable than Allah.
Because one makes falsifiable claims and the other does not. A God that doesn't physically touch the world cannot be disproven by science (just most find such a God abject).
Am I wrong in thinking that you believe thought alone makes something possible?
No. You're wrong because the Negative Proof Fallacy is a Fallacy.
"is an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true."
And this kind of thinking leads to the whole problem.
See, atheist think that God not existing is the starting point, since they come at it from the assumption He doesn't exists.
Theists think that God existing is the default position, since they come at it from the assumption He exists.
Now, this is the part were you claim babies are atheists, but we're not talking about babies; we are talking about grown men who have grown up to believe something a certain way. That "base belief" is what individuals take as the "default position," which is why people often fall for argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Fallacies happen because humans aren't wired to rely solely on logic, and those "known issues" in our programing reveal themselves as common fallacies in our thinking.
Actually, everyone has evidence from which to base object permance off of. God claims do not.
You didn't touch this, I'd like an answer: Am I wrong in thinking that you believe thought alone makes something possible?
So what's the point of this discussion Taylor? If we can't conclude anything why even talk about it? What is the point of your beloved pure logic?
And yeah magikware, there would be no reason to think the sun went around the Earth without evidnce. It's not idiotic, it's rationalism. I'm tired of your strawmans dude, just make a true comparison. I'm talking about the here and now, I don't care about possibilites that aren't proven and the Greeks shouldn't have either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
You're saying: Something hasn't been done yet; therefore it won't be done.
Incorrect. What I was saying that since we lack evidence for something (in my examples written as our current inability to do something, but I can replace this with a million other things and it'll come out to the same thing) it cannot be done. Note that's exactly what you wrote.
We've yet to land a man on Mars. Therefore, we do not have evidence that we can actually land a man on Mars. Given this, we will never land a man on Mars.
Here's what I'm gathering from all the "pure logic" brainiacs here:
Joe is accused of theft.
Joe is found to be innocent due to a lack of evidence to convict him.
I'd say Joe is innocent.
You all are seem to be saying that I must hold that Joe may or may not be innocent.
I see plenty of logic in coming to such a conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong.
And it is absolutely the case that you cannot say that Joe is innocent.
You're making an implicit assumption that if someone is not convicted of a crime, he must be innocent. But that's not true.
Here-
I stole some mtg cards from my friend.
There is no evidence that I stole mtg cards from my friend, and so I cannot be convicted of the crime.
Therefore, I am innocent.
Actually, everyone has evidence from which to base object permance off of. God claims do not.
And that's why we reject the claim "God exists" as fact.
So what's the point of this discussion Taylor? If we can't conclude anything why even talk about it? What is the point of your beloved pure logic?
The point is, as I imagine, to try and understand what sorts of beliefs are justifiable. Perhaps we will gain new insights and change our opinions? This is why we take the uncertain position: we are not so arrogant as to think we know the answers (even if they are the negative).
And what's funny about your "innocent/guilty" argument before is that even a minor foray into (true in the U.S. and i'd imagine in several other countries) that we don't claim a victim is "innocent", ever! This is because you do not need to prove somebody's innocence! This is why you say "guilty" or "not guilty". You will never hear "innocent" from a jury (in the united states at least).
We've yet to land a man on Mars. Therefore, we do not have evidence that we can actually land a man on Mars. Given this, we will never land a man on Mars.
Simpler?
Why is time incorporated into this? This is just a pass/fail test every time a claim is made. You ask me if God exists, I will say no. If at a later date there is evidence to support that claim, I will say yes. I don't see how rejecting a claim means I'm making a positive claim about the inverse.
And it is absolutely the case that you cannot say that Joe is innocent.
You're making an implicit assumption that if someone is not convicted of a crime, he must be innocent. But that's not true.
Here-
I stole some mtg cards from my friend.
There is no evidence that I stole mtg cards from my friend, and so I cannot be convicted of the crime.
Therefore, I am innocent.
Doesn't work.
So basically, pure logic has nothing to do with real life as it is utterly irrelevant. I'm just making a judgment, it's what happens when one has to live life and make their own truth.
Again I ask, if pure logic does not allow for any conclusions to be reached, what's the point in discussing anything further?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
Why is time incorporated into this? This is just a pass/fail test every time a claim is made. You ask me if God exists, I will say no. If at a later date there is evidence to support that claim, I will say yes. I don't see how rejecting a claim means I'm making a positive claim about the inverse.
You just said you will conclude that god does not exist in several of your earlier posts. You ARE making a positive claim about the inverse when you do this.
So basically, pure logic has nothing to do with real life as it is utterly irrelevant. I'm just making a judgment, it's what happens when one has to live life and make their own truth.
Again I ask, if pure logic does not allow for any conclusions to be reached, what's the point in discussing anything further?
It does allow for conclusions to be reached. We have already demonstrated that we can reject false claims. In your eyes, you already know the answer: "you can't prove it is true therefore it is false". We aren't so arrogant as to make that statement without more evidence.
Logic is the methodology to determine truth from known truth. Just because you don't understand the significance of not making errors with your claims does not mean nobody else does.
Why is time incorporated into this? This is just a pass/fail test every time a claim is made. You ask me if God exists, I will say no. If at a later date there is evidence to support that claim, I will say yes. I don't see how rejecting a claim means I'm making a positive claim about the inverse.
There is a significant difference between-
"A makes claim X without evidence to support claim X. Therefore, claim X cannot be substantiated or taken as true."
and
"A makes claim X without evidence to support claim X. Therefore, claim X is false/not true."
In the first one, we are merely rejecting claim X. In the second one, you are taking the rejection of claim X and going another step further. You are now asserting that, because claim X isn't supported at this time, it must be false. That is a logical flaw because you cannot jump from "claim X is not supported" to "it must be false" without an assumption that "if a claim is not supported, then it must be false". The issue with this assumption, or any assumption for that matter, is that they're just bad. Assumptions are bad; because they're not objectively true and cannot be relied upon. What happens if the assumption suddenly turns false?
For more practical purposes, the difference between the two is that, in the first one, the possibility of X is still left open. It could very well be unlikely that it'll ever be true, but the possibility is still left open.
In the second one, you are shutting said possibility down.
Doing the second one stifles thought; the first one does not. That is one of the most important reasons why this difference is significant. There are others, but they're less important and much more technical.
Really basically said, you're simplifying the issue to a gross degree, and as such you're missing a lot of the nuances and technicalities that are rather important.
For real life applications, just think on this for a second-
There is only 1 million dollars to fund a potential breast cancer treatment. There are two plans- Plan A and plan B. The two research are done by researcher Todd, who handles plan A, and researcher Bob, who handles B. Both are great proponents of their given plan, and both were given half the money to do research/testing/etc. In the end, Plan A had some results while plan B had no results at all. Therefore, plan B should be completely abandoned and plan A should be the only one given more funding.
That is the simplest one I can make without taking a lot of time on this. Hopefully you can see how this applies.
But here's a simple translation-
Researcher Bob makes a claim that plan B may be promising for breast cancer treatment. After spending all his money, it turns out that we has no evidence to support his initial claim.
Then we move onto the two above conclusions-
Therefore, researcher Bob's claim cannot be substantiated at this time.
Therefore, researcher Bob's claim is false/cannot be true.
It should be obvious just how different the following approach to those two conclusions are.
So basically, pure logic has nothing to do with real life as it is utterly irrelevant. I'm just making a judgment, it's what happens when one has to live life and make their own truth.
Again I ask, if pure logic does not allow for any conclusions to be reached, what's the point in discussing anything further?
On the contrary, you're just not seeing it clearly.
Logic is the methodology of seeing things clearly and making determinations based off what we know. It is the "science" of getting utterly hard facts and truth out of existing(note, this is incredibly absolutely ****ing important) knowledge.
As Taylor mentioned earlier, true logic frequently contradicts and goes entirely against what your brain intuitively thinks to be right. Logic is not your brain's default position on things.
And without logic, a lot of the conclusions that we reach for science and math and engineering and the like could never have been reached.
Here's an incredibly simple one.
1+1=2
That is a logic statement, though it may not look like it. If you have one apple and I give you another apple, then you have two apples. You do not have three, four, ten, 50,000 apples. No, you just have two apples.
If this wasn't the case, then we can't do anything.
And from this spawns virtually our entire knowledge of how the world functions.
(Coincidentally, that is why certain concepts being tested in physics today [my favorite is that certain particles literally change their reality depending on how we look at it- UTTER MIND****] really just go against all existing logic)
So what's the point of this discussion Taylor? If we can't conclude anything why even talk about it? What is the point of your beloved pure logic?
Because, while we can't conclude anything, but you are(were?) concluding something. Which normally I'd not mind all that much, except you seem to also think you're logical in your conclusions.
See, I chose my words carefully in the OP. 'Sensible,' 'reasonable,' and 'tenable' aren't equivalent to "correct," "logical," and "proven."
I don't see how rejecting a claim means I'm making a positive claim about the inverse.
If you're now claiming to be a pure agonistic, then you're not. However, that would be a different claim than the one you first made. But, maybe "positive claim" is too harsh, since you're more leaning.
You're likely making a "reasoned" choice, but not a "logical" one.[1] At least not the way you are currently constructing your claim structures.
This is demonstratively false, and we have several posters on this forum alone that identify as Hard Atheists. I does seem to come as a shock sometimes to agnostic atheists, but there are plenty of people who are certain there is no God.
BTW, that's the distinction you've been looking for: Negative and positive atheism
The point is he is under no obligation to listen to any prayers and just because he did not listen to your prayers does not disqualify the rest of humanities chances of having their prayers answered.
We may never know why exactly he answer some prayers and others not. There may be a thousands of variables he has to consider to decide whether it is good to answer a specific prayer. Many of which may transcend our understanding.
Lets say for instance you pray to get a promotion. Unbeknownst to you there is another person who is also up for this promotion. Lets say he has a bad case of depression and if the promotion goes to you he may just fell helpless enough to end his own life.
You would off course know nothing about this other person's problems and if the promotion does not come your way you may just shrug at the unfairness of it all and you question why exactly your reasonable request was not answered.
There may be mitigating circumstances that we were just simply never aware of that makes God not willing to answer a prayer.
My examples may be simplistic but I do think it illustrates a point on why sometimes the most basic of request may have a bad effect on people that we would never be aware of.
But if he is in fact answering some prayers, regardless of how obscure the reasons for selecting which to answer might be, that would still show up in aggregate statistics. If we go back to the medical outcomes example, if he's answering anyone's prayers for a better outcome, then we would see that in the overall statistics. Unless you're suggesting that he kills someone else who would have recovered just to balance things out?
However, I believe my point still stands.
Indeed, it is all a matter of definition. That's what makes it so important that we define the terms properly.
Well, before I try and affirm the rather blanket statements I made, I'd like to point out that complete faith in a deity is required to subscribe to religion while there is always room for doubt in atheism, therefore we cannot argue inverses since the two systems are, despite the opposing semantics, not true inverses.
And here I wish to tackle the meat of the issue.
Again, I'll bring up the issue of the unicorn (and other mythological beasts). If I am pretty darn sure that a unicorn doesn't exist based on evidence, but I am completely open to theories of there being alternate universes/dimensions/solar systems/futures/etc. where unicorns exist- well, then I'd say I'm a unicorn atheist. I could call myself a unicorn agnostic, but then wouldn't I be an everything agnostic? When I walk into McDonald's, I cannot fully affirm that the box of Chicken McNuggets in front of me exists (or does not exist) because we might be in the Matrix. Does that mean I'm a Chicken McNugget agnostic?
Now this is a little bit confusing because I couldn't figure out a way to elegantly organize my points, but here we are arguing definitions (indeed, even beyond Merriam-Webster). I'm arguing atheism through practicality. You can definitely affirm the negative and still be open to possibility. As I explained above, it's what we do everyday. The amount of possibility does not matter. Us being in the Matrix is the same as us not being in it simply because us being in the Matrix is completely out of control. We can analogize it to the possibility of there being a creator-being out there somewhere. But does it actually matter? What matters more, not being sure whether there is something greater out there, or being sure that none of Earth's religions have given viable proof for their own brand of deity? As you said:
I'd like to take the liberty of assuming that you don't believe in any other gods of any religion either.
So we can either tackle the issue through the eyes of agnosticism and say that absolutely nothing can be proved, which is definitely true, but when you start applying it to mundane things it becomes not only quite silly, but it doesn't even mean anything...
Or we can look at it from a practical standpoint. If you don't believe in any specific deity, you can affirm the negative and be open to possibility. This is why agnostics are, in fact, atheists. Agnosticism by itself means absolutely nothing.
This is also the point I was trying to illustrate with the atheism meter. If you don't believe in possibility, no matter how slight, you are irrational. If you are arguing that irrational people exist in this world, I agree. I'll revise my statement. Few, if any, atheists reject even the slightest possibility of a creator being.
But back to the argument. Again, calling yourself an agnostic means nothing.
Which brings us all the way back to my huge spiel about the stigma of atheism. If calling yourself an agnostic means nothing, why do it? The rational reason lies right in front of us. Calling yourself an atheist draws hate. I don't have statistics or anything, but there are plenty of news stories about atheist kids refusing to pray that get ostracized by their communities. Not to mention we can look at atheism historically. Did you know that in addition to being built to house Jews, political rivals, and homosexuals, concentration camps were built to house atheists?
As I stated (rather unclearly I might add) in my previous post, this choice does not have to be conscious. Indeed, I'll throw out a number out there and say that 95% of people who call themselves "agnostic" don't make the choice between atheism and agnosticism consciously. They look at the two words and unconsciously figure that because they're open to possibility, they're agnostic, when in fact they're atheist, simply because they unconsciously view atheism in a negative light.
I apologize if it felt like I was targeting you in particular. However, I'd say that since the world is the web, and most of the world is theist, I'm probably not preaching to the choir. I'd argue that most theists don't view atheism in a positive way because of their belief system. I don't have any numbers and I doubt they'd be of use anyways. People don't have to show prejudice outwardly. Ever see a white woman huddle a bit closer with her kids when a black man walks by? Or an old lady roll up the windows when a burly guy comes out of a tattoo shop? Atheists get that and more, because it's acceptable to hate them.
I argue definitions because I think it's important for atheists to face their beliefs, and calling oneself "agnostic" is anything but.
Have you ever asked a doctor if he has ever seen a remarkable comeback from illness? He may not be 100% if the person prayed for better health but remarkable recoveries could very easily be from divine intervention of some sort.
It could be more common of a event as which you give it credit for.
Obviously, we should expect that natural variance of outcomes means that sometimes people who statistically had a low chance of survival will get better, and sometimes people who had a high chance won't. That's not some sort of unexplained mystery, that's just how the world works - outliers are uncommon, but they do happen.
Do people NOT recover if no one prays for them? Do atheists with atheist friends recover less often than christians with christian friends? How do we know there is an effect above the baseline? By studies, and we've cited the results. However, you seem to be claiming it's scientifically impossible to measure the effects of prayer. Ok, that's what I, Zaphrasz, and Tiax are ALSO claiming. We all agree!
See,
If it's scientifically impossible to measure the difference prayer makes, then it doesn't physically make any difference.
Or maybe you scientific methods are inadequate to discern the truth of the matter. Really what scientific method can really tell us whether there is a God(s) or whether he is able to answer prayers.
Did you mean to say:
"Really what scientific method can really tell us is NOT whether there is a God(s) BUT whether he is able to answer prayers."
Because than I agree.
Currently, the scientific method cannot tell us if a God does or does not exist. However, it can be used to see if the methods that people use in the hopes that God will physically affect the world work or not. We can use it to see if pray works to heal the sick just as easily as we can use it to tell if a new kind of medicine does.
If God 'touches' the physical world, then the effects of that touch can be determined by the scientific method.
Really? So you're allowed to doubt yourself about your belief in the existence of god while a religious folks cannot? So when one believes in a religion, there is absolutely cannot be a doubt in their mind? Huh.
I'll stop you right there. You say that the unicorn doesn't exist based on evidence, but the difference is that you cannot even begin to bring out evidence that God doesn't exist, if nothing else because of rhetorical reasons.
You need to separate Christianity from God. I know it sounds bizarre, but disproving claims made by Christians do not necessarily prove that God doesn't exist. It can certainly prove that the religion is based off ridiculous claims and is bunk; but that doesn't mean that the Christian God cannot exist.
The relevant part here is that you're twisting the word to fit your needs and ignoring the general meaning of both atheism and agnosticism as it's used to most others.
As for your chicken nugget claim. You would be right if we lacked every and all ability to prove the existence of things in front of me. As it stands, I can reasonably prove that it is a laptop in front of me that I am typing on instead of air. As for whether we're actually in the Matrix and I only think I'm typing, then sure. Maybe that could be true. But there's absolutely no way for me to test that unless I have Morpheus approach me with a red or blue pill, so as such I can only be an agnostic regarding the existence of the Matrix.
That is the basic premise of agnosticism. We simply lack the ability to make any genuine determination on the existence of something, and as such making a judgment one way or another is silly.
Atheism is surety. Agnosticism is uncertainty. Both in the face of currently existing and available evidence.
But how can you say that you're sure of anything that doesn't exist in a closed system (not sure if this is the right word, but just to clarify- a convention for writing, for example). Isn't that being about as bull-headed as religious folks?
Keep in mind that religious folks have plenty of evidence to support their beliefs (the most general and frequent being claims of miraculous healing, which I do believe I've seen). The issue is that you folks do not accept those evidence for perfectly valid reasons.
And being a Christian in many very non-religious communities also get you lots of unwanted attention. The minority always get **** upon by the majority.
Did you know that Catholics in France massacred hundreds of thousands of Protestants?
People hate those with religious differences is what I take away from here.
This is ignoring the general pattern that like-minded folks coalesce around themselves.
Yes. It may be the case that most of the world population is theist (Honestly not sure though), but the vast majority of the internet using population may not be. I strongly believe that theists are in the minority on this particular website though. So you may be preaching to the choir here.
Yes so much so that they ( French Protestants ) were willing to relocate themselves to the Southern Parts of Africa and helped kick start a nation all on their own.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude aliens don't exist.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that faster than light travel does not exist.
I say, "evidence please." And with a lack of evidence I conclude that those planets do not exist.
This is you shifting the burden of proof. The phrase "not-God" still requires the assumption that God is an actual thing; and therein you have to entertain the God claim. I don't say "not-God", just like I don't say "not-Santa", because I can just say "where's your proof of your extraordinary claim of this thing called God." But I'm not saying "not-God", I'm saying "there is no God". I am not making a claim, I'm simply rejecting the claim already presented.
I've had this debate elswhere and there is no reason why a deist conception of God is any more reasonable than Allah. The specificity of a deity claim has no effect on the burden of proof. The claims fall apart equally due to a lack of evidnece.
There is logic in a default position:
Person A claims X.
Person B asks for evidence of X.
Person A fails to provide evidence for X.
Person B rejects claim X.
Person B returns to the default position and can go further in stating that claim X does not exist due to lack of evidence.
But here's what you're saying:
Person A claims X.
Person B asks for evidence of X.
Person A fails to provide evidence for X.
Person B rejects claim X but decides to accept the possibility of Person A's claim simply because they thought of or imagined claim X.
Am I wrong in thinking that you believe thought alone makes something possible?
Default positions are a starting point. They don't stifle thought, they create the basis for innovation and imagination. Having the default belief that one will wake up tomorrow doesn't make us do nothing today, it frees us to make long term goals and meet them.
Your examples show a total lack of reading comprehension.
I'm saying: Without evidence, claim 'x' can be rejected.
You're saying: Something hasn't been done yet; therefore it won't be done.
Not the same at all sir.
Here's what I'm gathering from all the "pure logic" brainiacs here:
Joe is accused of theft.
Joe is found to be innocent due to a lack of evidence to convict him.
You all are seem to be saying that I must hold that Joe may or may not be innocent and not make a conclusion.
I'd say Joe is innocent. The claim of theft was never proven in the first place, therefore we return to a default position of innocence.
I see plenty of logic in coming to such a conclusion, correct me if I'm wrong.
So, since the Greeks had no evidence that the Earth circles the Sun, the Earth doesn't circle the Sun?
That's what you're saying. And that is ridiculous.
Random Greek guy A says "The Sun doesn't circle Earth! Earth circles the Sun!"
Random Greek guy B says "Where's your evidence for this claim!?!"
Random Greek guy A says "Err. I don't have any. I've been told this from some guy from the future that it's absolutely true though."
Random Greek guy B says "Bull****. Time travel doesn't exist. Since you don't have any evidence, I have no choice but to reject your claim. Furthermore, since you have no evidence supporting your claim, it must not be true."
That is why the lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence for anything.
When formulating something from pure logic, the belief in "not-God" is simply the the belief in the negation of God: B(G) and B(¬G). Where "B" is the function of "belief in" and 'G' would be 'God.'
A undoubting theist would have B(G) and an undoubting atheist would have B(¬G), while a pure agnostic would have ¬B(¬G) and ¬B(G).
Because both B(¬G) AND B(G) would have to be justified.
Because one makes falsifiable claims and the other does not. A God that doesn't physically touch the world cannot be disproven by science (just most find such a God abject).
No. You're wrong because the Negative Proof Fallacy is a Fallacy.
"is an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true."
And this kind of thinking leads to the whole problem.
See, atheist think that God not existing is the starting point, since they come at it from the assumption He doesn't exists.
Theists think that God existing is the default position, since they come at it from the assumption He exists.
Now, this is the part were you claim babies are atheists, but we're not talking about babies; we are talking about grown men who have grown up to believe something a certain way. That "base belief" is what individuals take as the "default position," which is why people often fall for argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Fallacies happen because humans aren't wired to rely solely on logic, and those "known issues" in our programing reveal themselves as common fallacies in our thinking.
You didn't touch this, I'd like an answer: Am I wrong in thinking that you believe thought alone makes something possible?
So what's the point of this discussion Taylor? If we can't conclude anything why even talk about it? What is the point of your beloved pure logic?
And yeah magikware, there would be no reason to think the sun went around the Earth without evidnce. It's not idiotic, it's rationalism. I'm tired of your strawmans dude, just make a true comparison. I'm talking about the here and now, I don't care about possibilites that aren't proven and the Greeks shouldn't have either.
...
Ok.
Incorrect. What I was saying that since we lack evidence for something (in my examples written as our current inability to do something, but I can replace this with a million other things and it'll come out to the same thing) it cannot be done. Note that's exactly what you wrote.
We've yet to land a man on Mars. Therefore, we do not have evidence that we can actually land a man on Mars. Given this, we will never land a man on Mars.
Simpler?
And it is absolutely the case that you cannot say that Joe is innocent.
You're making an implicit assumption that if someone is not convicted of a crime, he must be innocent. But that's not true.
Here-
I stole some mtg cards from my friend.
There is no evidence that I stole mtg cards from my friend, and so I cannot be convicted of the crime.
Therefore, I am innocent.
Doesn't work.
And that's why we reject the claim "God exists" as fact.
The point is, as I imagine, to try and understand what sorts of beliefs are justifiable. Perhaps we will gain new insights and change our opinions? This is why we take the uncertain position: we are not so arrogant as to think we know the answers (even if they are the negative).
And what's funny about your "innocent/guilty" argument before is that even a minor foray into (true in the U.S. and i'd imagine in several other countries) that we don't claim a victim is "innocent", ever! This is because you do not need to prove somebody's innocence! This is why you say "guilty" or "not guilty". You will never hear "innocent" from a jury (in the united states at least).
Why is time incorporated into this? This is just a pass/fail test every time a claim is made. You ask me if God exists, I will say no. If at a later date there is evidence to support that claim, I will say yes. I don't see how rejecting a claim means I'm making a positive claim about the inverse.
So basically, pure logic has nothing to do with real life as it is utterly irrelevant. I'm just making a judgment, it's what happens when one has to live life and make their own truth.
Again I ask, if pure logic does not allow for any conclusions to be reached, what's the point in discussing anything further?
You just said you will conclude that god does not exist in several of your earlier posts. You ARE making a positive claim about the inverse when you do this.
It does allow for conclusions to be reached. We have already demonstrated that we can reject false claims. In your eyes, you already know the answer: "you can't prove it is true therefore it is false". We aren't so arrogant as to make that statement without more evidence.
Logic is the methodology to determine truth from known truth. Just because you don't understand the significance of not making errors with your claims does not mean nobody else does.
There is a significant difference between-
"A makes claim X without evidence to support claim X. Therefore, claim X cannot be substantiated or taken as true."
and
"A makes claim X without evidence to support claim X. Therefore, claim X is false/not true."
In the first one, we are merely rejecting claim X. In the second one, you are taking the rejection of claim X and going another step further. You are now asserting that, because claim X isn't supported at this time, it must be false. That is a logical flaw because you cannot jump from "claim X is not supported" to "it must be false" without an assumption that "if a claim is not supported, then it must be false". The issue with this assumption, or any assumption for that matter, is that they're just bad. Assumptions are bad; because they're not objectively true and cannot be relied upon. What happens if the assumption suddenly turns false?
For more practical purposes, the difference between the two is that, in the first one, the possibility of X is still left open. It could very well be unlikely that it'll ever be true, but the possibility is still left open.
In the second one, you are shutting said possibility down.
Doing the second one stifles thought; the first one does not. That is one of the most important reasons why this difference is significant. There are others, but they're less important and much more technical.
Really basically said, you're simplifying the issue to a gross degree, and as such you're missing a lot of the nuances and technicalities that are rather important.
For real life applications, just think on this for a second-
There is only 1 million dollars to fund a potential breast cancer treatment. There are two plans- Plan A and plan B. The two research are done by researcher Todd, who handles plan A, and researcher Bob, who handles B. Both are great proponents of their given plan, and both were given half the money to do research/testing/etc. In the end, Plan A had some results while plan B had no results at all. Therefore, plan B should be completely abandoned and plan A should be the only one given more funding.
That is the simplest one I can make without taking a lot of time on this. Hopefully you can see how this applies.
But here's a simple translation-
Researcher Bob makes a claim that plan B may be promising for breast cancer treatment. After spending all his money, it turns out that we has no evidence to support his initial claim.
Then we move onto the two above conclusions-
Therefore, researcher Bob's claim cannot be substantiated at this time.
Therefore, researcher Bob's claim is false/cannot be true.
It should be obvious just how different the following approach to those two conclusions are.
That is about as simple as I can break it down.
On the contrary, you're just not seeing it clearly.
Logic is the methodology of seeing things clearly and making determinations based off what we know. It is the "science" of getting utterly hard facts and truth out of existing(note, this is incredibly absolutely ****ing important) knowledge.
As Taylor mentioned earlier, true logic frequently contradicts and goes entirely against what your brain intuitively thinks to be right. Logic is not your brain's default position on things.
And without logic, a lot of the conclusions that we reach for science and math and engineering and the like could never have been reached.
Here's an incredibly simple one.
1+1=2
That is a logic statement, though it may not look like it. If you have one apple and I give you another apple, then you have two apples. You do not have three, four, ten, 50,000 apples. No, you just have two apples.
If this wasn't the case, then we can't do anything.
And from this spawns virtually our entire knowledge of how the world functions.
(Coincidentally, that is why certain concepts being tested in physics today [my favorite is that certain particles literally change their reality depending on how we look at it- UTTER MIND****] really just go against all existing logic)
Because, while we can't conclude anything, but you are(were?) concluding something. Which normally I'd not mind all that much, except you seem to also think you're logical in your conclusions.
See, I chose my words carefully in the OP. 'Sensible,' 'reasonable,' and 'tenable' aren't equivalent to "correct," "logical," and "proven."
If you're now claiming to be a pure agonistic, then you're not. However, that would be a different claim than the one you first made. But, maybe "positive claim" is too harsh, since you're more leaning.
You're likely making a "reasoned" choice, but not a "logical" one.[1] At least not the way you are currently constructing your claim structures.