|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2009 : 12:24:41 [Permalink]
|
| Awesome paper, River Otter. Well done! |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2009 : 22:28:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I disbelieve in the existence of the gods that other people believe in because I have not been presented with unambiguous evidence that any such gods exist. Because of that attitude, it should be clear that I am skeptical of the existence of gods, but I certainly cannot deny the existence of a god (or gods) which humans haven't yet posited.
Thus, I am an agnostic atheist. I'd bet you are, also. Most "atheists" are.
A small subset of atheists are "true atheists" in the sense suggested by those definitions. Dogmatic denial of all possible gods isn't any more skeptical than acceptance of some god on shoddy evidence.
When I'm able, I advocate for a change in the definitions of the words, for clarity (dictionary definitions, after all, capture popular usage, and so change with time - witness "bad" meaning "cool"). By its roots, "atheist" should simply mean "without god belief" and it shouldn't imply any active denial of any god. Similarly, "agnostic" should simply mean "without spiritual knowledge." Under those definitions, I'm still an agnostic atheist, and most atheists would be the same. Only those who claimed some sort of mystical knowledge that there are no gods would be "true atheists."
|
While I certainly can't say for a fact that no gods exist I also can't think of ANY evidence that would prove they do. (anyone remember that thread  ) |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2009 : 23:13:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
While I certainly can't say for a fact that no gods exist I also can't think of ANY evidence that would prove they do. |
I'm unwilling to completely dismiss certain hypotheses just because I may not be imaginative enough (I'm willing to be surprised). Also, given the number of people who dismiss (for example) evolution because they can't think of any way for a human to have evolved from a bacteria, I'm extremely unwilling to use any sort of failure-of-imagination argument.
That said, it's perfectly legitimate to ask a believer for evidence of God, and then sit back and watch them twist in the wind. There's a big difference between a failure to imagine a test of someone else's hypothesis and a failure to provide evidence for one's own hypothesis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
River Otter
Skeptic Friend
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2009 : 03:30:30 [Permalink]
|
Wow! Thanks you all! I appreciate all of this feedback.
| Looking forward to the next one..... |
Thanks Filthy. I will post it as soon as I get my grade back. It is a persuasive / argument research essay. I wrote about prayer in school and broke down the diversity of the Christian religion.
| And I'm a real bastard for not saying which punctuation marks are superfluous. |
Dave are you trying to make me use my tired brain? I have looked back over this essay and think that the overused punctuation might be commas or quotation marks. Am I correct?
I am glad I started a discussion about the types of atheism, and I would be considered an agnostic atheist according to gogreen. I already knew this though. I like her videos.
Thanks again you all. I'm off to work.
|
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know. -Cicero
Brother, You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book. -Sagoyewatha,(Red Jacket) - Chief and great orator of the six nations. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/13/2009 : 04:07:36 [Permalink]
|
The godly/godless wars continue unabated, eh? It's been long one that has often turned bloody, and doubtless will again.
But in one certain way, it's been of benefit; we skeptics get to vent our spleens upon that which cannot be found and therefore cannot defend itself, and the opposition gets to look ridiculous trying to defend that same vanishingly elusive, not to say: downright silly, entity.
Oddly enough, while we have no chance to come out the winners in this titanic struggle of nonsense, due entirely to the perfectly natural human penchant for self-delusion, we're actually gaining ground. It's gains of the minutest increments, true, but forward progress nevertheless.
Onward and upward, Otter -- the world is yours for conquest!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2009 : 07:34:56 [Permalink]
|
There is a history of argument about the relationship one has with a given philosophical construct. Is a philosophy something that is a pivotal, defining aspect of self or is it something that one holds, for lack of a better way of saying it, at a distance (provisionally)? Are they things we have or are they things we are? In the western tradition (at least) we adopted the idea that a philosophy is a kind of definition of self, in a very personal, internalized, mental and emotional, understanding-of-self kind of way. Hence we hear things like "This is who I am (we are)." One this meme (again, for lack of a better term) becomes part of the public consciousness, it is very difficult to fight or to even recognize.
Theistic philosophies are affirmation-based. What they assume are assumed to be true. Faith is a way of mentally/emotionally "defending" assumptions of truth which are otherwise indefensible. Faith is the operating method of affirmation-based philosophies.
Non-theistic philosophies are not affirmation-based. They too assume, but they do not assume to be true. They assume as a provisional basis for understanding. Faith is not needed since no truth is asserted.
Understanding that theistic philosophies require affirmation, one can clearly see that all views that do not actively affirm are identical from that vantage. Agnosticism and atheism are functionally identical from the perspective of a theist. Neither actively affirms. In each case assent is not given, which makes both atheism and agnosticism skeptical in nature. Skepticism is the eschewing of certainty, or, as the ancient Greek philosophers put it, the not giving of assent. Theists try to depict atheism as a faith because they have no understanding, nor a willingness to even try to understand - indeed not even a context for an ability to understand - non-affirmation-based viewpoints. The idea of not actively affirming is alien and strange to them. Therefore, atheism must be affirming in some way in their view. So they clutch at straws yielding atheism as "affirming a negation."
In this way, it can be clearly understood that all agnostics are effectively atheists, since they do not do what theism requires: actively affirm the existence of a god.
Wherever I have used the word "theistic" (or a variation thereof), the word "dogmatic" (or a variation thereof) may be substituted. Functionally, they are near identical, the primary difference being in the particulars of the content. This self-affirmation function of a philosophy is not limited to religion.
Understanding the dynamics and functions of self-affirming philosophies and the relationship individuals have with them, it becomes clear why a theist refers to atheism as another religion or even as a faith. It is a clearly mistaken apprehension, but it is, in the context, an understandable one. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2009 : 13:25:07 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
| Understanding the dynamics and functions of self-affirming philosophies and the relationship individuals have with them, it becomes clear why a theist refers to atheism as another religion or even as a faith. It is a clearly mistaken apprehension, but it is, in the context, an understandable one. |
It is understandable in the context of "I can understand why they say it." But just as you and I are capable of understanding the difference between philosophies so are theists. While some theists may make the honest mistake of calling atheism a "faith", surely the (large)majority of them are in possession of the mental capacity to comprehend the difference?
I'm not sure I'd call willful ignorance "understandable".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2009 : 14:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Just for the record, as though it needs updating, I became agnostic because I am a skeptic. I am still very much an atheist, however.
What Dave said pretty much covered my reasons for being an "agnostic atheist". |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2009 : 12:24:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by astropin
While I certainly can't say for a fact that no gods exist I also can't think of ANY evidence that would prove they do. |
I'm unwilling to completely dismiss certain hypotheses just because I may not be imaginative enough (I'm willing to be surprised). Also, given the number of people who dismiss (for example) evolution because they can't think of any way for a human to have evolved from a bacteria, I'm extremely unwilling to use any sort of failure-of-imagination argument.
That said, it's perfectly legitimate to ask a believer for evidence of God, and then sit back and watch them twist in the wind. There's a big difference between a failure to imagine a test of someone else's hypothesis and a failure to provide evidence for one's own hypothesis.
|
Well I guess you did forget that thread....or maybe misinterpreted.
I wouldn't call it a "failure-of-imagination" argument. More of an inability for any presented evidence to exceed my preconceived notions of "Natural" VS. "Supernatural"
No matter what evidence is presented it would still seem far more likely that I am in fact dealing with a "Q" type life form VS some sort of actual omnipotence.....not that it really makes much difference at that point.
The difference is one is an evolved life form. The other is an omnipotent being that has always been. Since one is more likely to exist than the other(The evolved being, IMHO) and I have NO way to tell them apart; then there is no way for an omnipotent being to prove itself (beyond altering my mind to force me to) I have little choice but to go with option A)Evolved being. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2009 : 12:37:57 [Permalink]
|
Faith; n.
The vision of a blind eye.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2009 : 07:03:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
dglas said:
| Understanding the dynamics and functions of self-affirming philosophies and the relationship individuals have with them, it becomes clear why a theist refers to atheism as another religion or even as a faith. It is a clearly mistaken apprehension, but it is, in the context, an understandable one. |
It is understandable in the context of "I can understand why they say it." But just as you and I are capable of understanding the difference between philosophies so are theists. While some theists may make the honest mistake of calling atheism a "faith", surely the (large)majority of them are in possession of the mental capacity to comprehend the difference?
I'm not sure I'd call willful ignorance "understandable".
|
The neutral use of the word "understandable" is the one intended here.
Perhaps "explicable" would have served better. Americans and their misuse of the word "understanding." Yeesh! 
[SpockMode]"I understand. I do not approve."[/SpockMode]
I doubt many people put much care in thinking about their philosophical stances, let alone an analytical analysis of the dynamics of them. This is not to say most people couldn't (the mental capacity is likely there), but folks are discouraged from doing so. You and I (may) have the advantage of examining a philosophy from a critical standpoint, by default. Denying critical examination is part of the function of internalizing and personalizing of a philosophy, and a primary function of faith. While you or I may lament the unwillingness of some or many to critically examine their philosophy, and may argue that there is a responsibility to do so, I suggest that it is ...explicable... why such is not often conducted with a view other than to affirm.
Does that help clarify things? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2009 : 08:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Well I guess you did forget that thread....or maybe misinterpreted. |
Forget which thread?I wouldn't call it a "failure-of-imagination" argument. More of an inability for any presented evidence to exceed my preconceived notions of "Natural" VS. "Supernatural"
No matter what evidence is presented it would still seem far more likely that I am in fact dealing with a "Q" type life form VS some sort of actual omnipotence.....not that it really makes much difference at that point.
The difference is one is an evolved life form. The other is an omnipotent being that has always been. Since one is more likely to exist than the other(The evolved being, IMHO) and I have NO way to tell them apart; then there is no way for an omnipotent being to prove itself (beyond altering my mind to force me to) I have little choice but to go with option A)Evolved being. |
Well, you're equating "God" and "supernatural." For all practical purposes, the Q were gods. Natural ones, sure, but gods (or at least extraordinarily god-like) nonetheless. Calling them something others than "gods" because they're natural seems to me to be an unnecessary distinction. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2009 : 10:53:34 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
| Does that help clarify things? |
It does. I was inclined to think that was your intended meaning before, and I definitely agree.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/15/2009 : 11:39:36 [Permalink]
|
I am putting this tripe in here because it kinda/sorta fits what the thread has become, and I am too lazy to start a new topic. Self-refuting Skepticism
by Roger Patterson, AiG–U.S. onJuly 14
Many people in modern society label themselves as skeptics. They publish magazines, participate in various organizations, raise funds to support their causes, and lobby the public through roadside signs, podcasts, and advertisements on buses.
Though there are several organizations to which we could refer, we will focus our attention on the Skeptics Society headed by Dr. Michael Shermer for sake of discussing the relevant points of agreement and disagreement. By explaining the positions given by this organization, you can easily apply them to others who share the same basic views. As Christians, we should have a biblically founded skepticism of the claims made by “skeptics” (Proverbs 18:17).
Skepticism is a humanistic philosophy. Humanists consider man to be the measure of all things. That is, the human mind is considered to be the ultimate standard by which all claims are judged. Humanism is a religious system, the deity of the worldview being man himself. Though the humanists would generally reject the label of religious, they certainly hold their views with zeal and conviction.
Another important element of the humanist religion is naturalism (or, materialism). This belief blindly asserts that nothing beyond nature exists; the physical universe is all that there is. Anything that is supernatural is excluded from this belief system. We will explain these two ideas as we look at the beliefs of skeptical humanists and their manifesto.
The following excerpts are taken from A Skeptical Manifesto, written by Dr. Michael Shermer, which will serve to illustrate the beliefs of those who claim to be skeptics.
To his credit, Dr. Shermer is openly honest about the failure of skepticism as a philosophy.
But what does it mean to be skeptical? Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this is not a practical position to take.
Shermer rightly concludes that if a skeptic were to apply his philosophy to his own views, he would have to be skeptical of skepticism—a position of absurdity. The very foundation of this belief system is self-refuting.
To avoid the absurdity of his argument, Shermer goes on to qualify his beliefs. He adds the qualifiers of rational and scientific to his belief system. He does this in order to justify his claim that he wishes to promote progress, even though skepticism itself does not hold that goal. Exactly what he means by progress is not explained, but it seems to tie into a later discussion of the evolution of mankind to higher levels. However, he provides no scientific or rational validation for what higher means and why his views should be accepted above other views of progress.
|
And he blithers on to some length concerning scientific and rational skepticism, with a carefully mined quote and a bit of Bible-flogging here & there, in an attempt to refute Shermer. Finally he reaches his conclusion:
Conclusion
Mankind has elevated himself throughout history. From the Fall in the Garden, mankind has sought to be equal, if not superior, to God. Like any other philosophy that begins without God as the standard of truth, this humanistic philosophy is arbitrary and logically inconsistent. Applying a little biblically-based skepticism to the claims of these skeptics exposes the flaws.
As we look to God's Word as the foundation for all thinking, we might also be moved to pray for those who suppress the truth of God in unrighteous |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/15/2009 : 15:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Dammit, filthy. Please don't get me started on Shermer.
Skepticism is not self-refuting, but neither is it self-affirming. Suspension of assent is the natural result in being skeptical of skepticism. Doubt is not denial.
That Shermer pays lip service to the stupidity this guy quotes is, in my opinion, indicative of Shermer's dishonesty. To artificially limit the scope of skeptical inquiry is quite a lot like introducing faith based evidence as scientific support - it decimates the whole point of the exercise. What Shermer does to skepticsm is quite like what the cdesign proponentists wanted to do to science, eradicate its efficacy by eradicating its primary function. Worse, Shermer plainly displays his view of skepticism as a sacred cow, by removing it from the realm of inquiry. He has attempted to turn skepticism into a dogma, with himself as the cult leader. Unacceptable in any honest inquiry.
Both Shermer and the person you quote make the same deliberate mistake.
Dammit! You got me started on Shermer.
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 07/15/2009 15:38:56 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Atheists, Our Skeptical Friends
