|
On May 20 2017 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
TOPIC CHANGE
How many peer reviews do laymen have to read on a subject before they are comfortable that research results were not falsified?
Depending on the topic either none or infinity with very little in between.
|
On May 20 2017 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. That's like defining a Christian by the lack of belief in Krishna, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. Which is technically true. Atheism is just taking that lack of belief one religion further.
Yeah really don't want to wade into this argument because I think these are generally wastes of everyone's time, and there's little to change anyone's mind in them. I'll talk about my beliefs all day, and I always love when people come to agree with me, but I've never made a convert by doing the logic to try to prove God. + Show Spoiler +I find it works better to talk to people about where they are and in exchange describe what it is I believe and why I believe it. And mind you I don't believe in God because someone proved it logically to me. I believe in God partly because I think the Bible itself is a pretty remarkable piece of evidence, but mostly because you get to choose whether you live life as though there's a soul of love to the universe, or that it all comes out to nothing in the end. I choose to fight for a God of justice and mercy even if there is no such God, and if we all just die in the end and that's it, I think it will be a life well lived. (Sorry if that got too preachy)
But this is a silly point.
Muslims don't "believe in Mohammad" the way Christians believe in Jesus. They believe in God, just as the Christians do, but they think God is One and Christians think God is One-But-Also-Three. That's a legitimate disagreement about the nature of God, but they all still believe in God.
Similarly, disbelieving in Thor, Krishna, and Artemis aren't the same as disbelieving in God. There is literally an infinite difference between a being that is powerful and immortal and an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent supreme power behind and beyond and throughout the cosmos.
You believe in God (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc.), or you're on the fence about it (Agnostics, Confucians, Buddhists), or you don't (Atheists, most historical Pagans). You can also believe in little "g" gods too, whether or not you believe in big "G" God... Hindus and Pagans do. Or you can disbelieve in gods, as Atheists and Muslims do.
|
On May 20 2017 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
TOPIC CHANGE
How many peer reviews do laymen have to read on a subject before they are comfortable that research results were not falsified?
What does "a peer review" mean in this context?
Do you mean peer reviewed publication in scientific journals?
|
On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me.
Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references.
But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent?
|
On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent?
I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven.
But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans.
|
On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans.
But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime?
|
he's dancing around "i always prepare for the worst"; it's one of his core beliefs it seems.
the premise, whether one is guilty or innocent, is practically irrelevant to him since he'll be prepared either way and as far as conclusions go, no one has yet told him that to do, what to believe; he waits for some input, some order(from someone else), some consensus, a meta.
he is defined by fear(better safe than sorry) and inaction; you can't get him to commit to something unless pre-approved in some form(by law, by society, by conventions, etc).
@Acrofales, if you ask me, you're guilty; i'll bully you until you'll believe it too, as a fun experiment.
|
On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime?
warned twice but never banned. Not quite innocent, but close. That should close the discussion, right? 
|
On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable.
TM, both of your definitions are wrong here. You've incorrectly defined both agnosticism and atheism. Atheism isn't just an affirmative conclusion, and agnosticism is not a lack of opinion.
Gnostic/ Agnostic is whether a person believes that knowledge/ evidence of a god exists.
Theism/ Atheism is whether a person believes that a god exists.
In other words, every person is one of each:
-Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god.
-Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism).
-Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory).
-Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god.
For example, I'm an agnostic atheist; that is to say, I've never come across any convincing enough arguments or evidence for the existence of a god, and for that reason I'm choosing to withhold any declarative belief in a god until I experience such evidence. My stance doesn't declare that no such evidence could ever exist or persuade me, nor does my stance declare that I can prove that God does not- or cannot- exist. Some people may make those additional claims, but they are not required for an agnostic atheist.
Atheism is generally the lack of a belief in a god, rather than the extreme view declaring that a supernatural being cannot possibly exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis- the default position- as is the lack of a belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The onus is on the people making the affirmative claim- that X *does* exist- to back up their arguments for existence. (Obviously they don't have to, but if no evidence is provided for X's existence, then it's rather logical to not believe that X exists.)
|
I tried to explain that to him (the atheist bit at least), but I guess you've done it more completely and with more rigor
|
Well, semantics arguments are rarely useful, so if other people are using the conventional definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" but he's using his own personal definitions of the words, I can't imagine much progress being made 
|
On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. TM, both of your definitions are wrong here. You've incorrectly defined both agnosticism and atheism. Atheism isn't just an affirmative conclusion, and agnosticism is not a lack of opinion. Gnostic/ Agnostic is whether a person believes that knowledge/ evidence of a god exists. Theism/ Atheism is whether a person believes that a god exists. In other words, every person is one of each: -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist; that is to say, I've never come across any convincing enough arguments or evidence for the existence of a god, and for that reason I'm choosing to withhold any declarative belief in a god until I experience such evidence. My stance doesn't declare that no such evidence could ever exist or persuade me, nor does my stance declare that I can prove that God does not- or cannot- exist. Some people may make those additional claims, but they are not required for an agnostic atheist. Atheism is generally the lack of a belief in a god, rather than the extreme view declaring that a supernatural being cannot possibly exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis- the default position- as is the lack of a belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The onus is on the people making the affirmative claim- that X *does* exist- to back up their arguments for existence. (Obviously they don't have to, but if no evidence is provided for X's existence, then it's rather logical to not believe that X exists.)
So would you say that to simply call yourself Atheist is about as incomplete and incorrect as calling yourself a theist (especially since Theism will usually correlate towards a specific branch i.e. Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, etc...)
As such, would it be more accurate for people to simply call themselves agnostic atheists instead?
|
On May 20 2017 17:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 16:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 13:43 Acrofales wrote:On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. But almost 100% believe it. I believe there are entire societies in the US right now who have never seen a single piece of physical proof in the existence of Madagascar outside of media references and books--but they believe it exists. For the grand majority of people, they are given a scientific "fact" but never actually do the research, test, analysis, and work to prove those facts beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe most people take those things in faith knowing that some guy hundreds of years ago did the experiment to show it was a true fact. Usually these "facts" are taught by trained people whose job it is to tell others of the trueness of these facts. Do I believe in Gravity? Why yes I do. As much as majority of the world does. As for you comment about abrahamic gods--that is irrelevant to the discussion. If a guy shows up telling me he believed in Thor, I would ask him "how do you know" and he would show me the proof. The proof could be shit--but I know *why* he believes in Thor. Same with unicorns, same with Jesus. If you asked an atheist what proof he has--he will be the only one without proof, and in fact, will argue that atheism doesn't need proof. When I point out that you can never prove the lack of existence of something, simply because you'll never know if you've simply never found it yet--they will then try to argue why Jesus or Faeries are bad things to believe in. But I don't care about Jesus or Faeries. How crazy other people are does not answer the question why do atheist believe an unprovable concept. Why go so far against the scientific method and come toca conclusion before you have proof of the conclusion. It's boggling. When people believe things I disagree with--I know why they believe it. When people believe things I agree with--I also know why they believe it. When someone is so certain of something that them know has no evidence for it--that sounds crazy to me. Do you, personally, believe I'm innocent? I can point to my lack of a criminal record, and can send you some character references. But you can never know. Right? Isn't it insane to believe I'm innocent? I don't believe anyone is innately innocent. I do believe that the state, by the goodness of their grace, can protect individuals until guilt is proven. But to believe they are innately innocent is naive. I still lock my car door even if no one is around the parking lot because o don't believe in the innate innocence of humans. But right now and me. I'm not interested in your opinion of humanity. Am I innocent? Or guilty of some crime?
Both are equally likely.
|
On May 21 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. TM, both of your definitions are wrong here. You've incorrectly defined both agnosticism and atheism. Atheism isn't just an affirmative conclusion, and agnosticism is not a lack of opinion. Gnostic/ Agnostic is whether a person believes that knowledge/ evidence of a god exists. Theism/ Atheism is whether a person believes that a god exists. In other words, every person is one of each: -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist; that is to say, I've never come across any convincing enough arguments or evidence for the existence of a god, and for that reason I'm choosing to withhold any declarative belief in a god until I experience such evidence. My stance doesn't declare that no such evidence could ever exist or persuade me, nor does my stance declare that I can prove that God does not- or cannot- exist. Some people may make those additional claims, but they are not required for an agnostic atheist. Atheism is generally the lack of a belief in a god, rather than the extreme view declaring that a supernatural being cannot possibly exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis- the default position- as is the lack of a belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The onus is on the people making the affirmative claim- that X *does* exist- to back up their arguments for existence. (Obviously they don't have to, but if no evidence is provided for X's existence, then it's rather logical to not believe that X exists.) So would you say that to simply call yourself Atheist is about as incomplete and incorrect as calling yourself a theist (especially since Theism will usually correlate towards a specific branch i.e. Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, etc...) As such, would it be more accurate for people to simply call themselves agnostic atheists instead?
How do you measure incompleteness or incorrectness in this context? How do you ever expect to reach a consensus on a question like that? I mean... It's literally asking what value you put in those two words... Both are general concepts, and both include a set of different subtypes. If the set is specific enough of course depends on context. Why do you even discuss this nonsense?? I mean... As example: If you are talking about whether religion should play a role in politics or not, then the main distinction in that discussion is probably to separate theists from atheists, and further subtypes are less important. If you are talking about the US muslim ban, then it's highly relevant which religion you subscribe to, much more so than distinguishing subtypes of atheists/agnostics. You people bring this discussion so far away from any practical applications... I don't even... Sigh! Sorry, I go back to lurking now.
|
On May 21 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. TM, both of your definitions are wrong here. You've incorrectly defined both agnosticism and atheism. Atheism isn't just an affirmative conclusion, and agnosticism is not a lack of opinion. Gnostic/ Agnostic is whether a person believes that knowledge/ evidence of a god exists. Theism/ Atheism is whether a person believes that a god exists. In other words, every person is one of each: -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist; that is to say, I've never come across any convincing enough arguments or evidence for the existence of a god, and for that reason I'm choosing to withhold any declarative belief in a god until I experience such evidence. My stance doesn't declare that no such evidence could ever exist or persuade me, nor does my stance declare that I can prove that God does not- or cannot- exist. Some people may make those additional claims, but they are not required for an agnostic atheist. Atheism is generally the lack of a belief in a god, rather than the extreme view declaring that a supernatural being cannot possibly exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis- the default position- as is the lack of a belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The onus is on the people making the affirmative claim- that X *does* exist- to back up their arguments for existence. (Obviously they don't have to, but if no evidence is provided for X's existence, then it's rather logical to not believe that X exists.) So would you say that to simply call yourself Atheist is about as incomplete and incorrect as calling yourself a theist (especially since Theism will usually correlate towards a specific branch i.e. Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, etc...) As such, would it be more accurate for people to simply call themselves agnostic atheists instead?
That's an interesting question. As I mentioned in the previous comment, being a gnostic atheist doesn't really make any sense by definition, so it's pretty safe to assume that any given atheist is also agnostic (therefore, not really requiring any clarification regarding gnosticism).
Religious theists could certainly introduce themselves as believers of their specific religion (Christian, Muslim, etc.) to clarify what religion they belong to, but since atheists generally don't believe in a god (and that's pretty much the single thing that makes them atheists), there usually isn't a reason to qualify their lack of a belief in a deity with "and by the way I think I can/ cannot disprove your specific god". Saying I'm an atheist often gets the main point across, and I'm always happy to go into specifics (not that there are many, as an atheist) if need be (just as how some people may ask Christians or Muslims if they adhere to specific interpretations or rituals or beliefs in their overarching religions).
So the short version of the answer is: Calling myself an atheist definitely isn't "incorrect", and for all intents and purposes is pretty much "complete" enough, as it suffices to give a "No" response to the question "Do you believe in a god?", whereas if the response were "Yes", it basically begs the follow-up question "Which one(s)?" Such a follow-up question really isn't needed to clarify atheism.
|
On May 21 2017 01:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. TM, both of your definitions are wrong here. You've incorrectly defined both agnosticism and atheism. Atheism isn't just an affirmative conclusion, and agnosticism is not a lack of opinion. Gnostic/ Agnostic is whether a person believes that knowledge/ evidence of a god exists. Theism/ Atheism is whether a person believes that a god exists. In other words, every person is one of each: -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist; that is to say, I've never come across any convincing enough arguments or evidence for the existence of a god, and for that reason I'm choosing to withhold any declarative belief in a god until I experience such evidence. My stance doesn't declare that no such evidence could ever exist or persuade me, nor does my stance declare that I can prove that God does not- or cannot- exist. Some people may make those additional claims, but they are not required for an agnostic atheist. Atheism is generally the lack of a belief in a god, rather than the extreme view declaring that a supernatural being cannot possibly exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis- the default position- as is the lack of a belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The onus is on the people making the affirmative claim- that X *does* exist- to back up their arguments for existence. (Obviously they don't have to, but if no evidence is provided for X's existence, then it's rather logical to not believe that X exists.) So would you say that to simply call yourself Atheist is about as incomplete and incorrect as calling yourself a theist (especially since Theism will usually correlate towards a specific branch i.e. Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, etc...) As such, would it be more accurate for people to simply call themselves agnostic atheists instead? That's an interesting question. As I mentioned in the previous comment, being a gnostic atheist doesn't really make any sense by definition, so it's pretty safe to assume that any given atheist is also agnostic (therefore, not really requiring any clarification regarding gnosticism). Religious theists could certainly introduce themselves as believers of their specific religion (Christian, Muslim, etc.) to clarify what religion they belong to, but since atheists generally don't believe in a god (and that's pretty much the single thing that makes them atheists), there usually isn't a reason to qualify their lack of a belief in a deity with "and by the way I think I can/ cannot disprove your specific god". Saying I'm an atheist often gets the main point across, and I'm always happy to go into specifics (not that there are many, as an atheist) if need be (just as how some people may ask Christians or Muslims if they adhere to specific interpretations or rituals or beliefs in their overarching religions). So the short version of the answer is: Calling myself an atheist definitely isn't "incorrect", and for all intents and purposes is pretty much "complete" enough, as it suffices to give a "No" response to the question "Do you believe in a god?", whereas if the response were "Yes", it basically begs the follow-up question "Which one(s)?" Such a follow-up question really isn't needed to clarify atheism.
Not believing in a god and not being convinced by current evidence of a god are very different things.
The reason theists don't brand themselves as such is because they brand themselves to the evidence that is available--koran, bible, stories, relics, etc...
As such, they already specify their subclass.
Atheists do not; primarily because it seems many feel it should not need explanation.
To not believe in a something and to have found insufficient evidence for it, in the end, are very different things. Majority of theists, for example, find insufficient evidence to the totality of their faith, but enough evidence for aspects of their faith, as such, live a life of continual research and study.
A person who simply has not been convinced shouldn't really have an opinion on the existence or non-existence of God. For the same reason that just because there are technologies that haven't been invented yet, that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe those technologies exist.
Potential versus conclusive.
If what you suggest is true, how can you believe there is no God at any point? How can you even say you're atheist if you're unwilling to say its conclusive that you're atheist?
|
On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. Oh I get it now. You are either trolling. Or you have your own personal semantics of virtually every single word we have used, including personal definitions definition of athiesm and beleiving, which no one else applies and understands as the meaning of the words. Either way, thanks for wasting everone's time.
|
On May 21 2017 02:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 01:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2017 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. TM, both of your definitions are wrong here. You've incorrectly defined both agnosticism and atheism. Atheism isn't just an affirmative conclusion, and agnosticism is not a lack of opinion. Gnostic/ Agnostic is whether a person believes that knowledge/ evidence of a god exists. Theism/ Atheism is whether a person believes that a god exists. In other words, every person is one of each: -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god. For example, I'm an agnostic atheist; that is to say, I've never come across any convincing enough arguments or evidence for the existence of a god, and for that reason I'm choosing to withhold any declarative belief in a god until I experience such evidence. My stance doesn't declare that no such evidence could ever exist or persuade me, nor does my stance declare that I can prove that God does not- or cannot- exist. Some people may make those additional claims, but they are not required for an agnostic atheist. Atheism is generally the lack of a belief in a god, rather than the extreme view declaring that a supernatural being cannot possibly exist. Atheism is the null hypothesis- the default position- as is the lack of a belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The onus is on the people making the affirmative claim- that X *does* exist- to back up their arguments for existence. (Obviously they don't have to, but if no evidence is provided for X's existence, then it's rather logical to not believe that X exists.) So would you say that to simply call yourself Atheist is about as incomplete and incorrect as calling yourself a theist (especially since Theism will usually correlate towards a specific branch i.e. Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, etc...) As such, would it be more accurate for people to simply call themselves agnostic atheists instead? That's an interesting question. As I mentioned in the previous comment, being a gnostic atheist doesn't really make any sense by definition, so it's pretty safe to assume that any given atheist is also agnostic (therefore, not really requiring any clarification regarding gnosticism). Religious theists could certainly introduce themselves as believers of their specific religion (Christian, Muslim, etc.) to clarify what religion they belong to, but since atheists generally don't believe in a god (and that's pretty much the single thing that makes them atheists), there usually isn't a reason to qualify their lack of a belief in a deity with "and by the way I think I can/ cannot disprove your specific god". Saying I'm an atheist often gets the main point across, and I'm always happy to go into specifics (not that there are many, as an atheist) if need be (just as how some people may ask Christians or Muslims if they adhere to specific interpretations or rituals or beliefs in their overarching religions). So the short version of the answer is: Calling myself an atheist definitely isn't "incorrect", and for all intents and purposes is pretty much "complete" enough, as it suffices to give a "No" response to the question "Do you believe in a god?", whereas if the response were "Yes", it basically begs the follow-up question "Which one(s)?" Such a follow-up question really isn't needed to clarify atheism. Not believing in a god and not being convinced by current evidence of a god are very different things.
What makes them different, if your belief is dependent upon evidence? I don't believe in a god, and if you say "But I had this specific experience X or this book says Y" and if I respond with "Those arguments/ evidences may convince you, but they don't convince me because of Z", then that's that. Your evidence won't automatically and universally convince everyone else that your god is the right god, or that he even exists. What you consider to be justifiable evidence is not what billions of other people consider to be good enough.
The reason theists don't brand themselves as such is because they brand themselves to the evidence that is available--koran, bible, stories, relics, etc...
As such, they already specify their subclass.
Atheists do not; primarily because it seems many feel it should not need explanation.
As explained before, there really aren't subclasses of atheists that are worth immediately qualifying for clarity, and it's more akin to how someone may say they're Christian but may or may not choose to clarify further with their sect or whether or not they believe in the Biblical Creation and Destruction myths or which verses they think should be taken literally and which allegorically, etc. There is a lot more complexity and categorization that goes into being a specific religious sect than there is in being an atheist.
It's like if a person with hair doesn't want to just say their hair color is brown or red or blonde, but go into specific shades or highlights or length or hairstyle. On the other hand, if someone is bald you don't really ask them "Well, what kind of bald are you?" A lack of hair, just like a lack of a belief in god.
To not believe in a something and to have found insufficient evidence for it, in the end, are very different things. Majority of theists, for example, find insufficient evidence to the totality of their faith, but enough evidence for aspects of their faith, as such, live a life of continual research and study.
I'm not sure if you can speak for the "majority of theists" here, but I certainly hope that they continue to look for examples and counterexamples of their faith, and continue to test their beliefs against what reality presents.
A person who simply has not been convinced shouldn't really have an opinion on the existence or non-existence of God.
Arguments for or against the existence of a deity will inform one's opinion of how likely it is that that deity truly exists. If someone is on the fence, then they wouldn't declare that they are definitely a theist or an atheist, which is totally fine too. There are surely spectrums involved. Furthermore, if you think your statement is true, then keep in mind that it's just as true for agnostic theists as it is for agnostic atheists.
For the same reason that just because there are technologies that haven't been invented yet, that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe those technologies exist.
Potential versus conclusive.
I don't think that analogy makes much sense, because people could *eventually* invent certain technologies, but we generally work under the assumption that gods we believe in already exist. The argument is never "Do you think that one day, the Christian God will begin to exist?" because by Christian testament, he must already exist. There is no potential for the future existence of a deity who is defined to already exist (and arguably be the creator of other things that currently exist). On the other hand, we could totally be open-minded towards the idea that one day a cure for cancer will exist or that a new flying vehicle could exist, etc. Those things do have potential, and those things can begin to exist, one day in the future.
If what you suggest is true, how can you believe there is no God at any point? How can you even say you're atheist if you're unwilling to say its conclusive that you're atheist?
What do you mean? I am absolutely, 100%, an atheist. That doesn't mean I can't ever change my mind; I remain open-minded and skeptical. Stating that I am an atheist doesn't mean that I have proven conclusively that a deity does not and cannot exist. It just means that as of right now, I don't believe any gods exist. I remain unconvinced, but continue to look for potential evidence and arguments that could sway my opinion. Maybe next week I'll end up changing my mind through some kind of epiphany, but I see no reason to think that that's likely, based on my years of experience. All of this is totally fine for an atheist's worldview (and specifically, if you wish me to clarify further, an agnostic atheist's worldview). And also, for what it's worth, religious people/ theists regularly have the same kind of epiphany in the opposite direction! They can just as easily rescind their faith and realize that what had once convinced them is no longer justifiable. Quite frankly, that was me; I used to be Catholic, and then I realized that the arguments and "evidence" really didn't hold up anymore. So now I'm an atheist That doesn't mean I've proven or disproven anything with certainty; that just means that I used to believe in the Christian god, and now I don't believe in any gods.
|
On May 20 2017 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
TOPIC CHANGE
How many peer reviews do laymen have to read on a subject before they are comfortable that research results were not falsified?
1) How would you read the peer reviews? I have yet to hear of a journal which publishes them as well (though it would be really neat as online material)
2) How much falsification can actually be picked up in a peer review? In my experience it's pretty negligible (that is if you really wanted to falsify it would be pretty easy).
|
On May 20 2017 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 08:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 08:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 20 2017 07:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
But I'm not arguing theism vs atheism. I'm simply asking how strange is it that atheism sits on the crux of believing something unprovable--that's insane right? On May 20 2017 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 20 2017 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Theiving Magpie, do you believe in gravity? This is some linguistical usage of the word believe right there. Afterall, it could be invisible pixies doing it all. I believe that unicorns don't exist, and even the Pope wouldn't believe me insane. I don't believe that Odin exists either, and not many would call me insane. So, why would not believing in the rather specific, but broad church that is the Abrahamic god be insane? I believe 99% of the human population cannot prove gravity. So in essence, you are insane by your own metric. Believing something that can be proved is very different than believing something that can't be proved. The ability for me to prove gravity does not determine how much faith I have in it's existence. You appear to have a very warped understanding of what athiesm is. Athiests don't beleive there is no god, in the same way a thiest believes that their diety is real; to beleive that is is real without proof. They simply don't have that belief, the same way that same theist could be described as athiest towards Thor or Unicorns or pink teapots orbiting Mars as someone else has commented. By your metric, everyone is insane as there are athiest towards some sort of belief. You are simply linguistically twisting the meaning of the word. Agnosticism is when you don't have an opinion either or and are searching for more proof before making the case. Atheism is literally in the name--not theistic, aka there is no god. That is a conclusion. Most people are agnostic. They dip through different beliefs and non-beliefs as new information comes and new experiences come. Atheists have a conclusion in the only stance where it's axiom is unprovable. -Gnostic theists say that evidence of a god exists, and that they believe in that god. -Agnostic theists say that evidence of a god doesn't exist, but they choose to believe in a god regardless (i.e., purely on faith or as a defense mechanism). -Gnostic atheists say that evidence of a god exists, but they don't believe in a god (this category would seem contradictory). -Agnostic atheists say that evidence of a god does not exist, and so they choose to not declare a belief in god.
So I'm familiar with this classification schema, and I'm willing to adopt it for specific debates (one should always be willing to adopt a set of terms-of-art where necessary). But this is not the common English-language usage of these words and for good reason. (One reason is that "Gnostic" has a very real and meaningful definition in the history of religion that has nothing to do with this myopic modern, western debate.)
Closer to home, essentially no people of education, intelligence and good will on either side are "gnostic" atheist or theists. The term is borderline worthless because it applies to almost no-one worth debating. "Agnostic" defined this way applies to nearly everyone.
On the other hand, "Agnostic" as commonly used is a very useful term. Lots of people identify as agnostics, which is important to their identity because it turns out spirituality is very much a journey/in-flux kinda thing. No, it's not really an intellectual position beyond openness to possibilities, but it's a very accurate description of a lot of people's situation. (I personally hate it when religious or atheistic people try to get agnostics to "pick a side." Like, fuck-off, this isn't a character-creation menu, this is figuring out where you want to stand in relation to the universe.)
The quadripartite division described above honestly seems like a not-so-subtle ploy to force your average agnostic under a label they explicitly don't want... if they "choose not to declare" then they count as an "Atheist." The common definition of Agnostic as "without a declared side" between Atheism and Theism is more fair and doesn't count Atheism as an automatic default for people figuring shit out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
