Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

God & Falsifiability (discussion moved from other thread)

Options
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was referring to the agnostic who says "I don't believe in gods but accept there could be one" and the atheist who appears to say the same

    What sets the atheist apart? Why would he call himself an atheist and not an agnostic. If you're an atheist and if this has been "done to death" then surely the answer is there at your fingertips

    I could be described as either an atheist or an agnostic or an agnostic atheist or an ignostic deist/atheist or a myriad of other permutations depending on how you define each term. Does it really matter? It's a argument about language rather than anything fundamental.


  • Options
    #183
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    sink wrote: »
    I could be described as either an atheist or an agnostic or an agnostic atheist or an ignostic deist/atheist or a myriad of other permutations depending on how you define each term. Does it really matter? It's a argument about language rather than anything fundamental.

    Or a tautology:)


  • Options
    #184
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I was looking forward to memes and stuff.

    Anyone interested in splitting off from this thread for that?


  • Options
    #185
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CDfm wrote: »
    Anyone interested in splitting off from this thread for that?
    If you have an interest in memes and whatnot just start a new thread.

    This thread is already a split from another one, and I ain't sifting through it to weed out off-topic posts!


  • Options
    #186
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was referring to the agnostic who says "I don't believe in gods but accept there could be one" and the atheist who appears to say the same

    What sets the atheist apart? Why would he call himself an atheist and not an agnostic. If you're an atheist and if this has been "done to death" then surely the answer is there at your fingertips

    Why don't you look up the differences instead of trying to pinpoint a very particular cross-over in the very edge between agnosticism & atheism & claiming that it proves they are the same thing? :rolleyes:

    CDfm, you love your memes - surely you can't be encouraging Dawkinisms?! :eek::pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    If you have an interest in memes and whatnot just start a new thread.

    This thread is already a split from another one, and I ain't sifting through it to weed out off-topic posts!

    anyone interested in a bit of low key slow moving discussion on this


  • Options
    #188
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »

    CDfm, you love your memes - surely you can't be encouraging Dawkinisms?! :eek::pac:

    Its something I know little about but the philosophy ethics and cultural side may be a bit different to the usual discussion. Anyway -Dawkins borrowed the concept from someone else and is really a fraustrated bishop.


  • Options
    #189
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    CDfm wrote: »
    anyone interested in a bit of low key slow moving discussion on this
    Why not start a thread and find out? :)


  • Options
    #190
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I suppose I'm trying to ascertain what the difference is between an agnostic (who doesn't believe in gods but who acknowledges that God could well exist) and an atheist (who doesn't believe in gods but who acknowledges that God could well exist)

    It appears to me that for an atheist to separate himself from the agnostic he has to step forward with a declaration such as "I believe that there is no possibility for gods to exist" rendering his position a faith-based one.

    Perhaps there is some other declaration that can be made in which case I'm all ears.
    I don't know what a God is, therefore I can't acknowledge the possibility that it may exist because I have no definition to base it on. That is why I label myself an atheist.


  • Options
    #191
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    I don't know what a God is

    A GOD is like a mod except benevolent:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CDfm wrote: »
    A GOD is like a mod except benevolent:D
    If he's so benevolent how come I got my brother's bike for Christmas when I was 12? :pac:


  • Options
    #193
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    axer wrote: »
    We have religion because people are unable to cope with the idea that we have an inability to understand inifinity e.g. being dead for infinity. It is fear, a lazy mind, illogicality or all of the above as I mentioned earlier.



    It takes a lazy mind to simplify the issue to this extent. This sort of argument is always cropping up: Religion is stupid, therefore religious people are stupid (more or less the gist as I see it). You just can't infer that, it doesn't work. I see the intuitive link but you're just being lazy with your simplistic explanation of why people believe in God. The reasons you included are valid but in no way provide the complete picture.


  • Options
    #194
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Dades wrote: »
    I think we've reached the root of the problem here; namely you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Hmm. Let's have a look see then.
    - Agnosticism is a declaration that "we cannot know", leaving the question as to the existence of gods as open.

    The operative word here is "know". The word "know" is not the word "believe" and if the dog in the street were consulted he'd probably say that the world "know" implies something along the lines of certainty.

    The atheist cannot know either (unless your supposing he can?). Does his not being able to know make him an agnostic?

    Atheism is a stated belief that gods do not exist.

    Given that belief is something that is based on evidence, perhaps you could tell me what evidence is available to the atheist which leads him to actively believe there are no gods - whereas the agnostic isn't active either way.


    They are not mutually exclusive, as one can clearly state you believe that gods do not exist, while acknowledging that nothing can be proven either way.

    As per above comment. Is the belief a blind belief and if not what tilts the balance in favour of atheism vs. agnosticism.


    Any more failures in grasping this point will result in a short break from this forum to allow you to do some basic reading elsewhere, as you don't seem to want to listen here.

    I've always found it unseemly when debaters pull moderator hats on. Do as you will.


  • Options
    #195
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Are you familiar with fuzzy logic, antiskeptic?

    An agnostic would be 0.5 sure that God doesn't exist, whereas an atheist would be 0.9 sure that God doesn't exist.


  • Options
    #196
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The operative word here is "know". The word "know" is not the word "believe" and if the dog in the street were consulted he'd probably say that the world "know" implies something along the lines of certainty.

    The atheist cannot know either (unless your supposing he can?). Does his not being able to know make him an agnostic?
    Um, see the second part of my post...

    Oh you did:
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Given that belief is something that is based on evidence, perhaps you could tell me what evidence is available to the atheist which leads him to actively believe there are no gods - whereas the agnostic isn't active either way.
    Again, it appears you are not particularly interested in understanding the definitions, but instead asking me why I'm an atheist.

    Perhaps if I rephrase atheism as a lack of belief, it might make more sense to you. A lack of belief which is based on, of all things, a lack of evidence.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As per above comment. Is the belief a blind belief and if not what tilts the balance in favour of atheism vs. agnosticism.
    I guess what tilts a person in favour of the atheism label is a willingness to express a lack of belief in gods. Though from a scientific pov, most would remain agnostic to a degree.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I've always found it unseemly when debaters pull moderator hats on. Do as you will.
    No more unseemly than a poster who appear more interested in pursuing an agenda than reading posts.


  • Options
    #197
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Are you familiar with fuzzy logic, antiskeptic?

    An agnostic would be 0.5 sure that God doesn't exist, whereas an atheist would be 0.9 sure that God doesn't exist.

    And the evidence that shoulders one from a 0.5 to a 0.9 is...precisely?

    Or are you simply saying that 2 folk see the same evidence and conclude differently from it?


  • Options
    #198
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    And the evidence that shoulders one from a 0.5 to a 0.9 is...precisely?
    I think it is the lack of evidence that shoulders one from a 0.5 to a 0.9.


  • Options
    #199
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Dades wrote: »
    Um, see the second part of my post...

    Oh you did:
    Again, it appears you are not particularly interested in understanding the definitions, but instead asking me why I'm an atheist.

    Perhaps if I rephrase atheism as a lack of belief, it might make more sense to you. A lack of belief which is based on, of all things, a lack of evidence.

    I guess what tilts a person in favour of the atheism label is a willingness to express a lack of belief in gods. Though from a scientific pov, most would remain agnostic to a degree.

    No more unseemly than a poster who appear more interested in pursuing an agenda than reading posts.



    You don't appear to have addressed the points posed.

    You said that the agnostic position was that one declared itself unable to know (whether or not God existed). But the atheist can't declare himself any otherwise. Can he?

    Which queries your objection on that score. Knowing vs. believing.

    ___________

    You (also) said that the athiest "believes there is no God". He's not like the agnostic who believes (shall we say) there is/isn't a God. The atheist, in other words, makes a postive declaration that he believes no God exists.

    I ask on what basis he declares so? What evidence is he in possession of that the agnostic isn't. Or is it just that the atheist has a different view on the same evidence as the agnostic.


  • Options
    #200
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    axer wrote: »
    I think it is the lack of evidence that shoulders one from a 0.5 to a 0.9.

    Given the same evidence available to both, something else is doing the shouldering.

    Suggestions?


  • Options
    #201
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Given the same evidence available to both, something else is doing the shouldering.

    Suggestions?

    Maybe its an extra portion of scepticism doing that shouldering? Some people are inherently more open to suggestion without requiring any evidence & there is a sliding scale until you get to those really sceptical people who won't believe anything without evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Agnostics still have some kind of belief not based on evidence (i.e. the belief that there is an equal probability that god exists vs. he does not) which atheists lack.


  • Options
    #203
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You don't appear to have addressed the points posed.
    I would, I really would, if I could figure out what the hell you are asking - and if I thought what I had already written was acknowledged.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You (also) said that the athiest "believes there is no God". He's not like the agnostic who believes (shall we say) there is/isn't a God.
    Given you are still spectacularly misrepresenting the agnostic position, how can anyone actually address your points?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The atheist, in other words, makes a postive declaration that he believes no God exists.
    Saying you do believe something exists is a positive declaration. And that form of declaration, in every walk of life other than religion, requires evidence. Saying you don't believe something exists requires evidence in the same way you require evidence to not believe that I keep a unicorn in a shoebox under my bed.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I ask on what basis he declares so? What evidence is he in possession of that the agnostic isn't. Or is it just that the atheist has a different view on the same evidence as the agnostic.
    On a grand scale a believer might look at the world and declare only God could have created such a wonderful place, whereas an atheist might look at the same world and declare that no benevolent deity would have created such a world of inequality and suffering. So yes, in that regard people might look at the same evidence [Exhibit (a): Earth] and draw different conclusions.

    However, it is not true to say that everyone is in possession of the same evidence, as what one person might see as evidence another won't.

    Some people see beauty in the world as evidence for God. An atheist, for example, might view "beauty" to be a human construct and not evidence for anything.


  • Options
    #204
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Agnostics still have some kind of belief not based on evidence (i.e. the belief that there is an equal probability that god exists vs. he does not) which atheists lack.

    But it's not possible to calculate the probablitility of Gods existance. Meaning the agnostics 'belief' is in fact a rational conclusion based on there being but two options (God either exists or he doesn't) about which information unto calculating probabilities is unavailable.

    Which brings us back to the issue of atheism being a faith system. The atheist, by faith, believes that the probability of Gods existance is (far) less than 0.5. He can't know all there is to know so can't begin to know how much he doesn't know. So can't begin to guess at probabilities. By faith, the atheist trusts that his interpretation of the evidence leading to the conclusion "no God" is accurate (you've seen this optical illusion no doubt: Same evidence - different interpretation)


    http://z.hubpages.com/u/701837_f248.jpg


  • Options
    #205
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Dades wrote: »
    I would, I really would, if I could figure out what the hell you are asking - and if I thought what I had already written was acknowledged.

    Given you are still spectacularly misrepresenting the agnostic position, how can anyone actually address your points?

    Your definition of the agnostic position had the agnostic stating that he cannot know whether God exists or not. When it comes to knowing one way or the other, the atheist can't but say the same thing as the agnostic. He too can't know whether God exists or not.

    Then we turn to what either party believes. You didn't say what the agnostic believes - so perhaps you could do that now so that we can compare what you say he believes with what you say the atheist believes?


    Saying you do believe something exists is a positive declaration. And that form of declaration, in every walk of life other than religion, requires evidence. Saying you don't believe something exists requires evidence in the same way you require evidence to not believe that I keep a unicorn in a shoebox under my bed.


    My faith is evidence based. It's just not empirical evidence based. Which is neither here nor there when it comes to my what I believe. Like, I believe that I thought what I thought 5 seconds ago - even though there is no empirical evidence that that is the case.

    I was dealing with the case of your having made a positive declaration. "The atheist believes God doesn't exist". Such a belief, that "such and such is the case" requires evidence - as you rightly point out. You did revert subsequently to the more usual atheist position whereby you don't believe in God for want of evidence. Which brings us back to my querying this strand of the atheist position: the agnostic doesn't believe in God for the same reasons.

    Where am I going with this? It's about deconstructing atheism to find out where it departs from agnosticism

    - "I cannot know" is shared by agnostic and atheist alike
    - "I don't believe for want of evidence" is shared by agnostic and atheist alike
    - "insert next statement here" and lets see if that is the one to separate the two sides.



    I ask on what basis he declares so? What evidence is he in possession of that the agnostic isn't. Or is it just that the atheist has a different view on the same evidence as the agnostic.
    On a grand scale a believer might look at the world and declare only God could have created such a wonderful place, whereas an atheist might look at the same world and declare that no benevolent deity would have created such a world of inequality and suffering. So yes, in that regard people might look at the same evidence [Exhibit (a): Earth] and draw different conclusions.

    However, it is not true to say that not everyone is in possession of the same evidence, as what one person might see as evidence another won't.

    Some people see beauty in the world as evidence for God. An atheist, for example, might view "beauty" to be a human construct and not evidence for anything.

    I wasn't really considering the position of the believer wrt to the atheist. It was the position of the agnostic wrt the atheist I was after. Could you elaborate along those lines?

    Im interested in such things as the atheists view of beauty for instance. That seems to be getting to the nub of things when considering atheism as a faith based system. That beauty could be considered as such is only something that is believed. There is no evidence for that notion.


  • Options
    #206
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    - "I cannot know" is shared by agnostic and atheist alike
    - "I don't believe for want of evidence" is shared by agnostic and atheist alike
    - "insert next statement here" and lets see if that is the one to separate the two sides.

    The existence of God is a ridiculous assertion to make without any evidence.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Im interested in such things as the atheists view of beauty for instance. That seems to be getting to the nub of things when considering atheism as a faith based system. That beauty could be considered as such is only something that is believed. There is no evidence for that notion.

    The fact that people see beauty in the world is evidence for nothing other than people can find the world beautiful. People also see ugliness in the world and that is not evidence either.


  • Options
    #207
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    sink wrote: »
    The existence of God is a ridiculous assertion to make without any evidence.

    True - but I have evidence. It's not empirical evidence granted - but seeing as I'm not expecting (or desiring) that you believe me that fact is neither here nor there.

    The fact that people see beauty in the world is evidence for nothing other than people can find the world beautiful. People also see ugliness in the world and that is not evidence either.

    Indeed.


  • Options
    #208
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Your definition of the agnostic position had the agnostic stating that he cannot know whether God exists or not. When it comes to knowing one way or the other, the atheist can't but say the same thing as the agnostic. He too can't know whether God exists or not.
    Okay, we're fine so far...
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Then we turn to what either party believes. You didn't say what the agnostic believes - so perhaps you could do that now so that we can compare what you say he believes with what you say the atheist believes?
    I've already stated that agnosticism is not a declaration of belief in gods - it's the declaration that we can never know.

    From my post here:
    Agnosticism is a declaration that "we cannot know", leaving the question as to the existence of gods as open.

    Theism is a statement of belief, atheism is statement of a lack of belief.

    - Theists hold a belief in god(s)
    - Agnostics say it is impossible to know
    - Atheists don't hold a belief in god(s)
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was dealing with the case of your having made a positive declaration. "The atheist believes God doesn't exist". Such a belief, that "such and such is the case" requires evidence - as you rightly point out. You did revert subsequently to the more usual atheist position whereby you don't believe in God for want of evidence. Which brings us back to my querying this strand of the atheist position: the agnostic doesn't believe in God for the same reasons.

    Where am I going with this? It's about deconstructing atheism to find out where it departs from agnosticism

    - "I cannot know" is shared by agnostic and atheist alike
    - "I don't believe for want of evidence" is shared by agnostic and atheist alike
    - "insert next statement here" and lets see if that is the one to separate the two sides.
    Agnosticism and atheism aren't two sides to be deconstructed. They are not mutually exclusive.

    As stated (again) above, the agnostic doesn't declare a belief either way. It's not a step between theist and atheist, it concerns what we can and cannot know, not what we actually believe.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Im interested in such things as the atheists view of beauty for instance. That seems to be getting to the nub of things when considering atheism as a faith based system. That beauty could be considered as such is only something that is believed. There is no evidence for that notion.
    Are you doing all this to try and promote the fallacy that not believing in something requires faith?

    I repeat: There is a unicorn. In a shoebox. Under my bed.


  • Options
    #209
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But it's not possible to calculate the probablitility of Gods existance. Meaning the agnostics 'belief' is in fact a rational conclusion based on there being but two options (God either exists or he doesn't) about which information unto calculating probabilities is unavailable.
    Put it this way:

    If I go into town today, and walk down Grafton St., I can't be sure that there will be anyone there, but based on previous observations, I would be very confident that there would be a lot of people there, and although I would not be able to state absolutely that there would be people there. I'd be about 0.9 sure that there'd be people there. I can't prove that people won't be there, but having never seen Grafton St. with no one on it, I find it highly unlikely.

    I live on a quiet road, people do pass by my house every now and then, but were I to look out the window, I would not expect to see anyone most of the time, and again this would be based on previous observations. I'd be about 0.7 sure I wouldn't see anyone. Although I find it unlikely that I'd see someone, I have before, which means I'm not as sure that I won't see someone outside my window as I would be of not seeing anyone on Grafton St.

    Now apply this reasoning to God. I have no previous observations of anything supernatural, so although I can't prove that he isn't there, in 20 years of living, I have never seen anything to suggest the existence of anything supernatural, and therefore I would be 0.9 sure that supernatural beings, such as gods, don't exist.


  • Options
    #210
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    True - but I have evidence. It's not empirical evidence granted - but seeing as I'm not expecting (or desiring) that you believe me that fact is neither here nor there.

    The evidence you claim to posess is no different from the evidence muslims or hindus or alien abductees claim to posess. Does that not give you pause for thought?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    I would, I really would, if I could figure out what the hell you are asking - and if I thought what I had already written was acknowledged.

    Given you are still spectacularly misrepresenting the agnostic position, how can anyone actually address your points?

    oh dear -how can you misrepresent an agnostic I thought they were chameleon:D

    Its like the joke -I used to be indecisive but now Im not so sure - an agnostic lacks the deciciveness and may be unsure or may be a "deist" ie believes in God as a creator of the universe but not in the religious/christian Supreme being sense.Agnostics vary on their level of intensity on doubt and this can be from doubts of faith to uncertainty on a deity of any description. Normally will reject organised religion outlook but not the notion of God.

    An atheist is decisive in their rejection of a belief in any God whatsoever. Doesnt claim to know what started the universe but is certain it wasnt "God". Rejects all supernatural being ideas.So its that decisiveness/certainty that distinguishes both.

    (prone when angry to muttering -is that a unicorn in your pocket or are you pleased to see me)

    Thats my very verybasic understanding of the position.


Advertisement