Jim Walsh uses Seanad debate to say atheists have faith

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Lack of evidence would be consistent with lack of belief, but that's not support.

But as "there is no god" is the null hypothesis, i.e. it is the claim that needs no change to be made to what we currently know to be best supported, it doesn't need new evidence. Therefore lack of evidence for god is synonymous with evidence for the non-existence of god.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

but rationality isn't what we think it is .

Now you've got it.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But as "there is no god" is the null hypothesis, i.e. it is the claim that needs no change to be made to what we currently know to be best supported, it doesn't need new evidence. Therefore lack of evidence for god is synonymous with evidence for the non-existence of god.

And, em, you haven't got it. In fact, you're pretty much just making stuff up, which I thought was our problem with the other crowd.

Anyway, only the true Messiah denies his divinity.

Standman

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you're saying it there. Life requires us to make assumptions, or be frozen by indecision.

I don't see the necessity of getting hung up on this "belief" word. Well, I suppose I do see why people want to contend that their unsupported assumptions are better than the next guy's. But they aren't.

Do you think that all assumptions are equally valid?

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Lack of evidence would be consistent with lack of belief, but that's not support.

Some statements may be more consistent with what we know than other statements. But what we know is only a small fraction of what there is to be known. Rationality isn't what we think it is.

If there was no God/gods then we would expect to find no evidence, so, even were we to know everything there was to know, we'd still have the exact same evidence as exists now. That's why no evidence supports no belief and evidence supports belief.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But what we know is only a small fraction of what there is to be known.

How can we be so sure of that? Are you using inductive reasoning by any chance to come to this conclusion?

Rationality isn't what we think it is.

Indeed.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Standman wrote: »

Do you think that all assumptions are equally valid?

I'd be surprised if all assumptions are equally valid.

gaynorvader wrote: »

If there was no God/gods then we would expect to find no evidence, so, even were we to know everything there was to know, we'd still have the exact same evidence as exists now.

No you wouldn't, as if you were omniscient you know there was nothing that you were unaware of. You'd know that no further evidence could emerge to contradict you.

gaynorvader wrote: »

That's why no evidence supports no belief and evidence supports belief.

Only for entities that are omniscient.

swampgas wrote: »

How can we be so sure of that?

Oh, we can't. It's just a belief.

swampgas wrote: »

Are you using inductive reasoning by any chance to come to this conclusion?

Very much so. I'm simply saying no-one that I'm aware of has found a solution to Hume's Problem yet.

Tomorrow, the Mahdi may emerge, and everything will be much more certain.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

{...}

No you wouldn't, as if you were omniscient you know there was nothing that you were unaware of. You'd know that no further evidence could emerge to contradict you. Only for entities that are omniscient.
{...}

The more we know, the closer to omniscience we get. The closer we get, the more no evidence supports non-belief. We should always have non-belief in anything we didn't have evidence for. Anything otherwise is faith.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gaynorvader wrote: »

<...> the closer to omniscience we get.

Getting "closer to omniscience" isn't quite as impractical a concept as Buzz Lightyear's "To Infinity, and Beyond" . But it's pretty close.

gaynorvader wrote: »

We should always have non-belief in anything we didn't have evidence for.

"Always" is a bit extreme. Other than that, I'm sure that's a perfectly credible principle for you to have faith in.

gillmelly

The sooner the old ones die off the better, then these lads can be strung up from the lamposts.

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now you've got it.And, em, you haven't got it. In fact, you're pretty much just making stuff up,

You're the one defending the "I just made stuff up" position, and you're accusing me of making stuff up?

It is especially ironic when you come to realise that I simply reiterated a basic scientific priniciple.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Getting "closer to omniscience" isn't quite as impractical a concept as Buzz Lightyear's "To Infinity, and Beyond" . But it's pretty close.

I don't think so. To put it another way, the more we know, the less we don't know, the closer we are to omniscience. Omniscience is just the maximum value along the axis of knowledge.

"Always" is a bit extreme. Other than that, I'm sure that's a perfectly credible principle for you to have faith in.

It's a logical conclusion, not a principle I have faith in. If you have no evidence for something, you shouldn't believe in it, particularly if it contradicts what we do have evidence for. If you have little evidence for something, you should be wary of believing it as it may be untrue. If you have resounding evidence for something, you should believe it as it's probably true.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You're the one defending the "I just made stuff up" position, and you're accusing me of making stuff up?

Oh, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Making stuff up is a necessary part of life.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think so. To put it another way, the more we know, the less we don't know, the closer we are to omniscience. Omniscience is just the maximum value along the axis of knowledge.

Repetition doesn't make the position more defensible.

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's a logical conclusion, not a principle I have faith in. If you have no evidence for something, you shouldn't believe in it, particularly if it contradicts what we do have evidence for. If you have little evidence for something, you should be wary of believing it as it may be untrue. If you have resounding evidence for something, you should believe it as it's probably true.

You've just expanded on an article of faith.

It's not an especially outlandish article for faith. But it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful. It directly contradicts the statement that investment funds are obliged to make, when they say past performance is not a reliable predictor.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

{...}Repetition doesn't make the position more defensible.

Ok, could you explain why you think it's not a logical conclusion?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You've just expanded on an article of faith. It's not an especially outlandish article for faith. But it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful. {...}

How is it faith?
Not quite, it doesn't matter whether the small fragment of knowledge we possess is meaningful or not, or even if it's correct. The point is that it's irrational to believe in something for which there's no evidence, without the evidence, there's no way of telling if it exists or not, or if it does exist how you should define it.

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Making stuff up is a necessary part of life.Repetition doesn't make the position more defensible.You've just expanded on an article of faith.

It's not an especially outlandish article for faith. But it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful. It directly contradicts the statement that investment funds are obliged to make, when they say past performance is not a reliable predictor.

Is your only response to when anyone shows the fallacy of any of your arguments to delve into stock rubbishy non-responses? Because that's all I ever see from you, including the quoted text above.

If you see no point in properly engaging my points, I see no point in responding to you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If you see no point in properly engaging my points, I see no point in responding to you.

I can confirm that I see no point in engaging with your "points".

gaynorvader wrote: »

Ok, could you explain why you think it's not a logical conclusion?

That particular point isn't especially about logic. It's simply meaningless to talk about converging on omniscience, in much the same way as it's meaningless to talk about reaching (and surpassing) infinity.

Now, it's also unsound to employ logic in a doctrinaire manner when things are uncertain. "The only Greek I've met is Socrates, therefore all Greeks are Socrates" is clearly a nonsense statement. Yet, that's what you're suggesting as an obviously valid approach.

gaynorvader wrote: »

How is it faith?
Not quite, it doesn't matter whether the small fragment of knowledge we possess is meaningful or not, or even if it's correct. The point is that it's irrational to believe in something for which there's no evidence, without the evidence, there's no way of telling if it exists or not, or if it does exist how you should define it.

It's faith for exactly the reason I stated. it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful.

Michael Nugent

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's faith for exactly the reason I stated. it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful.

Do you apply that standard to everything you think about?

Do you believe (or have faith) that all beliefs are faith?

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's faith for exactly the reason I stated. it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful.

Do you work on the assumption that everything you know is meaningless?

Brian Shanahan

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's faith for exactly the reason I stated. it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful.

GCU if I wanted to know what is faith and what is not, I'd ask my dead cat before I'd ask you. You're too severely and obviously biased towards giving the false answer for anyone to be able to take your word on this matter seriously.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Do you apply that standard to everything you think about?

I certainly operate on the basis that we have to make assumptions that, strictly speaking, are unwarranted. I do expect the sun will rise tomorrow. But that's an assumption I'm making, as we simply can't function without taking such assumptions.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Do you believe (or have faith) that all beliefs are faith?

I'd acknowledge that there are differences between words like "faith", "belief", "assert", "assume". For the sake of argument, when someone says "I believe Bertie Ahern cannot remember the name of the horse that won him thousands of pounds", it may be a different kind of statement to "I have faith in the capacity of the Irish people to get through this economic crisis".

But, in this thread, I'm more concerned with what these kinds of statements have in common, than how they differ. I think the key point I'm arguing for is that everyone has to make unwarranted assumptions. My contention is that we should be willing to meet Jim Walsh half way. I don't think that my outlook is automatically better because I'm atheist, or that his outlook is automatically worse because he's a theist.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you work on the assumption that everything you know is meaningless?

I work on the assumption that everything I know is incomplete, which means its meaning is uncertain.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

GCU if I wanted to know what is faith and what is not, I'd ask my dead cat before I'd ask you. You're too severely and obviously biased towards giving the false answer for anyone to be able to take your word on this matter seriously.

I've talked to your dead cat. There's a lot of things you could learn from your dead cat. Why won't you listen to your dead cat?

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I certainly operate on the basis that we have to make assumptions that, strictly speaking, are unwarranted. I do expect the sun will rise tomorrow. But that's an assumption I'm making, as we simply can't function without taking such assumptions.I'd acknowledge that there are differences between words like "faith", "belief", "assert", "assume". For the sake of argument, when someone says "I believe Bertie Ahern cannot remember the name of the horse that won him thousands of pounds", it may be a different kind of statement to "I have faith in the capacity of the Irish people to get through this economic crisis".

But, in this thread, I'm more concerned with what these kinds of statements have in common, than how they differ. I think the key point I'm arguing for is that everyone has to make unwarranted assumptions. My contention is that we should be willing to meet Jim Walsh half way. I don't think that my outlook is automatically better because I'm atheist, or that his outlook is automatically worse because he's a theist. I work on the assumption that everything I know is incomplete, which means its meaning is uncertain.I've talked to your dead cat. There's a lot of things you could learn from your dead cat. Why won't you listen to your dead cat?

more pompous twaddle saying nothing

Michael Nugent

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the key point I'm arguing for is that everyone has to make unwarranted assumptions.

Strictly speaking, that is correct.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

My contention is that we should be willing to meet Jim Walsh half way.

No, that doesn't follow from your point about unwarranted assumptions. You seem to be conflating unwarranted with random. Some assumptions are more proportionate to what seems to be the currently best available evidence.

Would you be willing to meet me half way if I told you i am God? Would you believe there is a 50/50 chance that I am telling the truth? Or would you believe that I am not God, based on your assessment of the available evidence?

Actually, let's not even make that a hypothetical. Do you believe that I am God? Do you believe that i am not God? Or do you believe that there is a 50/50 chance that I am God?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't think that my outlook is automatically better because I'm atheist, or that his outlook is automatically worse because he's a theist.

It is actually the other way around. It is not your atheism that makes your outlook better; it is having a better outlook that makes you an atheist.

Lucy8080

It is estimated that Christianity has somewhere between 20 and 40 thousand denominations. Some are diametrically opposed , others are loosely/closely affiliated.

I reckon if I asked 20 to 40 thousand Athiests what exactly they feel they are rejecting ...I'd receive as many disparate answers.

The idea that having a "better" out look makes you an atheist ...well , I guess I'd have to have a vested interest in handing out an identity to make such a statement.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The idea that having a "better" out look makes you an atheist ...well , I guess I'd have to have a vested interest in handing out an identity to make such a statement.

"Better" in the context of this particular discussion, that is, better at forming beliefs that are proportionate to the best available evidence.

Lucy8080

What is it you are rejecting?

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

What is it you are rejecting?

The idea that we should believe things disproportionately to the evidence.

As a consequence of that, the idea that we should believe in a supernatural being that created the universe, intervenes personally in the running of the universe, is the source of morality, and has a special personal relationship with human beings on the planet Earth in one of a hundred billion solar systems in the Milky Way galaxy which is one of a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

more pompous twaddle saying nothing

You're too hard on yourself.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Some assumptions are more proportionate to what seems to be the currently best available evidence.

Indeed, although even that is frequently less useful than we think. We can argue that atheism is a less extravagant explanation for things than theism. But a reasonable case can be made in the other direction. Again, I'd recall that Occam's Razor was originally an argument for the existence of God.

There's no certain way of choosing between competing explanations of the same evidence. And, you'll appreciate, the simplest explanation isn't necessarily the right one. We've just a bit of a vested interest in pretending that the simplest explanation is best, when we've a Senator telling us we have faith.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Or would you believe that I am not God, based on your assessment of the available evidence?

I'd probably assess your claim of divinity in similar ways to how I'd assess Bertie Ahern's claims of being unable to remember the horse that he backed. I'm not sure that either assessment would have much to do with assessing evidence.

Michael Nugent

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's no certain way of choosing between competing explanations of the same evidence.

I think this is at the core of our difference of opinion.

I agree that there is no certain way.

But some ways are (for practical purposes) more reliable than others.

And whatever way you use, you should apply it consistently.

Michael Nugent

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd probably assess your claim of divinity in similar ways to how I'd assess Bertie Ahern's claims of being unable to remember the horse that he backed. I'm not sure that either assessment would have much to do with assessing evidence.

Of course it would. On what else would you assess either claim?

swampgas

To be honest invoking Hume on inductive reasoning in a discussion such as this seems to me to be ever so slightly excessive - a bit like wheeling out Gödel's Incompleteness theorem while discussing a calculus problem. But never mind, I can see there's a connection, even if it seems somewhat tenuous from where I'm sitting.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But some ways are (for practical purposes) more reliable than others.

And whatever way you use, you should apply it consistently.

There are some ways that folk find work for them. And, absolutely, wouldn't people say that it's their consistent (and maybe even persistent) application of their chosen framework that makes it work for them.

But, to someone, anyone's framework will look as arbitrary as Rain Man insisting on buying his boxer shorts in Kmart, 400 Oak Street, Cincinnati.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Of course it would. On what else would you assess either claim?

Oh, with arbitrary bias. Certainly not with evidence.

I mean, Bertie has evidence. Weren't the bank able to produce the docket showing a considerable lodgement made on his behalf, and don't we have his testimony that it was the result of a racing win? All the available evidence supports the view that Bertie had a big win on the GeeGees, but can't remember the name of the horse. It might not be complete evidence. But there's no particular reason to question such information as is available, is there?

And if you were to perform a miracle, or at least get someone to attribute a miracle to you, wouldn't that be evidence of your divinity?

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can confirm that I see no point in engaging with your "points".That particular point isn't especially about logic. It's simply meaningless to talk about converging on omniscience, in much the same way as it's meaningless to talk about reaching (and surpassing) infinity.

Yet we talk of converging on infinity all the time in maths. It's why dividing by 0 gives an error on your calculator.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote:

Now, it's also unsound to employ logic in a doctrinaire manner when things are uncertain. "The only Greek I've met is Socrates, therefore all Greeks are Socrates" is clearly a nonsense statement. Yet, that's what you're suggesting as an obviously valid approach.It's faith for exactly the reason I stated. it rests on an assumption that the small fragment of total knowledge in our possession is meaningful.

That's an illogical statement though. Unless Socrates was the only human I'd ever met and I was an alien, whose entire race was identical, then it might be a logical statement as, based on my experience a)all beings of a species are identical b)humans are Socrates. However, I would obviously have to re-examine my assumption upon meeting another, different human.
If I were to have only met one Greek, Socrates, based on my knowledge of all the other people I know, it would be logical to assume that the Greeks are as diverse a bunch as the Irish people I know. The assumption might still be incorrect, but I would operate under it pending better data.

Of course the knowledge we possess is meaningful to us. It's all we have. It's the only way we have of determining anything.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yet we talk of converging on infinity all the time in maths. It's why dividing by 0 gives an error on your calculator.

We talk about converging on infinity in the same way as we talk about unicorns. It's a concept we can conceive of, but it doesn't happen in real life. Your calculator just gives an error when something exceeds its capacity. But whatever quantity exceeds its capacity is as far from "infinity" as the number 1. Infinity isn't something that's a very large, distant, number. It's a concept that means beyond reach.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Of course the knowledge we possess is meaningful to us. It's all we have. It's the only way we have of determining anything.

Indeed, and that's the dilemma.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We talk about converging on infinity in the same way as we talk about unicorns. It's a concept we can conceive of, but it doesn't happen in real life. Your calculator just gives an error when something exceeds its capacity. But whatever quantity exceeds its capacity is as far from "infinity" as the number 1. Infinity isn't something that's a very large, distant, number. It's a concept that means beyond reach.

It's hard to know if infinity happens in real life as it's not an easy concept to grasp and even harder to quantify. However, infinity is used as a number in maths quite a bit. In fact that is what you get when you divide a number by 0, infinity. We base this on the fact that the smaller a number you divide by, the bigger the answer is (i.e. converging on infinity). You are correct that it is not just a very large number, it's more of a concept alright, it basically means "bigger". But that doesn't invalidate all other numbers smaller than infinity or a graph that points to infinity.

Indeed, and that's the dilemma.

Not really, we just need to build on the knowledge we have, utilising what we have and avoid trying to build on supposition and imaginings.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gaynorvader wrote: »

But that doesn't invalidate all other numbers smaller than infinity or a graph that points to infinity.

What it means is that "converging on infinity", and the concept that something divided by zero is infinity, are just concepts that exist in our heads that cannot be demonstrated with evidence. I take it I don't need to labour why that's of interest to us.

gaynorvader wrote: »

<...> avoid trying to build on supposition and imaginings.

What's the difference between "suppositions and imaginings" and "forming a hypothesis and perceptions"?

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What it means is that "converging on infinity", and the concept that something divided by zero is infinity, are just concepts that exist in our heads that cannot be demonstrated with evidence.

They can be demonstrated in the same way pi is worked out or minus numbers or imaginary numbers or pretty well any other concept of maths can be demonstrated. You're right that we can't physically demonstrate infinity, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.I'm probably not the best one to explain it as my grasp of advanced or theoretical mathematics is rudimentary at best.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote:

I take it I don't need to labour why that's of interest to us.What's the difference between "suppositions and imaginings" and "forming a hypothesis and perceptions"?

Available data and testability. Forming a hypothesis requires it to be testable and is based on previously acquired data. Suppositions and imaginings are just made up out of perceptions, with no attempt to explore or test them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gaynorvader wrote: »

They can be demonstrated in the same way pi is worked out or minus numbers or imaginary numbers or pretty well any other concept of maths can be demonstrated.

Indeed, but obscure points of theology can also be demonstrated. And, similarly, they can't be definitively connected to reality.

This harks back to a debate that has gone on for thousands of years, as to whether any real knowledge can be derived from pure thought or whether knowledge always is a product of experience.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Available data and testability. Forming a hypothesis requires it to be testable and is based on previously acquired data. Suppositions and imaginings are just made up out of perceptions, with no attempt to explore or test them.

In fairness, I don't think that settles the point, because "data", "perceptions" and "imaginings" could all be the same thing.

Now, a total sceptic would do quite silly things. (My mate David Hume comments on this in some of his writings.) A sceptic pilot would see nothing wrong in taking off in a plane with the fuel gauge close to empty, as gauges can occasionally be wrong. Hence, the sceptic pilot would see an empty gauge as giving no more information than a full gauge, which could also be wrong. The perfect sceptic would even argue that there is no particular reason to believe that crashing a plane at some future time is particularly dangerous, just because plane crashes in the past have been unpleasant events.

So, pragmatically, we dismiss that kind of silly concern. That said, we don't have a 100% watertight argument for doing so. We just recognise that we couldn't function with such a silly degree of doubt.

However, frequently, a substantial degree of doubt is justified. And this is particularly true in human affairs. We might have a capacity to predict some purely physical things with a high degree of precision, like how long it will take to boil an egg. But the sceptic level of doubts over (say) future house prices would be justified.

What this means, IMHO, is that any important decisions, as in decisions that are really going to matter in how you experience life, you'll typically find that "evidence" is feck all use to you. No amount of evidence is going to tell you if electing Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach again would be a smart move.

My feeling is that Jim Walsh may not be fully aware of just how profound a point he's making.

Lucy8080

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The idea that we should believe things disproportionately to the evidence.

As a consequence of that, the idea that we should believe in a supernatural being that created the universe, intervenes personally in the running of the universe, is the source of morality, and has a special personal relationship with human beings on the planet Earth in one of a hundred billion solar systems in the Milky Way galaxy which is one of a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.

o.k.

It seems we have gone beyond a lack of belief ...into a rejection of a personal understanding of what "god" means to you.

From there...proselytising and agitating against the perceived insult to your identity.

The atheists will get their branch on the tree.. the theistic branches will have to be trimmed so all get equal access to the light they make claim to. And what they expect it to do for their identity.


One day we will lay an axe to the root of the tree, rather than trim the branches .

Obliq

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.

It seems we have gone beyond a lack of belief ...into a rejection of a personal understanding of what "god" means to you.

From there...proselytising and agitating against the perceived insult to your identity.

The atheists will get their branch on the tree.. the theistic branches will have to be trimmed so all get equal access to the light they make claim to. And what they expect it to do for their identity.


One day we will lay an axe to the root of the tree, rather than trim the branches .

WUT. R. U. ON. ABOUT

Dearie me, that is nearly worthy of some of the more flowery of language Islamic theologians and mystics. Have you been reading much Rumi lately?

Pherekydes

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The atheists will get their branch on the tree.

Eh, no. Atheists have their own tree. We will have two trees: the tree of belief, and the tree of knowledge.

One day we will lay an axe to the root of the tree, rather than trim the branches .

That's what theocrats have been doing to the tree of knowledge for thousands of years.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Pherekydes wrote: »

Eh, no. Atheists have their own tree. We will have two trees: the tree of belief, and the tree of knowledge.

Don't be misled by this arboreal heresy. Follow the Gourd.

shruikan2553

Pherekydes wrote: »

Eh, no. Atheists have their own tree. We will have two trees: the tree of belief, and the tree of knowledge.



That's what theocrats have been doing to the tree of knowledge for thousands of years.

Do biscuits grow from the tree of knowledge?

Lucy8080

Obliq wrote: »

WUT. R. U. ON. ABOUT

Dearie me, that is nearly worthy of some of the more flowery of language Islamic theologians and mystics. Have you been reading much Rumi lately?

Thanks for the compliment , that's good company to be associated with.

If you see your identity as being a "noun", and actively promote it- like athiest for example-.maybe a good starting point would be finding out if there is any reality in the identity you claim/promote.

.Or ,possibly, it may be a faith based position.Of course ...Jim Walsh might be entertaining a similar illusion.

If we can trust the little claims we can move onto the bigger claims.

Obliq

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment , that's good company to be associated with.

If you see your identity as being a "noun", and actively promote it- like athiest for example-.maybe a good starting point would be finding out if there is any reality in the identity you claim/promote.

.Or ,possibly, it may be a faith based position.Of course ...Jim Walsh might be entertaining a similar illusion.

If we can trust the little claims we can move onto the bigger claims.

Wow, your posts are difficult to follow, never mind answer, and rarely worth answering from what I've seen, but hey ho....

My identity in noun form:
Human
Woman
Mother
Lover

"My atheism" is just a short way of saying "my lack of belief in any deity", not a noun. A bit like talking about "my difficulties", by way of avoiding the long list of them ;-)

You seem to have got me (for one) wrong. I do not actively promote a non-belief, because that would be stupid. I promote fairness towards people who, like me, are discriminated against because of their beliefs/lack of belief. That's the only promoting I do.

Fairness. Perhaps that's the noun? (I don't know, have a blockage about grammar. I do know that "blockage" in this case would be a noun, even though it's hypothetical blockage.) Anyhow, I'm quite happy to let the noun Fairness identify me for now, and I'll promote that to my last breath. Is it real? Is there any reality in the fairness I'm promoting? Well...that's a matter of perspective innit.

Ding! Your turn.

Hotblack Desiato

Funny how so many theists seem to genuinely believe that anyone who isn't actively in favour of discrimination towards religion must be in favour of discrimination against it.

Reminiscent of Dubya's infamous 'either for us or against us' and just as idiotic.

It's also funny how many theists seem actively fearful of the idea of people getting along with their lives just fine without religion.

When I was being catholic educated one of the things we were told was that one of the greatest evils in the world was 'materialism'. Of course we, and most people, interpreted this as material riches, goods, wealth etc. But what it really meant was the philosophical concept of materialism, i.e. scepticism or denial that supernaturalism exists, because the idea that everything we can see, experience, sense or detect can be explained without supernatural actions is deeply threatening to religion.

Corkfeen

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment , that's good company to be associated with.

If you see your identity as being a "noun", and actively promote it- like athiest for example-.maybe a good starting point would be finding out if there is any reality in the identity you claim/promote.

.Or ,possibly, it may be a faith based position.Of course ...Jim Walsh might be entertaining a similar illusion.

If we can trust the little claims we can move onto the bigger claims.

This is the same guy who complained because he couldn't call gay people 'fairies' and blamed depression in women on working outside of the home....

He's a complete nutjob tbh.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Indeed, but obscure points of theology can also be demonstrated. And, similarly, they can't be definitively connected to reality.

This harks back to a debate that has gone on for thousands of years, as to whether any real knowledge can be derived from pure thought or whether knowledge always is a product of experience. In fairness, I don't think that settles the point, because "data", "perceptions" and "imaginings" could all be the same thing.

Now, a total sceptic would do quite silly things. (My mate David Hume comments on this in some of his writings.) A sceptic pilot would see nothing wrong in taking off in a plane with the fuel gauge close to empty, as gauges can occasionally be wrong. Hence, the sceptic pilot would see an empty gauge as giving no more information than a full gauge, which could also be wrong. The perfect sceptic would even argue that there is no particular reason to believe that crashing a plane at some future time is particularly dangerous, just because plane crashes in the past have been unpleasant events.

So, pragmatically, we dismiss that kind of silly concern. That said, we don't have a 100% watertight argument for doing so. We just recognise that we couldn't function with such a silly degree of doubt.

However, frequently, a substantial degree of doubt is justified. And this is particularly true in human affairs. We might have a capacity to predict some purely physical things with a high degree of precision, like how long it will take to boil an egg. But the sceptic level of doubts over (say) future house prices would be justified.

What this means, IMHO, is that any important decisions, as in decisions that are really going to matter in how you experience life, you'll typically find that "evidence" is feck all use to you. No amount of evidence is going to tell you if electing Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach again would be a smart move.

My feeling is that Jim Walsh may not be fully aware of just how profound a point he's making.

Hogwash. A "true" skeptic does not assign equal chance to every possibility. They would not fire a gun up in the air and think that it would land on a murderer. They might entertain the possibility of such a thing happening, but to act on it would be insane.
As for your pilot scenario, a "perfect" skeptic would get it checked like any other pilot. Because while there's a chance that it's just faulty, and the journey will go fine, there is equally a chance that it won't, in fact, even if it's just a faulty guage they'd still get it fixed, so they'd know when they were running out of fuel and while there is a chance that they'd survive the plane crash, which they'd acknowledge, they'd also acknowledge the larger chance that they would not and avoid such an event.

robindch

ninja900 wrote: »

Funny how so many theists seem to genuinely believe that anyone who isn't actively in favour of discrimination towards religion must be in favour of discrimination against it.

You can hardly blame them -- it's catholic dogma:

Matthew 12:30 wrote:

Whoever is not with me is against me

GCU Flexible Demeanour

gaynorvader wrote: »

A "true" skeptic does not assign equal chance to every possibility.

I don't know what a "true" skeptic is. (Is it anything like a "true" Scotsman?) But a total skeptic will not accept that probabilities based on past experience are any guide to the future.

And I absolutely stick by my point that in any important decisions, as in decisions that are really going to matter in how you experience life, you'll typically find that "evidence" is feck all use to you.

gaynorvader

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't know what a "true" skeptic is. (Is it anything like a "true" Scotsman?) But a total skeptic will not accept that probabilities based on past experience are any guide to the future.

Fine, "total" skeptic then (talk about pedantic). Would not be able to function as they would doubt everything and be unable to make any decision about anything.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And I absolutely stick by my point that in any important decisions, as in decisions that are really going to matter in how you experience life, you'll typically find that "evidence" is feck all use to you.

I disagree hugely. What experience can you name where evidence is of no use in deciding how to approach it?

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

What experience can you name where evidence is of no use in deciding how to approach it?

For the prolifers, abortion because of suicidal tendencies. Or teh gehys having children.