Maybe you would like to share with the rest of the posters here why you disagree with me. I say the rest of the posters here not because I don’t value the great hinsdight your contributions bring to the debate (blasphemous as the thought may be!), but because your condescending tone annoys the hell out of me and I wouldn’t want to piss off the mods of GD. Or maybe we should do away with any sort sort of logical reasoning. Looking back, the “rules” are obviously lacking, I apologize. What I meant to say is you can either believe or not but ILWN’s belief is a sacred gem not to be challenged. Be warned that if you don’t obey these rules she will roll her eyes at you a lot! Or wait, even better, let’s hold a contest to see who makes fewer spelling mistakes using our respective native languages. :rolleyes:
For the others obviously when I chose the word rule it was implied that I don’t consider myself any sort of authority to impose rules. Seems obvious but anyway…
I deserve to be gigged by **Apos ** for attempting to use a refined definition of *belief * in a trivial situation. When talking of pennies in fists or matters of heads-or-tails there is no information input, only blind guessing. I tried to define “belief” as an absolute and show that with that definition there could only be one interpretation of a verbal phrase. But I used it in a poor example which encourages the alternate interpretation. That was a huge gaffe on my part.
It is true that when talking about mere guesses the phrase “I don’t believe there is” can mean both “I don’t have an opinion” (or "I don’t know,etc.) or it can mean “I believe there is not” (which affirms the negative.) In other words whether the verbage is used to express a definite condition or an indefinite condition depends on unspoken semantic shifts.
I was trying to show that *true * or *absolute * “belief”, contrary to the “feeling” or “hunch” of guessing games can only be interpreted with the *definite * connotation. The *indefinite * connotation is simply another way of saying “I can’t know, I refuse to participate in the game”.
But in real life you can’t refuse to participate in the game. You *are in * the game. And I agree with Huxley when he said that the most noble thing a man can do is say “I believe such to be true.” Because you have to play and you have to make a choice the only interpretation of the verbage “I don’t believe in God” has to be “I believe there is not a God.” If you choose the indeterminate connotation over the affirmation of the negative then you are merely turning around, closing your eyes, and sticking your head in the ground.
The truth is the farther you get from trivial matters and the closer you get to matters where there is a world of sensory input, the more “belief” is defined as “what I know” as opposed to “what I feel.” I’m sorry and embarrassed that I introduced the “what I know” connotation into a “what I feel” scenario.
Again, you can refuse to play the game with pennies, but you cannot refuse to play the game when it deals with fundamental beliefs.
My condescending tone wa a success then. There’s no point in just one of us being annoyed. I do apologize for pointing out your spelling errors. Where I come from, being told you are a poor speller doesn’t carry quite the insult that being told you are "Intellectually Incapable does.
I do believe in G-d, but I don’t expect anyone else to, if that’s what you’re implying. I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to not believe . It’s more logical. Intellectally, it is a much more defensible position. I actually have more respect for the reasons people don’t believe, than the reasons people do. I just don’t agree that “I don’t believe in G-d” also requires “There is no G-d”. The first one is a true statement and the second one cannot be more than an opinion. My only problem with your statement was that it was rude and insulting. Oh, and it wasn’t true. I’ll have to respectfully decline on the “spelling dual” as I don’t want to make you run crying from the room. You should have chose math.
Iampunha, do you think that a reasonable adult who believes in Santa Claus is absurd? (Let’s pretend that your answer is “yes”.) Does that make you an arbiter of fairy tales? Does that make you a dictator of truth? Does that make you arrogant?..imperious?
Now, if you ask a third party for their opinion and they respond "I can’t disprove Santa Claus. I accept the possibility that a jolly old elf can fly around the world with the aid of magic reindeer almost instantaneously, etc. ", wouldn’t you believe that that statement is as absurd as the man who openly affirms the existence of Santa Claus? Would that conclusion make you an unbearable metaphysical bully?
The atheist believes that the concept of a theistic creator is absurd. Therefore anyone who accepts the possibility of absurdity is also absurd. The fact is that believers make more sense than agnostics because they make no pretense of rationality. Believers believe in magic, pure and simple.
I actually do believe in Santa Claus, though not quite the massively-consumerized version 21st (and mid-late 20th) century media throws at us (by us I mean the USA, as I’m not too well informed on SC’s status in other countries). But that’s neither here nor there, so let’s assume for the purposes of this analogy that I do not believe that Santa Claus exists. I’m extremely hesitant to hold the position, even in theory or for purposes of an analogy, that belief in an entity is absurd.
Let us assume, however, that I did believe that belief in Santa Claus was absurd. I do not think, for one, that I would post it as such here … at least, by no means in the fashion you’ve done:) For one, who am I to decide what is absurd and what is not? There are certainly those who think my stance on X or Y (or xyz, but that’s something else entirely:D) is absurd. However, what makes my position any more valid than theirs?
If, on the other hand, I state that in my opinion that the notion of X is absurd but that my opinion is worth as much as anyone else’s … then I have not offended those who believe in X quite so much, have I? I also have not placed myself in a position of knowledge of either what is absurd or what is X.
It would be, IMO, extremely arrogant to appoint myself as arbiter of X merely because I think it is absurd. For how am I to know that I have the most complete knowledge of X? I am reasonably confident that, given a vast array of topics (unless we get to the useless: the color of my shoes; or the really useless: the vitality of my Diablo 2 ladder macebarb), there is someone here who knows more than I do about any topic. And there is probably someone in the world who knows more than that doper on that topic. What would lend credibility to my stance on the absurdity of X is if someone else who is known for (and rightfully so) their knowledge of X appoints me as arbiter or says “let’s wait for punha to answer this question; he’s shown his knowledge and acumen in the past”.
But I still wouldn’t consider myself arbiter of X.
You should have defined Santa Claus earlier;) But anyway. If I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that a previously-accepted definition of Santa Claus (accepted by that third party) renders such a being’s existence absurd, then I would believe the statement of belief in such to be very peculiar, sure. However, having established that I believe X is absurd, I still have yet to be established as the one to make the decision on A) what beliefs are, in actuality, absurd, and B) what that says about the people who hold those beliefs. That I hold X to be absurd need say nil about it. Regardless of what value I give to my personal opinion, mine is not the only one that matters. As such it would be wholly inappropriate and incorrect (and some other stuff, but this is already a long post) for me to take the “logical” step to make an assumption about the individual who holds what I consider (personally) to be an absurd belief.
What would make me a metaphysical bully would be to establish myself as arbiter of what is absurd (concerning X or all things or some things or whatever) when I have not established my own case for being arbiter. As I am not That Being, Knower of All (capitalized for emphasis), I do not believe it would be intellectually honest to establish myself as the arbiter of anything meaningful in any useful way (I do not think anyone is laying down a million dollars on how high my barbarian’s vitality is…). Being, as I am, not That Being, Knower of All when it comes to X or Santa Claus, my self-appointment as arbiter of such would be highly inappropriate (not to mention very possibly offensive).
Every atheist? Is it possible that some do not think it absurd but merely incorrect?
This is true if and only if that atheist also believes that s/he holds the perfect knowledge about the existence of a theistic creator. If, on the other hand, that atheist allows for the possibility that s/he is wrong, then the possibility of the existence of the theistic creator is not absurd but a possibility, however faint.
Your definition of fact (not to mention agnostic, atheist and absurd;)) notwithstanding, what is rationality to you need not be rationality to anyone else. You are merely extending your own personal version of reality (however real it is to you, and I believe you’ve made it quite clear in this thread how real it is to you:D) to every single human being on Earth. You have yet to establish, outside of your own word, your veracity in this.
I would think, tangentially, that you would prefer agnostics, some of whom “at least” allow for the possibility that what is absurd to you is incorrect to them (the existence of a theistic creator). But then this thread has clearly shown your thought process:)
I’m piping up here, after a LONG absence, because I was pointed here by a friend, and also because I was intriguiged. As my understanding goes, Ex Machina, an atheist does not believe that the possibility of a “God” is absurd… because that would imply the belief in the possibility of said deity. It is MY understanding that an atheist does not even consider the POSSIBILITY of a deity, but has other beliefs as to how the universe operates. I think, it may be possible, that you are mixing up the terms agnostic and atheist… but I could be seriously wrong.
I’m too tired to get into the agnostic/atheist squabble, to which so many of these threads seem to devolve, but I must comment on the OP. I agree wholeheartedly. From an earlier thread:
“Every atheist? Is it possible that some do not think it absurd but merely incorrect?” - Iampunha
“As my understanding goes, Ex Machina, an atheist does not believe that the possibility of a “God” is absurd…” - **Wandering Agnostic **
An atheist denies the existence of gods. Gods are defined as supreme or supernatural intelligent beings capable of creation and having an interest in, and the ability to become involved in, the workings of man and nature.
An atheist does not deny a “life force” obviously because it’s…well…obvious. To an atheist the totality of nature (Spinoza’s and subsequently Einstein’s “God”) is not considered as a theistic concept.
An atheist looks at the world, considers physical laws, considers injustice, considers random cruelty, considers birth, death, loneliness, human hope, the vast array of mythology, murder of innocents, the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and all the myriad impersonal vicissitudes of this world and concludes that we are merely another animal on Earth that has evolved the trait of intellectual foresight and acute self-awareness.
My 1920 Webster’s defines *absurd * as “inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense.”(As good a definition as you will find.) And this is precisely what an atheist concludes about the possibility of “gods” and which differentiates him absolutely from an “agnostic”.
Personally, I find this a curious statement. Not to insult any atheists out there, but:
A supernatural being, as I understand it, is one that is not based in ‘nature’, that is, one that has not been observed to be founded in natural reality as we understand it. This does not mean that it doesn’t exist; it merely means that it is not observed, or not understood when (some people) seem to observe it. Keep in mind that this does not mean it cannot be understood; merely that we don’t yet understand it yet. Lighting used to be considered supernatural, back in the good 'ole days when nobody had a clue why it happened. Now, it is not.
Further, the non-observance of something does not infer its non-existence. Else we would keep all of our posessions in view at all times, lest they vanish.
Given the above, it would seem absurd to say that any amount of science or reasonable thought could disporve the existence of the class of supernatural things; such things may exist without being observed. To decide that everything not yet understood by science cannot exist woudl be folly, and further would totally halt the advance of science: such a belief would be an absurd position.
Assigning the properties of capable of creation and having the ability to become involved do not affect the situation in the slightest, since there is no imperative that the extraphysical entity in question had to be reaching in and doing anything at the moment you were looking at. Even if it were possible to prove that the entity never interfered with a given aspect of reality, such as the creation of the earth, that does not in any way disprove the possibility that an entity capable of doing so exists, somewhere where you can’t observe it.
The most that can be done is to hunt down point-by-point each instance where divine influence is claimed to be involved, and to observe, study, and form a compelling argument that there was in fact no diety present. Of course, ‘compelling’ is a personal stance; no amount of science can prove that there was not in fact a diety that the science involved failed to observe. Wether or not any diety exists, the process of scientific observation and advancement is fallible.
So, in conclusion, it is absurd to claim that you know that god does not exist; the very statement is inherently uncertain based on our inability to guarantee perfection in our methods of observation. You can, of course, believe that no god exists, but such a believe is a personal conclusion inferred from your own thoughts and decisions; the idea that it is certainly a general truth requires a somewhat disturbing misunderstanding about the limitations and frontiers of scientific knowledge.
So, I frankly admit that I am agnostic, though the precise flavor of my agnisticism is perturbed by the fact that there are many persons, who seem rational otherwise, claiming to be having regular experiences of a paranormal nature. As I am not so foolishly presumptive as to state that I know that they are *all * delusional (auch a conclusion seems absurd), I am forced to keep an even more open mind about the possibility of extraphysical intervention than mere epistomology makes me.
Taking this line of thought to an extreme, you can say that science is only true when applied, meaning that gravity follows a certain law only we try to observe whether it does. And technically, it’s true.
An atheist does not claim to know that Goes does not exist. Merriam-Webster defines an atheist as one who ‘disbelieves or denies the existence of God,’ and defines ‘denies’ as ‘to refuse to believe; reject.’ Like Ex Machina alluded earlier, nothing can be “known.” The atheist’s belief, which may assume a role as strong as those of things “known,” emerges not as much from counter-evidence as understanding of human psychology and cognition and how these allow to construct sustained counterfactual or premature conclusions like those of a faith in an anthropomorphic God.
No, I’m saying that we can only know that gravity is happening when we observe the effects. To assume that gravity misbehaves when not observed is not the sort of thing I’m talking about. And I’m not sure that ‘application’ of science has anything to do with it, beyond wether or not we notice any deviations.
What I’m saying is, when speaking of supernatural entities, we implicitly admit the inadequacy of science to prove their nonexistence. Their existence is not proven either; any more than gravity fluctuations are proven to happen when we turn around. It’s simply part of the nature of science to allow for things not yet known. The (apparent) stance of atheism denies this possibility, presumably in overreaction to the extreme amount of unproven deistic intervention that some people claim is happening.
So how does this differ from agnosticism? Since this whole tangent started by an assertion (by an atheist) that agnostics are cowards, I assume that he, at least, thinks there’s a difference.
**Begbert2, ** I think you are just ignoring the definition of a theistic god which atheists oppose and substituting some idea of a vague life force which isn’t posited by believers.
“A supernatural being, as I understand it, is one that is not based in ‘nature’, that is, one that has not been observed to be founded in natural reality as we understand it. This does not mean that it doesn’t exist; it merely means that it is not observed, or not understood when (some people) seem to observe it. Keep in mind that this does not mean it cannot be understood; merely that we don’t yet understand it yet.” - Begbert2
You just focused on the ‘supernatural’ quality and didn’t consider the personal, emotional, creational, salvational and other aspects of familiarity which believers assert are characteristics of the god they believe in. Atheists believe the evidence opposes these supposed attributes.
The supernatural ‘thing’ you hint at could include the life force which atheists recognize, but not a quaint loving father figure preparing a paradise for His faithful and obedient children.
Depending on the definition in use for agnostic, absolutely. I suppose it will only bewilder Ex Machina more to know that I am not just agnostic but an agnostic theist. So now only does my position not exist to him, it is an absurdity. I hope he doesn’t lose any sleep over it:D
Congratulations then. I was offended because it was meant to be offensive. Next time you might want to give it a try to attack the argument instead of the poster. Your derision is dumb and pointless.
I’ll keep it simple for you: “I don’t believe in god” means “I don’t believe there is a god.” Or do you have the habit of not believing in things which you believe that exist?
No, that falls under “believing”. If you can’t understand the rules you shouldn’t play the game.
No, I don’t, in fact. How do you suggest I do that? Care to provide evidence to the contrary?
I offered my point of view. You are free to agree or disagree with it or keep making vacuous claims for evidence.
From Merriam-Webster:
If your definition of “agnostic theist” means you hold the view that god is unknowable but you believe in a god, well, I think that is a valid point of view (and I dearly hope this sentence doesn’t hurt any precious sensibilities :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ).
In my original post I expressed my opinion that people should commit either way. You’re certainly free not to. Because, and I don’t think any honest debater will deny this, the nature of god (something that has been defined as unknowable and uncomprehensible, everything and nothing all at once and so on) can’t be subjected to any logical or rigorous analysis. To be consistent one would have to be a fairy agnostic, etc… I don’t know wether god exists or not. But looking at the evidence available to me, such notion is absurd (to me). Someone who claims to be an agnostic seems someone unwilling to compromise and an intellectually poor position to be in.
Aren’t you too old to believe in Santa Claus by the way?
