3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 01:40 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 01:19 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Chippy, I'm not sure that Taq is showing signs of coprographia. He doesn't seem to actually be making many (if any) of these images, and they don't seem to be involuntary. Even if he had tourettes expressed through coprographia, and was creating obscenities involunarily as he typed, he could simply delete them after the tic had expressed itself, before posting voluntarily. I do not see compelling evidence that Taq suffers from Tourette's. I questioned the nick name not in support of Taq, but because I know others here who actually have it. Although it may manifest in the way they post... It's not a spastic flow of obscenities and insults. So why not pick a different nick name for the local attack dog?

Taq, have you been diagnosed with Tourette's?

It doesn't really matter, it is a good name for it. He's not really an "attack dog" he's more like a lab chimp with Down's Syndrome that has learnt how to use the IMG tag.

But aside from that, a disorder can be ego syntonic. If someone isn't embarrassed about their coprographia they wouldn't feel the need to delete it after they created it. But yes, strictly speaking you are right that there is no compelling evidence that our lab chimp has Tourette's Disorder. We are taking some artistic license. If Tourettes had Tourette's it wouldn't say.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
24-01-2014, 01:52 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 01:40 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 01:19 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Chippy, I'm not sure that Taq is showing signs of coprographia. He doesn't seem to actually be making many (if any) of these images, and they don't seem to be involuntary. Even if he had tourettes expressed through coprographia, and was creating obscenities involunarily as he typed, he could simply delete them after the tic had expressed itself, before posting voluntarily. I do not see compelling evidence that Taq suffers from Tourette's. I questioned the nick name not in support of Taq, but because I know others here who actually have it. Although it may manifest in the way they post... It's not a spastic flow of obscenities and insults. So why not pick a different nick name for the local attack dog?

Taq, have you been diagnosed with Tourette's?

It doesn't really matter, it is a good name for it. He's not really an "attack dog" he's more like a lab chimp with Down's Syndrome that has learnt how to use the IMG tag.

But aside from that, a disorder can be ego syntonic. If someone isn't embarrassed about their coprographia they wouldn't feel the need to delete it after they created it. But yes, strictly speaking you are right that there is no compelling evidence that our lab chimp has Tourette's Disorder. We are taking some artistic license. If Tourettes had Tourette's it wouldn't say.

Not entirely sure that he would be embarrassed to admit having Tourette's if it were egosyntonic and he felt it was "consistent with one's(his) ideal self-image"

But hey, good enough. Learned a few new things, and IDGAF past this point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 02:04 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Fair enough.
Do you plan on addressing the OP, now that evenheathen has answered your questions? Consider

I'm still waiting for a response to my PM, by the way.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 02:06 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
WeAreTheCosmos, our lab chimp appears to have some sort of learning deficit, i.e. it is some sort of retard. Its retardation causes it to think that when it expresses incredulity in response to an argument that it has refuted the argument.

So if you present to it some argument, any argument, and it wants to disagree with it rather than actually demonstrating how the argument is flawed it will post something like this:

[Image: baby-memes-omg-cute-things-083012-10.jpg]

and from that post onwards it will behave as if it refuted the argument. Whether it actually believes it refuted the argument or it is a just a compensatory charade (because it is incapable of refuting the argument) is unclear. I have never seen it actually refute an argument or engage in any sustained argumentation.

Does it matter whether it is a real retard or just a loser that is trying to mask its inadequacies? It has inadequacies regardless. At worst we would be bickering about the magnitude of its inadequacies. I don't care enough to argue over that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 02:08 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 02:04 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 12:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Fair enough.
Do you plan on addressing the OP, now that evenheathen has answered your questions? Consider

I'm still waiting for a response to my PM, by the way.

Relax, I read your PM. I may answer today after dinner if I feel up to it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 02:11 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 02:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Relax, I read your PM. I may answer today after dinner if I feel up to it.
Fair enough. I was quite perplexed when I saw you responding to Taqiyya's posts over and over again while I'm waiting for a response (even one such as this, simply letting me know that you have read it and are not ignoring it on purpose).

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 02:17 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 11:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 05:44 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Of course a lack of evidence doesn't assume evidence is knowable, your dependence on evidence (or there lack of) is the assumption. If you have no position towards if evidence is knowable, then why do you confirm that the lack of evidence as if it's meaningful, or sufficient justification for your position?

The fundamental point which you seem to have difficulty grasping or addressing is that, assessing evidence assumes the necessary senses and ability to answer this question through potential analysis and observation. Given your dependence on evidence, I would expect that you can provide evidence to justify why you depend on evidence to answer this question. Is there a remote inkling you have which evidence is relevant and which is not? Personally I have no belief that either theists or atheist have ever addressed this question to a sufficient level. Perhaps, the singularity, quantum indeterminacy, evolution have given you sufficient grounds to make you feel justified in your approach towards obtaining evidence as a basis for addressing existence, personally these have done nothing for me as I was never a theist. So evolution did nothing to discount my views.


Link to the the example. I will respond.

Do you mean why I am asking question that I've ignored about myself? I will answer genuine questions asked of me, so I must have missed these.


If you provide any example of where an observer was able to obverse or analyse outside of its system, or a system that the total sum of the parts equals the whole I would be convinced. You fail to address that this is a very safe assumption to make without evidence otherwise. You seem to think, by not dismissing it, that's it's perfectly sound to assume that we can. This is as much of a leap as believing that an perfect god exists. On what basis do you not dismiss that a byproduct cannot assess the origin of the system that created it, the same basis which does not dismiss fairies?


Sure, although I don't think this will provide any different insight into my position.

1. Why do you have an active lack of belief? The position comes across as one who wants to be recognised as one who negates any form of god but not have to prove anything.

I don't focus on my lack of belief, or use it as a conclusion. I identify with what I assert, not with what I dismiss.

2. What is the purpose of atheism?
To show that theism is incorrect and a false conclusion to reach, it's a response to theism and does not exist by itself.

3. Why believe evidence is (or will be) available to confirm or negate a god?
I don't hence my agnosticism. I have no belief or use in evidence to address this question. If some evidence is obtained which proves me wrong, I will change my position. If a god exists I see no reason to assume it would be be able to be observed by us. To not dismiss this notion, would at least require a point of reference, or previous occurrence of this. Otherwise your version of scepticism verges on pointless as you wouldn't dismiss anything.


If there's no purpose why identify as it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:I shall respond to the numbers.

1. That may be so, you say that's a negative thing. Not sure why. The point is to be the most logically sound I'm order to hold a position of believing the most truths, and the least non-truths.

I thought I'd provided adequate reason for why I think it's a negative thing. How is depending on evidence, which so far has not illuminated anything towards an actual truth, worthwhile? You will have accept that your your position promotes evidence to be obtainable, as you imply it provides you the means for believing the most truths. So far zero truths have been rendered.

Personally, I find this statement(The point is to be the most logically sound I'm order to hold a position of believing the most truths, and the least non-truth) to be strange towards addressing a deity. I would propose you hold an equal amount of truths and non-truths given you make no assertions, and would hopefully believe the same number. What do you have in your base assumptions which suggests to you that evidence is available? Or if you have nothing like this, I would presume this is your stance as evidence is the only means we have to formulate truth. I went past this position several years ago, as I recognized I have little reason to sit back and depend on this position as it offers me nothing philosophically, unless I really expect some form of progress towards addressing this question within my lifetime, which of course I do't. If this changes I will admit I'm wrong and adjust my position as necessary. As such, I'm obligated to play and would rather make assertions of what I believe to be viable, than hold the pretence of holding the most truths, which actually returns 0 truths at the moment.



Quote:That's why "safe assumptions" is a bullshit concept and no assumptions should be accepted, "safe" or not. I'm not even gonna get into the burden of proof point added in there.

We all make assumptions, for some reason you believe that you don't. I hold no evidence that evidence cannot be obtained. You hold no evidence that evidence can be. Which makes more sense?

Quote:2. There's no inherent purpose to positions. It's not a hard concept for most to grasp, don't know why you think differently. What's the purpose of agnosticism? There is none either. You can make up your own based on your reason for using that label but that doesn't give the label a purpose.

Of course there's a purpose, why don't you identify as someone who lacks belief in bigfoot? It doesn't have to have a material output, it may give you some purpose towards displaying your opposition to theism, it may be just for the hell of it. That doesn't mean it lacks purpose. If you really believe your atheism holds no purpose, I cannot fathom why we're discussing it.

Quote:3. Again, an equal stance I hold from this statement until the last bit that makes no sense whatsoever.. You keep claiming a difference that isn't there. Why do you not understand, saying we have no evidence for a god is just saying we don't have evidence for a God. You keep saying it means the position asserts we can find evidence... Bit where does it say that? That's you presuming and adding things that aren't there. Don't add things to concepts that aren't there, it's intellectually dishonest and insulting to logical arguments.

I really don't understand what is difficult about this to grasp.

There is no evidence available.
You request evidence to justify any position(hence your burden of proof suggestion).
But there is none for any position, so why are you asking for it?
From this request, I can only deduce that you believe evidence is coming, or you will be dead and your beliefs become redundant. You're obligated to play.

Depending on empiricism(via evidence) means you're depending on your senses, and as such believe them to be capable of obtaining evidence to address the question of a deity, it also results in a naturalistic conclusion due to the means you've chosen to assess the issue. I would prefer to rationalise it. Naturalism would be more appropriate if evidence was present to account for it.

Quote:It may seem like a weak backpedaling position to you, in a way you can be right. But that's in attempt to be the most accurate in holding correct stances.
It seems to want to hold no stance, so I don't see it as correct or worthwhile. If you're going to play, at least go on the field. But then your opposition are theists., so you want to score without being on the field.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 02:32 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 01:19 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Chippy, I'm not sure that Taq is showing signs of coprographia. He doesn't seem to actually be making many (if any) of these images, and they don't seem to be involuntary. Even if he had tourettes expressed through coprographia, and was creating obscenities involunarily as he typed, he could simply delete them after the tic had expressed itself, before posting voluntarily. I do not see compelling evidence that Taq suffers from Tourette's. I questioned the nick name not in support of Taq, but because I know others here who actually have it. Although it may manifest in the way they post... It's not a spastic flow of obscenities and insults. So why not pick a different nick name for the local attack dog?

Taq, have you been diagnosed with Tourette's?

Nah attack dog doesn't work at all.

I called him tourettes due to his constant random rambling responses, use of expletives and irrelevant meme posting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 03:16 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(28-12-2013 12:36 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  1. Why do you have an active lack of belief? The position comes across as one who wants to be recognised as one who negates any form of god but not have to prove anything.

I don't have active non-belief in general only in relation to those gods that have been seriously proposed as existing and that I know much about, namely Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah. On the basis of what I know about these gods their existence is extremely unlikely, i.e. it is more probable that I will win the first prize in a national lottery than it is that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real.

I think the concept of a god is logically coherent so the existence of a god is logically possible. I am not an igtheist because I am unconvinced that the concept of a god is incoherent. Were I an igtheist I would be able to rule out all gods because the notion would be logically incoherent. I would be able to confidently say that the probability of any god existing is zero.

However, if something is logically possible then the probability that the thing exists must be greater than zero. Any deity that is logically coherent and hence logically possible must have some non-zero probability of existing. The probability of some as yet undefined god existing is higher than the probability that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real but not much more so. This category of gods is improbable because of the lack of positive evidence. I don't have a narrative about these gods so I can't make specific conclusions but the absence of positive evidence for their existence leaves them improbable.

The instrinsic probability of FSM and Zeus existing is very, very small because the first is a parody and the second is very unparsimonious but both must have a non-zero probability. I can't categorically rule out the existence of FSM or Zeus because both are logically possible. The probability of FSM and Zeus existing is even smaller than that of Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah.

Quote:2. What is the purpose of atheism?

It has no purpose. It is just a conclusion that I have with respect to all of the proposed gods that I know about.

Quote:3. Why believe evidence is (or will be) available to confirm or negate a god?

The eventual non-arrival of the messiah, Jesus and Judgement after say 1000 years will render Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively even more unlikely to be true than they currently are. Other than that it is unlikely that there will be any specific evidence to confirm or negate the existence of a god. I am uncertain what such evidence would even consist in for either case.

If it can be demonstrated conclusively that theism is logically incoherent then that would show that no confirmatory evidence will ever appear. But aside from that possibility I can't think of any piece of evidence which would either definitively confirm or negate the existence of deity in general. Even the appearance of someone claiming to be Jesus that had apparently supernatural abilities would not conclusively establish that it was in fact a deity--it could be a malevolent alien using some advanced technology. There exists no test to determine if a thing that claims to be a deity is in actuality a deity.

So should I really say I am agnostic rather than atheistic. Probably, but if I did so it might give the wrong impression that I am deliberating about Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah or some other proposed deity when I'm not. In practical terms I am atheistic because the probabilities that I have assigned to the likelihood of the existence of any deities are so small they do not influence my behaviour in any active way.

How did I assign the probabilities? With Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah with reference to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness and the historical knowledge regarding the origin of their respective scriptures. With the other as yet undefined deities with reference to the absence of any positive evidence. How do I know what to deem positive evidence? It would have to be something that naturalism is entirely incapable of explaining. Nothing like that has appeared and it is premature to assume that naturalism is unable to explain the ultimate origin of the universe and abiogenesis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chippy's post
24-01-2014, 03:46 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 03:16 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-12-2013 12:36 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  1. Why do you have an active lack of belief? The position comes across as one who wants to be recognised as one who negates any form of god but not have to prove anything.

I don't have active non-belief in general only in relation to those gods that have been seriously proposed as existing and that I know much about, namely Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah. On the basis of what I know about these gods their existence is extremely unlikely, i.e. it is more probable that I will win the first prize in a national lottery than it is that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real.

I think the concept of a god is logically coherent so the existence of a god is logically possible. I am not an igtheist because I am unconvinced that the concept of a god is incoherent. Were I an igtheist I would be able to rule out all gods because the notion would be logically incoherent. I would be able to confidently say that the probability of any god existing is zero.

However, if something is logically possible then the probability that the thing exists must be greater than zero. Any deity that is logically coherent and hence logically possible must have some non-zero probability of existing. The probability of some as yet undefined god existing is higher than the probability that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real but not much more so. This category of gods is improbable because of the lack of positive evidence. I don't have a narrative about these gods so I can't make specific conclusions but the absence of positive evidence for their existence leaves them improbable.

The instrinsic probability of FSM and Zeus existing is very, very small because the first is a parody and the second is very unparsimonious but both must have a non-zero probability. I can't categorically rule out the existence of FSM or Zeus because both are logically possible. The probability of FSM and Zeus existing is even smaller than that of Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah.

Quote:2. What is the purpose of atheism?

It has no purpose. It is just a conclusion that I have with respect to all of the proposed gods that I know about.

Quote:3. Why believe evidence is (or will be) available to confirm or negate a god?

The eventual non-arrival of the messiah, Jesus and Judgement after say 1000 years will render Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively even more unlikely to be true than they currently are. Other than that it is unlikely that there will be any specific evidence to confirm or negate the existence of a god. I am uncertain what such evidence would even consist in for either case.

If it can be demonstrated conclusively that theism is logically incoherent then that would show that no confirmatory evidence will ever appear. But aside from that possibility I can't think of any piece of evidence which would either definitively confirm or negate the existence of deity in general. Even the appearance of someone claiming to be Jesus that had apparently supernatural abilities would not conclusively establish that it was in fact a deity--it could be a malevolent alien using some advanced technology. There exists no test to determine if a thing that claims to be a deity is in actuality a deity.

So should I really say I am agnostic rather than atheistic. Probably, but if I did so it might give the wrong impression that I am deliberating about Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah or some other proposed deity when I'm not. In practical terms I am atheistic because the probabilities that I have assigned to the likelihood of the existence of any deities are so small they do not influence my behaviour in any active way.

How did I assign the probabilities? With Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah with reference to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness and the historical knowledge regarding the origin of their respective scriptures. With the other as yet undefined deities with reference to the absence of any positive evidence. How do I know what to deem positive evidence? It would have to be something that naturalism is entirely incapable of explaining. Nothing like that has appeared and it is premature to assume that naturalism is unable to explain the ultimate origin of the universe and abiogenesis.

I can understand this perspective a lot better than most others outlined.

The questions I have are:
Do you think that agnostics, appears to theists, that are deliberating over gods (probably theirs)? This would be an incorrect assumption to make on their part.
I'm agnostic towards an undefined god, the defined gods are something I'm atheistic towards.

Are you agnostic towards an undefined deity? Given the obvious lack of traits to assess them, assessing probabilities seems a pointless exercise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: