3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 04:36 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 03:46 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 03:16 AM)Chippy Wrote:  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.


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


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.

Chips explanation is helpful to me BS, he has explained much more eloquently what I was trying to say to you before about agnosticism is intellectually honest but atheism is my position.

Chippy, I have been thinking a lot about your previous comment to me and I don't fully understand. Please can you clarify? ... Maybe I didn't explain myself well, so I will try again.

My agnostic atheism is a conclusion (yes I have just stolen that from your post, it makes sense and is helpful to what I was trying to say).

I identify as an anti-theist, in other words, my 'active beliefs', as BS asks about, are things like, pro choice, no genital mutilation, pro science (anti creationism). It may be based on a less clear explanation previously on my part but you mentioned the ignostic position to me directly and have touched upon it again in your last post. Would you be so kind as to explain again how it applies to my position? ... From what I have read in the last day or so, I think I may be misunderstanding the ignostic position, or possibly miss using the term anti-theism.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 03:46 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

Yes they are likely to think that you need only read the NT or the Quran and pray for guidance and you will be converted. That you actually mean that you are less uncertain about some undefined deity than you are about Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah is unlikely to be assumed.

Quote:I'm agnostic towards an undefined god, the defined gods are something I'm atheistic towards.

Yes, that is where I stand also.

Quote:Are you agnostic towards an undefined deity? Given the obvious lack of traits to assess them, assessing probabilities seems a pointless exercise.

Yes I am agnostic towards an undefined deity and I notionally give it a probability that is higher than Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah (because it may not be defined as benevolent and hence has no problem of evil) but I can't specify an actual quantity.
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, 05:10 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Brownshirt,
Is this a 2-way now, between you and Chippy, or would you still welcome other people's answers to your questions?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 05:12 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 06:40 AM by Chippy.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 04:36 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I identify as an anti-theist, in other words, my 'active beliefs', as BS asks about, are things like, pro choice, no genital mutilation, pro science (anti creationism). It may be based on a less clear explanation previously on my part but you mentioned the ignostic position to me directly and have touched upon it again in your last post. Would you be so kind as to explain again how it applies to my position? ... From what I have read in the last day or so, I think I may be misunderstanding the ignostic position, or possibly miss using the term anti-theism.

Ignosticism which is also known as igtheism is (a)theological position that the concept of theism is logically incoherent. The specific arguments vary but the general idea is that statements about god or gods are meaningless. For example some igtheists claim that the traditionally "omni-max" deity is self-contradictory.

If the strongest version of igtheism can be demonstrated to be true it will render the probability of any gods existing to be zero. It will be zero because logically impossible things can't exist, e.g. married bachelors, spheroidal cubes. If gods have no chance of existing then there is no need for the contingency of agnosticism, we can boldly state that no gods exist. So igtheism permits what is termed strong atheism, positive atheism or anti-theism.

But as I have already stated, AFAIK the validity of igtheism is not clear and it is a minority view even amongst non-religious philosophers of religion. The consenus view is that a logically coherent definition of some deity is possible.

Igtheism--or at least the ideas that eventually came to be called igtheism--got a big boost in the early 20th-century when logical positivism became dominant in Anglo-American philosophy. Logical positivism was responsible for many of the arguments behind theological noncognitivism. But by the 1950s logical positivism started to decline--as it flaws became apparent--and with it also went the enthusiasm for theological noncognitivism.

I have not recently done a literature review to see exactly what the status of igtheism is. You have piqued my interest to learn roughly what proportion of non-religious philosopher of religion identify as igtheist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chippy's post
24-01-2014, 05:45 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 04:36 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  From what I have read in the last day or so, I think I may be misunderstanding the ignostic position, or possibly miss using the term anti-theism.

Anti-theism doesn't appear to have a universally accepted meaning. It doesn't appear that it describes a philosophical position but more of a political position. That is to say, it is synonymous with anti-religion. Is that what you mean by anti-theism?

If by anti-theism you mean anti-religion then that has no necessary association with igtheism. A person could be an igtheist and anti-theist or not an anti-theist. Anti-theism would have a sociological rather than a philosophical justification. Christopher Hitchens was in this sense an anti-theist.
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, 06:50 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 05:45 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 04:36 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  From what I have read in the last day or so, I think I may be misunderstanding the ignostic position, or possibly miss using the term anti-theism.

Anti-theism doesn't appear to have a universally accepted meaning. It doesn't appear that it describes a philosophical position but more of a political position. That is to say, it is synonymous with anti-religion. Is that what you mean by anti-theism?

If by anti-theism you mean anti-religion then that has no necessary association with igtheism. A person could be an igtheist and anti-theist or not an anti-theist. Anti-theism would have a sociological rather than a philosophical justification. Christopher Hitchens was in this sense an anti-theist.

Yes mate, that's exactly what I mean. My anti-theistic beliefs are based in a social and political reaction to the doctrines of religion which have a direct impact on my world, or any challenge to my political position on certain issues.

Regarding igtheism please share anything you find. Anything I come across, I'll do the same. I'm interested because on surface glance at myself, introspectively I don't see a problem with igtheism regarding certain theistic gods. Take Yahweh, the world wasn't created in 7 days, snakes don't talk, the world wasn't flooded etc; so I see him as likely as a 'married bachelor', the only god that I know of that I must hold an intellectually honest agnostic view on, is Einstein's deist god and even then, that's ignoring the argument of reduction.

There's my head battered again! Big Grin

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 08:01 AM by Chas.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 06:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  You and Chippy can go fuck yourselves. I have nothing to do with what Taq posts.

You neutral repped Tourettes so that is a tacit endorsement of its idiotic posting behaviour. He who lies with dogs...

No it is not an endorsement, that was a downgrade.

And in this thread I directly told Taq to stop it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:20 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 08:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 07:38 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Chippy, I think everyone here knows you're smarter than the average bear; obviously well educated and what I'd consider advanced self-educating. Meaning you even go the extra mile to conquer subject matter.

but

You are a pompous ass about it.

LOL



from what others have said.......a few of us just wonder WHY.... why be a pompous ass about it? Isn't the mastery of topics enough? You may know more about something than someone else............groovy. You really don't have to shove someone's face down in the mud with that knowledge. It really does take away from the level of intellect perhaps we'd rather see in you. Maybe you're just so smart it's how you keep yourself humble in a way??
Meh - who knows?
(I know I know it's lame for me to diagnose you this way.........stupid stupid I know)


*shrug*








Just a note from the club of those you hate-on: we are the proud, the forum enjoy-ees, and the many

It seems that being a "pompous ass" is a very subjective assessment because that charge was made against Maklelan and I did not think he was being a "pompous ass". He actually assumed much more of his audience than he should have and that resulted in many misunderstandings. That he actually assumed more than he should have about his audience suggests that he wasn't trying to be condescending. So despite his clear expertise, intellect and good-faith he still received vitriol from the cheap seats. This would seem to cast doubt on your analysis.

Look at Maklelan's ratings to see there were people beside me that were favourably disposed towards him.

I think Maklelan's posts were not assessed on their own merits but rather through a prejudicial filter. He was labelled as an out-group member and treated accordingly by the bovine herd of this forum. He was even accused of having a fake bio on his blog page. I didn't see you protest against the defamation of Maklelan. Maklelan was much more polite and courteous than I am but it made no difference to his treatment by the bovine herd.

You are really talking about herd behaviour and rationality has very little to do with herd behaviour. It would be irrational to expect rational behaviour from an irrational mob.

Regarding "shov[ing] someone's face down in the mud with that knowledge", that is the penalty for bovine behaviour. In the face of shrill, irrational and atavistic behaviour it is the appropriate response. It is also the appropriate response to intellectual chicanery such as that from Mark Fulton and DocSkeptic. If you are going to erect a paper thin facade of expertise then I will tear it down. It is an incongruity to read complaints about the herd behaviour of religious people and the charlatanry of religious leaders and then to see atheistic counterparts of that behaviour here. It is also slavish to not criticize this behaviour.



Actually I called Mak generic and narrow minded. Generic because we've seen those tired, same-ol attitudes of his hundreds of times before. I think several of us here have a knee-jerk response using the term "troll" due to the number of times we see the same exact reaction and verbiage from those who pop by to set us all straight. Gets boring after awhile. I am probably guilty of a knee-jerk reaction. It's unfortunate for newbies that arrive and use the same tired crap and maybe not so eloquent of us. But your responses aren't very diverse either, Chippy.

I called him narrow-minded while you say 'assumed much about his audience' - which is close; not exact but close IMO. And not to make some inane fight but I think the fact that Mak made assumptions of his audience IS/was condescending. To behave condescendingly is to assume [feigned] superiority. I think condescending attitude became the very backdrop of his posts after awhile. You say it's not condescending......... care to explain that?

As has been tested and proven by you - superiority may well be true of any member on a particular subject but condescending (better than you) attitudes glazing knowledge doesn't seem to add sustainable value. I think often the information is missed entirely due to a human reaction to the nastiness. Since the ability to deliver data with nastiness has been mastered might I suggest you try a different method if only for sake of variety? And would you consider a human reaction to nastiness a weakness or a strength?

Speaking of 'sustainable" - why is it that you hold such value in someone's ability to hold "sustainable argumentation"? I propose that just because argumentation is of high value to You doesn't mean that's the definition of what is required for membership here. I did check and didn't see that listed as necessary. You might want to bear in mind that some might have the skills for such but do not wish to spend their time that way. Just because someone doesn't engage you, Chippy, in argumentation might indicate they know less. Sure. But it might also mean they simply do not wish to encourage you.

I am totally hurt that you'd use my "little pee girl" as an example of what NOT to do with pic application in threads. Now..........that............that hurt since I use that pic when someone's made me laugh. I won't argue about you doing that. I'll simply point out that you did so and it was a willful stab when I've chosen to be decent to you. It was a deliberate nastiness that you could have easily avoided. You may be smart but you seem to lack character.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:51 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 12:34 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  ^^^ One example of Chippy's penchant for pathologically making up as he goes along that I was referring to. See also: "unintelligible popositions".

I presume the addition of "pathologically" is supposed to give your claims some sort of authority. What you haven't realized is that you are making up stuff about me in the process of accusing me of making up stuff.

"Pathological" as in "pathological liar"


Quote:So what have I posted that is "unintelligible"?


All of your whining about others here using invective and memes, while you post using memes and a shitload of invective.

I did draw a picture for you, and you still failed to get it. Dumbass.

Quote:You also misspelled propositions but I'm not making a song and dance about it like you do spaz.

I haven't said anything about the spelling and grammatical errors you have made in this thread. Pussy.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:46 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 02:32 AM)Brownshirt 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?

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.

You call me names because you have nothing left. You have been called countless times on your disingenuous tactics and intellectual dishonesty here and all you get now is ridicule. Too bad, little fail troll.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: