Degrees of Certainty
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2017, 04:41 AM
RE: Degrees of Certainty
I think the error here is assuming self-awareness from the average theist. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2017, 05:38 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2017 05:46 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Degrees of Certainty
(22-04-2017 06:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  What possible reason do you have for being at all uncertain about the god of Islam? Facepalm

Well, I spent a couple decades studying the Sufi interpretation and elaborations of the Islamic God concept, which made some sense of it. Of course, since apologists end up having to redefine the concept to save it, you can still drop the idea as being too far from common-usage. However, the fact that it did make sense and moreover claimed to be the original (lost) meaning carried some weight with me for quite a while, and are the reasons for the 10% uncertainty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: Degrees of Certainty
I'll stay at 6.9 Thumbsup.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
23-04-2017, 06:22 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2017 06:34 AM by Fatbaldhobbit.)
RE: Degrees of Certainty
(23-04-2017 12:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'd say that I am no more or less an atheist than a rock or a dog. I certainly don't place my own atheism as superior to theirs.

No superiority was implied. I stated that since babies, rocks and dogs cannot comprehend the question that their answers (or lack thereof) were less valid. Perhaps "appropriate" would be a better word than "valid".

Suppose I ask the question "What is your favorite novel?". Would your answer not be more valid that the answers of a baby, dog or rock?

(23-04-2017 12:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  The existence of god question is itself incomprehensible.

"Do you believe in god?" seems fairly comprehensible, at least on a basic level. It requires clarification, possibly more questions, (i.e. which god, etc.) but incomprehensible? I think not.

(23-04-2017 12:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(22-04-2017 07:40 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  However, it sounds like a shaky apologetics tactic.
Really? Why?

Do we consult babies, rocks and dogs on matters of law?
Do we ask babies, rocks and dogs to review medical tests?
Science? Astrophysics? Chemistry? History?

Then why use their answer to prop up your argument?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2017, 06:11 PM
RE: Degrees of Certainty
(23-04-2017 06:22 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 12:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'd say that I am no more or less an atheist than a rock or a dog. I certainly don't place my own atheism as superior to theirs.

No superiority was implied. I stated that since babies, rocks and dogs cannot comprehend the question that their answers (or lack thereof) were less valid. Perhaps "appropriate" would be a better word than "valid".

Suppose I ask the question "What is your favorite novel?". Would your answer not be more valid that the answers of a baby, dog or rock?
To be an atheist, you just need to lack a belief in gods. You don't need to understand the question "Do you believe in god?" you don't even need to understand the concept of god. You just need to lack a belief in gods. AFAIK rocks, dogs, babies and myself all lack a belief in gods.

(23-04-2017 06:22 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 12:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  The existence of god question is itself incomprehensible.

"Do you believe in god?" seems fairly comprehensible, at least on a basic level. It requires clarification, possibly more questions, (i.e. which god, etc.) but incomprehensible? I think not.
I don't even know what a god is. Is it something that performs magic? Would Harry Potter be a god? Does it have to be able to create things out of thin air? Does it have to have intelligence? Can it have parents? The claim for a god is incomprehensible, it has no details and no falsifiable criteria, the question "Does god exist?" isn't a valid question until we are given a valid definition of what a god is.

(23-04-2017 06:22 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 12:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Really? Why?

Do we consult babies, rocks and dogs on matters of law?
Do we ask babies, rocks and dogs to review medical tests?
Science? Astrophysics? Chemistry? History?

Then why use their answer to prop up your argument?
I guess people use the argument that babies are atheist because they are establishing that atheism is the default position, hence the burden of proof is on the god claim.
1. the god claim needs to be comprehensibly presented.
2. evidence supporting the god claim needs to be presented.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
24-04-2017, 01:25 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2017 01:31 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Degrees of Certainty
Yeah, the question might as well be, "Do you believe in GYsoemfbdusowkwn"?

I understand the format of the question, and that it's a yes/no answer, but I have no clue as to what it is I'm assessing. It could literally be anything. God is not grounded in reality, not even a little bit. Not even by comparison with something real, such as with a unicorn. So people can, and do, make up whatever shit they want. I have to ask every single person what they mean, because it's bound to be something different.

The nearest thing to an overlap is "intelligent creator". But even that is discarded in some definitions. And when people do use it, almost always, tons of bullshit is poured over the top of it so that any real meaning becomes obscured.

I've found that 9/10 times the person either can't or won't define the term. Instead I get huge walls of text telling me why they don't have to define it and I'm an idiot for even asking, etc.

"Oh sorry, that's another word for an apple."

"Thanks. Sure, I believe in apples."

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: