Poll: Atheists only: Do you believe no god(s) exists?
Yes, I believe no god(s) exists
No, I do not believe no god(s) exists
[Show Results]
 
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 09:37 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 09:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK then.
How big is a unicorn? What is their diet? Are they aggressive creatures? Do they mate for life or is there a dominate male that gets to service the females?
What colours do they come it? What habitat do they live in?

I'm really interested to know, given that they probably don't exist and no-one has ever seen or observed one.

(06-02-2017 06:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As I said, if you want to make a fool of yourself in public, it's no skin off my nose, but don't expect me to join you.

If you want to continue to assert that we don't know enough about the Death Star to say that it doesn't exist because we don't know what variant of berillium powers its planet-shattering ion cannon, you are free to do so.

I am not going to indulge your idiocy.
Well, you are the idiot for calling me an idiot for admitting I know nothing about a unicorn.

The unicorn claim is insufficiently formed. That is where my case lands. You on the other hand claim to know what a unicorn is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 09:38 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 09:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, sure, well with regards to the deist god, I expect that believers consider that this god magically created the universe and then took the rest of eternity off.

So they don't actually expect to see the god or pray to it or anything.

And?

It remains a garage dragon. It remains non-existent.

(06-02-2017 09:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It would be like my great, great, great grandfather having sown his seed so that eventually I was born.

My great, great, great grandfather is dead now, unobservable and all. He actually did exist though. I have millions of them going back 5 billion years of history.

And?

Your great-grandfather is not a garage dragon. He existed.

I really don't think you have bothered reading the posts that you are ostensibly responding to.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 09:43 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 09:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, you are the idiot for calling me an idiot for admitting I know nothing about a unicorn.

Am I?

Am I an idiot for saying that we know enough about white-coated, one-horned horses with magical healing powers and a fixation on underage girls who managed to get lost in the European forests to conclude that they do not exist? That we can say that there is, in fact, not a lost starship named "Botany Bay" floating around in the stars somewhere, full of genetically-modified supermen, despite not knowing the names of the engineers that never built it? That Matthias of Redwall, Defender of the Abbey and wielder of the Sword of Martin the Warrior, was, in fact, fictional, despite not being able to tell you the size of the shoes he never wore?

Am I really?

I'd tell you to take a moment to think about that, but we both know you won't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 09:50 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 06:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That's literally the exact opposite of how the null hypothesis works.

Do you know what "null hypothesis" means, Tom? Because I really don't think that you do.

I’m just swapping out the explanation/hypothesis, and the default, from a theistic one to atheistic one. From a hypothesis that God exists, to a hypothesis that we’re a cosmic fluke.

I found a Reddit post with an example, that perhaps might illustrate my point:

“Example:
Mr. Zee and his friend were walking by the sea side. They saw a huge ship.
His friend said: You know, this ship was made by x Heavy Industries.
Mr. Zee said: I do not believe that it was made by x Heavy Industries, because I have to follow NH, and accordingly, I have to reject your claim if you do not prove it.
His friend said: But I worked in that company, and I know it is made by that company. And furthermore, if you reject that it is made by that company, then it must have been built by another company. This is an alternative hypothesis. And your adoption of NH requires you to adopt this alternative hypothesis. But if you adopt NH against this alternative hypothesis, then you must be giving similar probabilities to each hypothesis. Likewise, then you must be rejecting all possible explanations by your use of NH, and thus this is not a useful method”

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist...t_against/

Quote:We have evidence for that, Tom. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make it go away.

In case you're curious, look up the theories of abiogenesis and evolution. T

I don’t have a problem with any of the theories of abiogenesis, along with any other scientific theory of origin. The totality of all these things, of all the facts, evidence, etc.. doesn’t support that we’re some cosmic fluke, or a cosmic puddle. That’s your own personal ontological interpretation. The fact that nature at all, has the properties it does, becomes what it’s able to form into given enough time and space, is evidence of intention. You may think otherwise, but that’s because you’re an atheist, and it has to be perceived otherwise. Your atheism is dependent on such perceptions, whether actually true or not.


Quote: Which is indistinguishable from people making shit up, which places us quite firmly in garage dragon territory, natch.

It’s actually the exact opposite of that, your position of the cosmic fluke, is more a garage dragon here. My position here stems from a casual intuitive chain of reasoning, so intuitive that’s a near universal, observed in young children even. No chain of reasoning is gonna lead me to the conclusion that there’s an invisible dragon in my garage. And strangely if I can see a path to holding your position, it would require some brain washings, and fidelity to some odd series of credos, similar to what might be required for me to believe in an invisible dragon.

Quote:What is actually true is not.

So clearly we disagree on what’s actually true. You believe your position is actually true, and I believe my position is actually true. What we have here is our personal interpretations of what is actually true, and questions about what composes these interpretations.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 10:00 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 09:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, you are the idiot for calling me an idiot for admitting I know nothing about a unicorn.

Am I?

Am I an idiot for saying that we know enough about white-coated, one-horned horses with magical healing powers and a fixation on underage girls who managed to get lost in the European forests to conclude that they do not exist? That we can say that there is, in fact, not a lost starship named "Botany Bay" floating around in the stars somewhere, full of genetically-modified supermen, despite not knowing the names of the engineers that never built it? That Matthias of Redwall, Defender of the Abbey and wielder of the Sword of Martin the Warrior, was, in fact, fictional, despite not being able to tell you the size of the shoes he never wore?

Am I really?

I'd tell you to take a moment to think about that, but we both know you won't.
Where did you get that definition from?

If we found a brown horse like creature with a single horn out of its forehead, somewhere in the amazon, with different DNA from a horse, significantly so that it isn't a species of horse. But it isn't white and it doesn't perform magic. Would you proclaim that this isn't a unicorn?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 10:07 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 06:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That's literally the exact opposite of how the null hypothesis works.

Do you know what "null hypothesis" means, Tom? Because I really don't think that you do.

I’m just swapping out the explanation/hypothesis, and the default, from a theistic one to atheistic one. From a hypothesis that God exists, to a hypothesis that we’re a cosmic fluke.

So you don't understand what "null hypothesis" means, then, or how it is determined. Thanks for clearing that up.

Please come back when you have done some basic Googling. It's not a difficult concept.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I found a Reddit post with an example, that perhaps might illustrate my point:

Ah yes. /r/debateanatheist. Truly the final arbiter of logic and reason.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  “Example:
Mr. Zee and his friend were walking by the sea side. They saw a huge ship.
His friend said: You know, this ship was made by x Heavy Industries.
Mr. Zee said: I do not believe that it was made by x Heavy Industries, because I have to follow NH, and accordingly, I have to reject your claim if you do not prove it.

This is correct. The null hypothesis here - or the nearest equivalent, as this is a poorly constructed example - is "This ship was made by a company, the identity of which is unknown". That is because the null hypothesis is the position which has already met the burden of proof, and posits the existence of no entities, or properties of those entities, which is not in evidence.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  His friend said: But I worked in that company, and I know it is made by that company.

It is at this point that his friend has, again for the sake of argument (in actuality, a strictly rational approach to this would require more than his friend's word, but that is rather beside the point), met the burden of proof. "This ship was made by Company X" is now accepted, and will be the null hypothesis for all future considerations about the origins of the ship.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And furthermore, if you reject that it is made by that company, then it must have been built by another company. This is an alternative hypothesis. And your adoption of NH requires you to adopt this alternative hypothesis.

This fails to differentiate between not accepting a hypothesis and actively rejecting a hypothesis as false. It fails to understand that it is entirely possible to hold that there is simply not enough information to make a conclusion, as the null hypothesis in this case would actually state.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The totality of all these things, of all the facts, evidence, etc.. doesn’t support that we’re some cosmic fluke, or a cosmic puddle.

Yes, it does.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That’s your own personal ontological interpretation.

No, it isn't.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The fact that nature at all, has the properties it does, becomes what it’s able to form into given enough time and space, is evidence of intention.

No, it isn't.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You may think otherwise, but that’s because you’re an atheist

No, it isn't.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s actually the exact opposite of that, your position of the cosmic fluke, is more a garage dragon here.

Well, no. It isn't. It's the null hypothesis, because it posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities not in evidence. It has met the burden of proof.

If it is false, it is entirely possible to demonstrate that. It is therefore, by definition, not a garage dragon.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My position here stems from a casual intuitive chain of reasoning, so intuitive that’s a near universal, observed in young children even.

"Intuitive" does not mean "correct". "Intuitive" does not even begin to imply "correct". Unless you can actually demonstrate that it is true, no one gives a damn what you do or do not intuit.

(06-02-2017 09:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What is actually true is not.

So clearly we disagree on what’s actually true. You believe your position is actually true, and I believe my position is actually true. What we have here is our personal interpretations of what is actually true, and questions about what composes these interpretations.

No, Tom. What we have here is you attempting to say "truth is relative and my unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs are as valid as any rational and evidence-based conclusions", in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
06-02-2017, 10:11 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Where did you get that definition from?

The stories that made up the idea of unicorns, Stevil.

This is not complicated.

(06-02-2017 10:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If we found a brown horse like creature with a single horn out of its forehead, somewhere in the amazon, with different DNA from a horse, significantly so that it isn't a species of horse. But it isn't white and it doesn't perform magic. Would you proclaim that this isn't a unicorn?

Yes.

Is that really all that you can come up with? That you could technically take another entity and call it the same thing? Do you think that this somehow retroactively makes all the tales of magical one-horned horses with virgin-detecting powers true?

Honestly, this is just getting sad.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 10:11 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 09:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, sure, well with regards to the deist god, I expect that believers consider that this god magically created the universe and then took the rest of eternity off.

So they don't actually expect to see the god or pray to it or anything.

And?

It remains a garage dragon. It remains non-existent.
That's not what a garage dragon is, and it has no useful purpose for explaining any point.

In Carl's story he didn't claim that his fire breathing dragon created the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 10:13 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Am I?

Am I an idiot for saying that we know enough about white-coated, one-horned horses with magical healing powers and a fixation on underage girls who managed to get lost in the European forests to conclude that they do not exist? That we can say that there is, in fact, not a lost starship named "Botany Bay" floating around in the stars somewhere, full of genetically-modified supermen, despite not knowing the names of the engineers that never built it? That Matthias of Redwall, Defender of the Abbey and wielder of the Sword of Martin the Warrior, was, in fact, fictional, despite not being able to tell you the size of the shoes he never wore?

Am I really?

I'd tell you to take a moment to think about that, but we both know you won't.
Where did you get that definition from?

If we found a brown horse like creature with a single horn out of its forehead, somewhere in the amazon, with different DNA from a horse, significantly so that it isn't a species of horse. But it isn't white and it doesn't perform magic. Would you proclaim that this isn't a unicorn?

I certainly would deny it's a unicorn as it does not meet the definition of unicorn.

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
06-02-2017, 10:14 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 10:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's not what a garage dragon is

I have already explained that I do not care whether or not you continue to willfully misinterpret the passage in question. You know perfectly well what I mean by "garage dragon". And yes, the deist god does fit the definition.

(06-02-2017 10:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  and it has no useful purpose for explaining any point.

Save that entities defined as undetectable necessarily have no properties, and therefore do not exist by definition.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: