Objecting the concept of a Deity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2012, 07:51 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Yeah, I think I covered that with meh. But yeah, nothing is 100%, thats why I'm skeptical all round the houses. Nimburu, I keep vaguely hearing about this ? planet ? I must admit if Ive heard any specifics they havent stuck, so I would not even say meh to that but, huh? huh in a completely non interested listening to von danken telling me stuff kinda way. In actuality though, theres a line between the skepticism I'll happily extend to everything including my own existence, and the practical matter of fact way I deal with that existence. Intellectually, I have little problem, that I may not exist or that gravity is just a misunderstanding of a giant invisible hand pushing on my head say, sure not likely, but I can entertain the concept, however when I'm forced to interact with the reality that persists on presenting itself to me I take the pragmatic view that physics doesn't give a shit and taking liberties with it hurt. On atheism and all of that, I dont feel any pressing need for God, in either mode, I don't dismiss it either. In the realm of conjecture, its an impossability in the realm of my everyday life an irrelevance.

Nimburu is a fabled, miraculously undetected planet that is predicted, with absolutely no evidence, to collide with our planet. Of course, you and I both believe that Nimburu does not exist, correct? But there is absolutely no proof of it not existing, but it would not be correct to remain agnostic on the situation either. You can assume that, for instance, the planet does not exist based on the likelihood of it even existing. We have explored our solar system, and we have not detected a tenth celestial body.

The same can be applied to assumption we make at night. We assume that there will be a tomorrow. But why? There is absolutely no evidence for it. Because, as a skeptic, we make assumptions based on probabilities.

It is more probable that God does not exist, based on current facts, hence why agnostic atheism is the most logical, reasonable, rational position until evidence in favor of the deity is presented.

(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  If there are things I believe in with certainty, its not gravity although I believe I wont float away, its things like free speech, the wrongness of capital punishment. Even theoretically I'm for free speech and think capital punishment is wrong with total conviction, whilst equally being totally opposed to the concept of absolute morality. Kinda like how the bible is self contradicting, how its evidently false and the absolute truth at the same time. Happily at least for me I can reconcile this contradiction without batting an eye lid, I suppose it because I see these absolutes as absolutely mine, and have no problem seeing that other peoples absolutes can be completely different or even the exact opposite, even if I think they're wrong and would and in fact do label those who condone capital punishment as savages I have no doubt they can be as convinced and with equal justification as I am, fortunately for me I live in the UK so capital punishment is an academic issue for me, however it informs my choices of where I would visit, I would no more set foot in America than I would take a jogging holiday in the Congo.

There are certain things that we have enough facts for. We have observable evidence, we have applied our current gravitational theories to invent life-changing wonders, therefore we can assert with certainty that gravity exists. Using gravity is a poor example because there is evidence in favor of it. There is no evidence for the existence of God, and there is no evidence to the contrary either. Based on probabilities, however, it is more likely that God does not exist.

(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  But, all in all, yes totally agree, except maybe not with no atheist here, one or two might and the statement that evidence should exist and doesnt so ta dah, is little close for taste, but no ones used the exact phrase you site, to me at least, although there are proponents of the ta dah, shazam argument around.

I cannot think of a single atheist on this site that is so deluded as to say that the absence of evidence is necessarily the evidence of absence. They might say that the lack of evidence causes the notion to be improbable and irrational. It is called a positive claim because it is a belief that is neither supported by probability nor evidence.

But that is how science works. It is improbable that an asteroid will strike us tomorrow, but I have no evidence to support that statement.

(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Well I think that wall o gibberish is as good a reason as I need to go to bed, so in conclusion, yeah and meh.

Glad to see we are reaching common ground.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 07:51 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I cannot think of a single atheist on this site that is so deluded as to say that the absence of evidence is necessarily the evidence of absence. They might say that the lack of evidence causes the notion to be improbable and irrational. It is called a positive claim because it is a belief that is neither supported by probability nor evidence.

See post 37 by TruthSeeker.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 02:50 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 11:14 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(23-12-2012 07:51 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I cannot think of a single atheist on this site that is so deluded as to say that the absence of evidence is necessarily the evidence of absence. They might say that the lack of evidence causes the notion to be improbable and irrational. It is called a positive claim because it is a belief that is neither supported by probability nor evidence.

See post 37 by TruthSeeker.
Is he an atheist? I was lead to believe Seekers are generally at least deists.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 03:13 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 02:50 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-12-2012 11:14 AM)DLJ Wrote:  See post 37 by TruthSeeker.

Is he an atheist? I was lead to believe Seekers are generally at least deists.


From page 1:

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  ...
I was raised Christian al my life, and was a believer as a child. As I grew older i began to question the credibility of my faith, but never disowned it.
...

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  ... The only thing I believe in is physics...


Also from post #94:

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  ...
So far, by definition, I'm an atheist it would seem.
...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2012 04:22 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 03:13 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(23-12-2012 02:50 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Is he an atheist? I was lead to believe Seekers are generally at least deists.


From page 1:

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  ...
I was raised Christian al my life, and was a believer as a child. As I grew older i began to question the credibility of my faith, but never disowned it.
...

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  ... The only thing I believe in is physics...


Also from post #94:

(21-12-2012 08:59 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  ...
So far, by definition, I'm an atheist it would seem.
...
Hm, then his name is most misleading. Consider It seems I have persuaded him otherwise on this very page though.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
23-12-2012, 10:20 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 07:51 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Yeah, I think I covered that with meh. But yeah, nothing is 100%, thats why I'm skeptical all round the houses. Nimburu, I keep vaguely hearing about this ? planet ? I must admit if Ive heard any specifics they havent stuck, so I would not even say meh to that but, huh? huh in a completely non interested listening to von danken telling me stuff kinda way. In actuality though, theres a line between the skepticism I'll happily extend to everything including my own existence, and the practical matter of fact way I deal with that existence. Intellectually, I have little problem, that I may not exist or that gravity is just a misunderstanding of a giant invisible hand pushing on my head say, sure not likely, but I can entertain the concept, however when I'm forced to interact with the reality that persists on presenting itself to me I take the pragmatic view that physics doesn't give a shit and taking liberties with it hurt. On atheism and all of that, I dont feel any pressing need for God, in either mode, I don't dismiss it either. In the realm of conjecture, its an impossability in the realm of my everyday life an irrelevance.

Nimburu is a fabled, miraculously undetected planet that is predicted, with absolutely no evidence, to collide with our planet. Of course, you and I both believe that Nimburu does not exist, correct? But there is absolutely no proof of it not existing, but it would not be correct to remain agnostic on the situation either. You can assume that, for instance, the planet does not exist based on the likelihood of it even existing. We have explored our solar system, and we have not detected a tenth celestial body.

The same can be applied to assumption we make at night. We assume that there will be a tomorrow. But why? There is absolutely no evidence for it. Because, as a skeptic, we make assumptions based on probabilities.

It is more probable that God does not exist, based on current facts, hence why agnostic atheism is the most logical, reasonable, rational position until evidence in favor of the deity is presented.

(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  If there are things I believe in with certainty, its not gravity although I believe I wont float away, its things like free speech, the wrongness of capital punishment. Even theoretically I'm for free speech and think capital punishment is wrong with total conviction, whilst equally being totally opposed to the concept of absolute morality. Kinda like how the bible is self contradicting, how its evidently false and the absolute truth at the same time. Happily at least for me I can reconcile this contradiction without batting an eye lid, I suppose it because I see these absolutes as absolutely mine, and have no problem seeing that other peoples absolutes can be completely different or even the exact opposite, even if I think they're wrong and would and in fact do label those who condone capital punishment as savages I have no doubt they can be as convinced and with equal justification as I am, fortunately for me I live in the UK so capital punishment is an academic issue for me, however it informs my choices of where I would visit, I would no more set foot in America than I would take a jogging holiday in the Congo.

There are certain things that we have enough facts for. We have observable evidence, we have applied our current gravitational theories to invent life-changing wonders, therefore we can assert with certainty that gravity exists. Using gravity is a poor example because there is evidence in favor of it. There is no evidence for the existence of God, and there is no evidence to the contrary either. Based on probabilities, however, it is more likely that God does not exist.

(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  But, all in all, yes totally agree, except maybe not with no atheist here, one or two might and the statement that evidence should exist and doesnt so ta dah, is little close for taste, but no ones used the exact phrase you site, to me at least, although there are proponents of the ta dah, shazam argument around.

I cannot think of a single atheist on this site that is so deluded as to say that the absence of evidence is necessarily the evidence of absence. They might say that the lack of evidence causes the notion to be improbable and irrational. It is called a positive claim because it is a belief that is neither supported by probability nor evidence.

But that is how science works. It is improbable that an asteroid will strike us tomorrow, but I have no evidence to support that statement.

(23-12-2012 07:28 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Well I think that wall o gibberish is as good a reason as I need to go to bed, so in conclusion, yeah and meh.

Glad to see we are reaching common ground.
OK, yes I can assume it doesn't and based on current understanding of celestial mechanics I can be pretty confident that that assumption is correct. But, can I be sure there isn't a hole in the model that a planet wouldn't fit in, no. Do I think that hysterical people won't just make up shit to believe, well yes I do. So the probability that the eggheads have missed a planet is small, the probability that some one made this up and is now selling books to people who spend there time rubbing crystals, drinking herbal infusions whilst sitting inside pyramids is much higher. But, I haven't done the ground work to be certain, but I can be certain enough I'm not gonna lose any sleep over the idea.

Interesting, we switch roles here, of course I agree we cant be certain the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I'd say there was a wealth of evidence, ignoring the we have a working model of the solar system that can tell where all the major bodies are, have been and will be, we also the predictive power based on the fact it always has, certainly in my 41 years on the planet it never hasn't, aside from a few somewhat questionable anomalies I don't know of any recordings of it having failed to do so.

On the probability of God existing, here you rely on evidence to say weather he does or does not exist, as I've already outlined in "the gods a dick" rule, the nature of the christian god makes this standard not applicable. God demands faith nothing more or less, as Ive said, hes motivated and capable of not being evident to any enquiry, irritating but there you go.

Chas has said it in this thread, I believe you've said it although if that is not your conviction, you may have written it in short hand or I may have misread, but certainly the argument that evidence should exist and doesn't has certainly been used.

As to the asteroid, we'll just have to wait and see, tomorrows not far away.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: