Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 07:32 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 05:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.

You made a fault in your logic. You equivocated knowledge and belief. If we use the sense that justification equals proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then follow this syllogism:
All B is A.
Some A is C
All C is B
Therefore some A is B
Or all knowledge is belief
Some beliefs are Justified
All justified beliefs are knowledge
Therefore Some beliefs are Justified.
Rules of logic dictate that we cannot convert all B is A to All A is B. Only some A is B.
If you think you can make all your beliefs justified then you either have very little beliefs or your burden of proof is laughably small.
Non justified beliefs are not unreasonably. They just have not met the burden of proof. As many atheists would say lack of evidence of God is evidence of lack. This is a small piece of evidence and would not meet the burden of proof to know that God does not exist, however it would be reasonable to belief that God does not exist because of lesser evidence.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:33 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:27 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 07:21 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Ah but can you prove that logic is absolute/same in any dimension/continuum/ect as ours. Tongue

Of course not. There is nothing absolute about logic or mathematics. They are relative to their axioms and operators.

Of course, how could I forget my euclid so easily.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 05:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.

Not at all. I see no evidence for the existence of any gods (or pixies) and do not believe any exist. However, I do not have proof that they don't exist, so I can't make a knowledge claim.

It is not the abandonment of reason, it is the reasonable position.

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
13-08-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:21 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Ah but can you prove that logic is absolute/same in any dimension/continuum/ect as ours. Tongue

etc.

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
13-08-2015, 09:39 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 07:21 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Ah but can you prove that logic is absolute/same in any dimension/continuum/ect as ours. Tongue

etc.

Don't you have teenagers to yell "get of my lawn" to.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:32 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.

You made a fault in your logic. You equivocated knowledge and belief. If we use the sense that justification equals proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then follow this syllogism:
All B is A.
Some A is C
All C is B
Therefore some A is B
Or all knowledge is belief
Some beliefs are Justified
All justified beliefs are knowledge
Therefore Some beliefs are Justified.
Rules of logic dictate that we cannot convert all B is A to All A is B. Only some A is B.
If you think you can make all your beliefs justified then you either have very little beliefs or your burden of proof is laughably small.
Non justified beliefs are not unreasonably. They just have not met the burden of proof. As many atheists would say lack of evidence of God is evidence of lack. This is a small piece of evidence and would not meet the burden of proof to know that God does not exist, however it would be reasonable to belief that God does not exist because of lesser evidence.

Ok, let's try this. "I believe that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I believe that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

Does this sound any less absurd?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If we define agnostic atheist as someone who does not claim to know whether or not god exists, but believes that god does not exist, then here is the thought process. "I know that I don't have knowledge that god doesn't exist because it is not justified to believe that god doesn't exist. I know that it is not justified to believe that god does not exist, but I believe god does not exist."

That sounds like a whacky position to me and I could only describe it as abandonment of reason.

Not at all. I see no evidence for the existence of any gods (or pixies) and do not believe any exist. However, I do not have proof that they don't exist, so I can't make a knowledge claim.

It is not the abandonment of reason, it is the reasonable position.

Are you sure you understand the difference between these 2 positions?

1. I believe that god doesn't exist.

2. I don't believe that god does exist.

The only one required for atheism is number 2, and it's also compatible with agnosticism.

You're making it sound like you think that it is reasonable to believe something without proof.

Belief without proof = faith

When did faith become reasonable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 10:24 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 06:53 AM)unfogged Wrote:  But that isn't what people mean when they say it. They mean something more like
"I know that I don't know with certainty that god doesn't exist but I conclude that it is more probable than not that god does not exist."

My response to this is that it's unreasonable to conclude probability in this case. Probability is something that is calculated. To believe that something is probable without knowing what the probability is, is unreasonable IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 06:53 AM)unfogged Wrote:  If I reserved the use of belief only for things I am very highly sure of then I wouldn't need the word. I could just divide the world into things I know and things I don't.

Exactly, I have no use for the word. If I don't know it, it's a hypothesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 10:26 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Questions for Tomasia and drewpaul
(13-08-2015 07:32 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  If you think you can make all your beliefs justified then you either have very little beliefs

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I don't want to believe things that I don't know to be true.

And there's a method for going about it.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: