Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 04:28 PM)Velvet Wrote:  Also would like to add that while is not rational to believe that Yahweh doesn't exist based only on lack of evidence of his existence

Would it also be "not rational" to believe that unicorns, leprechauns & fairies don't exist based only on lack of evidence of their existence ?

It seems like we need a discussion on several word definitions.

Rational - reasonable, sensible, having sound judgment.
Some might say that justified reasons containing evidence are required for a rational belief.

In contrast, an irrational belief wouldn't contain any justified reasons nor evidence. Faith is an example.

In my humble opinion, it's completely rational to not believe something that contains no evidence nor justified reasons for holding that belief.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
29-10-2016, 06:29 PM
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
An interesting article on some of Gish's dishonesty:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2016, 06:46 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2016 07:19 PM by Velvet.)
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
Thank you Rocket, I didn't knew that strategy had a name as was so famous, I had noticed this pattern on theists debaters by myself, especially on W.L. Craig debate against Hitchens when I started to look carefully why Hitchens was losing his calm so fast and started resorting to his more classical arguments, I thought he was losing but now I know he was offended by it.

Yes, perhaps there's a True Factory.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Velvet's post
29-10-2016, 06:53 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2016 07:13 PM by Velvet.)
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 06:26 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(29-10-2016 04:28 PM)Velvet Wrote:  Also would like to add that while is not rational to believe that Yahweh doesn't exist based only on lack of evidence of his existence

Would it also be "not rational" to believe that unicorns, leprechauns & fairies don't exist based only on lack of evidence of their existence ?

Yes, it would also be not rational to believe that unicorns, leprechauns & fairies don't exist based only on lack of evidence of their existence.

The only way you can rationally form a justified belief about something not-existence is having evidence that imply/points/supports that it can't exist.
(In case of Yahweh we can point to logical problems on his description make a case that he is impossible to exist in the way he is described.)

Lack of evidence for the existence only rationally allows you to dismiss the proposition of the existence, not for a belief or make a claim for the non-existence.

EDIT: By rational I mean ''according to logic''.
EDIT: Evidence of Absense

If you read carefully you will notice that the only circumstance when the ''lack of evidence for the existence'' can be taken as ''evidence for the non-existence'' is when it can be safely assumed that the existence would implicate in something that didn't occur and then you can logically extrapolate the non-existence.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Velvet's post
29-10-2016, 07:29 PM
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 12:04 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(28-10-2016 11:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How does this supposed to not come off as simply self indulgent arrogance to have any care for a personal revaluation of terminology.

I don't blame you for thinking so, but I simply don't care; I'm not interested in character judgments and the like. I make my posts for my reasons and people can interpret them however they wish, it doesn't affect me. But thanks for being the first one to be honest about it. Thumbsup

So you are saying that you are not interested in communicating accurately or effectively. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-10-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 06:26 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Would it also be "not rational" to believe that unicorns, leprechauns & fairies don't exist based only on lack of evidence of their existence ?
...
In my humble opinion, it's completely rational to not believe something that contains no evidence nor justified reasons for holding that belief.

I'm just going to point out that your first and last statements are not equivalent.

The first one, you're talking about "believing NOT X" based on lack of evidence. In the last, you're talking about "NOT believing X" based on lack of evidence. The latter is absolutely fine as, when introduced to a claim, you don't have to accept it if arguments for it haven't convinced you. However, believing the opposite, as in the first case, is creating an entirely new claim, which may not be substantiated by simple lack of evidence of the original claim.

I'll just cite "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as an example. Maybe you disagree with it, but I'm just using it as a possible difference in the two statements you've made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unknowndevil666's post
29-10-2016, 08:23 PM
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  So you are saying that you are not interested in communicating accurately or effectively. Drinking Beverage

No, I'm saying that maybe you interpret it as such, but how you interpret the intent behind my actions doesn't have any effect on what my intent actually is.

My reasons happen to be mental exercise: seeing how different people think, refining my ideas through argumentation, discovering new ideas that may challenge my position, things like that.

If you think I'm here just to hear myself speak, satisfy my ego, and not do anything productive, then you can think that. But I don't care if that's what you think because I know it's not true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unknowndevil666's post
29-10-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 08:23 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(29-10-2016 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  So you are saying that you are not interested in communicating accurately or effectively. Drinking Beverage

No, I'm saying that maybe you interpret it as such, but how you interpret the intent behind my actions doesn't have any effect on what my intent actually is.

My reasons happen to be mental exercise: seeing how different people think, refining my ideas through argumentation, discovering new ideas that may challenge my position, things like that.

If you think I'm here just to hear myself speak, satisfy my ego, and not do anything productive, then you can think that. But I don't care if that's what you think because I know it's not true.

I don't see that "I make my posts for my reasons and people can interpret them however they wish, it doesn't affect me" means anything but that you don't care whether people understand you.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-10-2016, 09:04 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2016 09:11 PM by unknowndevil666.)
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 08:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see that "I make my posts for my reasons and people can interpret them however they wish, it doesn't affect me" means anything but that you don't care whether people understand you.

By "them" I referred to the reasons for the posts, not the posts themselves. In other words:

"I make my posts for my reasons and people can interpret the reasons/intent behind the posts however they wish, it doesn't affect me."

Is it clear now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2016, 01:16 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2016 01:26 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Theism, Agnosticism, and Atheism
(29-10-2016 04:04 PM)Velvet Wrote:  
(29-10-2016 01:58 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Its not intellectually dishonesty, its the necessary result of rejecting the belief in the existence of anything until there is enough evidence to justify belief. The default positon comes naturally with the rejection of any claim of existence. You dont have to provide evidence for the default position or justify it, you also dont have to profess an explicit belief in the default position.

It is intellectually dishonest if your true stance is not the honestly the default, understand?

Elaborating and using myself as an example: I would be dishonest if I say i'm neutral on Yahweh existence when I'm actually pretty much convinced (as much as one could possibly be) that he doesn't exist at least in the way the bible describes him.

So, honestly my stance is NOT really the default, I'm actually convinced enough of Yahweh's improbability in way that to honestly represent my view would be to make a claim myself, the claim that ''Yahweh does not exist'' but then, realizing that this claim would maybe not meet the burden of proof, and obviously is not as defensible as the default position I decide to withdraw, saying that I do not hold this belief, and that I'm actually in default stance.

And then I proceed to use arguments that show why Yahweh could not exist (defeding my real stance), instead of refuting my opponents arguments addressing the proposition that he does exist (his honest stance), and when he perceives i'm attacking Yahweh plausibility instead of just refuting as a neutral should do, he asks for my burden of proof, and I then withdraw again to neutral.

So I keep jumping between the stances to fit my agenda, I attack as an anti-theist and defend myself as a Atheist.

How this is not dishonest?

Well, since the non-existence of god is the default position, there is no need to claim that he doesnt exist. Thats why i dont bother to disprove god...or unicorns. If i dont, they do not exist anyway. Why waste my time with something that is established already anyway?

Please remember that is is not possible to prove a negative. Therefore its not possible to support the claim "god does not exist". No wonder you feel dishonest. You want to assume a position that is not defensible scientifically. But again, why try to have that position? By just rejecting god claims you have the same result: default position, god does not exist, until proven otherwise. Are you willing to disprove any possible silly god claim anyone could bring forth? Wait and let the theists bring their arguments for their claims.

You dont need to disprove, god, unicorns, russels teapot, Odin, etc. Why waste your time with that?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: