REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Belief

POSTED BY: CHRISTHECYNIC
UPDATED: Saturday, July 22, 2006 14:26
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3265
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:35 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Maybe it's because the last thread I posted on was about god, maybe not, but something that has been said on the subject of god is really bugging me and has been for quite some time, and it has nothing to do with god. It has to do with belief in general.

Some people here have said that the statement, "There is no god," does not require belief and is in fact the same as saying, "I do not believe in god."

What bugs me about this is prehaps best summed up in cats. As those of you who actually read my posts know my cat was dying, like all things that were dying (note past tense) she is now dead. So if I say, "There is a cat in my house," you've got no reason to believe me, the cat that I've mentioned so often before is gone. On the other hand you have no reason not to believe me either. I've never lied to you, I've never said anything I knew to be untrue.

Leaving the hypothetical for a moment let me tell you, in spite of not intending to get a new cat, there is indeed a cat in my house. Do you believe that the cat, as defined, exists?

Returning to the hypothetical I can think of only three responses you can give to that (and a number of ways to say them.)
"Yes," "Maybe," and, "No."

Obviously these can be expanded into various statements.

Yes could be stated as:
I believe there is a cat.
I believe you are telling the truth.
I believe that the statement, "There is no cat," is false.
I believe in the cat and do not believe in the non-existance of the cat.
And so on.

Maybe can be stated as:
I do not believe in the cat.
I do not believe that there isn't a cat.
I do not believe you.
I don't believe a gorram thing.
I think that this needs further investigation.
I need more evidence to form an opinion.
And so on. It is best stated as, "I believe neither in the cat nor the nonexistance of the cat."

No can be stated as:
I believe there is not a cat.
I believe in the nonexistance of the cat.
I believe you are lying.
I believe that the statement, "There is a cat," is false.
I believe in the nonexistiance of the cat and do not believe in the cat.
And so on.

My problem is that people have been saying the statement, "I don't believe in the cat," is the same as the statement, "I believe the cat doesn't exist," meaning maybe=no. And to me that's like saying the statement, "I don't believe in the nonexistance of the cat." is the same as, "I believe in the existance of the cat," which would mean maybe=yes.

It makes no sense (to me.) Obviously someone who believes the cat doesn't exist also fails to believe in the cat but the second option (maybe) is a negitive statement, it just says, "I don't believe," and third (no) is instead a statement that says, "I believe that ____ is the way it is."

If I ask, "Is there a cat," and you say, "No," that is a bold assertion about the nature of reality, if you say, "Yes," that is also a bold assertion about the nature of reality. Both assert something and that makes them positive statments. In fact they are both statements of existance. Since the existance or non existance of the cat is a part of the natural world yes and no describe mesurably different versions of the natural world and each claim that its own version exists.

On the other hand "maybe" doesn't assert anything. It doesn't say "there is no cat," and thus tell us somethign about the nature of reality, it doesn't say, "There is a cat," and thus tell us something about the nature of reality. It is a totally negitive statement and does not advocate the existance of anything. All it says is, "I don't believe in the cat," and, for all of you nitpickers out there, "I also don't believe in the non-existance of the cat." (Unless there is some new defintion of maybe that I am currently unaware of.)

-

So here's my problem, if you didn't pick it up, how can people go through life believing that, "I don't believe __," is the same as saying, "I believe the opposite of ___"?

This is especially bugs me in clothing stores, I don't see how someone could ever buy anything if they thought, "I'm not sure whether or not this fits," was the same as, "This doesn't fit." Think about it their options go from, "I'm sure it fits," "I'd better try it on," and, "It won't fit I'll look for something else," to "I'm sure it fits," and "I'll look for something else," that's woefully inefficent.

Worse still if they're thinking about going somewhere, most people have:
I know for sure without a doubt it will be worth it.
I'll go and see.
and
It won't be worth it, I'll just stay home.

Well you only say, "I'll go and see," if you don't believe it will be worth it, if you don't hold any beliefs on the matter. But, if you think that not believing in the existance of worth is the same as believing there is no worth then you won't go and see. You end up saying either, "I know for sure without a doubt it will be worth it," or, "I'll stay home." it's not a good set to work with, you'll never try anything new and end up stagnating.

I know plenty of people who ended up having great time, great friends, or great jobs only because they differentiated between not believing worth existed and believing it didn't exist. They were fans of waiting and seeing, trying it out, or just investigating a lack of belief rather than turing it into belief in the opposite, but even if you were constantly let down I just don't see how someone can make it by when they believe that saying, "I don't believe in x," is the same as, "I believe x isn't true."

I especially don't see how someone could end up here. I watched Firefly because I had no beliefs with respect to it, I didn't believe it would be good ahead of time (how could I? I knew almost nothing about it) however I kept and open mind. (I didn't have to keep an open mind for long, it blew me away from the start, but I did need an open mind for long enough to actually see the show.) That gave me Firefly, a great show, the best I've ever seen, but if I had been like what some people here suggest is logical I would have said, "Well I don't believe it will be good, so therefore it will be bad, so I won't watch." That would have kept me out of their hair, so maybe it would have been a good thing for them, but are they honestly claiming that they refuse to keep an open mind about everything? That "maybe" always equals "no"?

How do you survive like that?

Can you survive like that?

-
--
-

This thread is dedicated to Hannah, the dead cat.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I believe I have no clue what you're talking about. But sorry for your loss. Hannah must have been some cool cat.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 4:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Ah, Feline Philosophy at it's finest.

You do realize that belief blinds as much as it awakens, and thus most folks who believe in one thing or another will not understand a word you speak on this ?

I understand only because I have no faith, no Faith, and believe in nothing at all in such a fashion.

But I am not an Atheist.
(solve THAT riddle, and there will be cookies.)

There's belief, there's Belief, and then there's what you believe in, or believe to be true.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 4:06 AM

ROCKETJOCK


I've said before, on other threads, that in my opinion Atheism is a faith, while agnosticism is only a philosophy. Atheism denies the existence of God/The Gods, despite the fact that there is no way to disprove their existence (it's anxiomatic that you can't prove a negative; 1,000,000,000 white swans do not prove that there is no such thing as a black swan).

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is neutral on the subject, claiming a lack of knowledge. This is, in my opinion, more intellectually honest.

But let me state that this doesn't prove atheists wrong. Deities either do or do not exist, and unless they make themselves overtly known, the debate will never end. And obviously, if they don't exist, that'll never happen.

Which, ironically, means that if the Athiests are right, nobody will ever know it for sure...

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 4:08 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I understand only because I have no faith, no Faith, and believe in nothing at all in such a fashion.

But I am not an Atheist.
(solve THAT riddle, and there will be cookies.)

-Frem


Simple enough. As I discussed above, you're an agnostic.

Where's the cookies?

"Hermanos! The Devil has built a Robot! Andale!." -- Numero Cinco

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 4:14 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe I have no clue what you're talking about.

In discussions about god I usually try to keep the distinction between the group known as hard/strong atheists separate from the group known as soft/weak atheists/agnostics/non-theists.

The distinction is that a hard atheist believes that there is no god, and a soft atheist believes neither that god exists nor that god does not exist.

People have accused me of intentionally muddying the waters because they claimed that the statement:
I do not believe in ______
is the same as:
I believe that ______ does not exist.

Well obviously this extends far beyond god, anything can be put into the ______.

I just don't understand how you can get by like that, I mean there's plenty of stuff where people don't believe one way or the other, for example I don't believe there are clouds outside, but that doesn't mean I believe the sky is cloudless. I haven't actually looked up at the sky today and I think I should probably take a look before I reach a conclusion.

If you ask me, "Do you believe there are clouds outside," my answer has to be, "No," but if you ask me, "Do you believe there are no clouds outside," my answer is also, "No."

Some people have said that this is unreasonable or even impossible. I want to know why they say that because it's been bugging me for a while now.

Things that make no sense to me won't stop bugging me, no matter how hard I try to ignore them or for how long. Hopefully someone will come here and help me understand so I can get it out of my head.

Quote:
But sorry for your loss. Hannah must have been some cool cat.

Thanks I guess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 4:18 AM

ODDSBODSKINS


it's certainly not unreasonable to ask that people differentiate between not believing in something, and believing that something is not.

but then, when have reason and human nature ever come into each other sphere's of influence

(before anything is said, that's not intended as a slight towards people who may disagree with me, i freely include my own nature in the unreasonable ones )


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 4:19 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
but then, when have reason and human nature ever come into each other sphere's of influence

Good point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 5:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I have no problems with people saying "I believe ....".

It's when they cross over into "therefore it is true ..." (or go even further into "therefore I must make you accept ...") that I object to.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 5:33 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I have no problems with people saying "I believe ....".

It's when they cross over into "therefore it is true ..." (or go even further into "therefore I must make you accept ...") that I object to.


I believe the current American President is an imbecile therefore it must be true and I must make you all accept it.

Sorry for the temporary hijack to your thoughtful thread Chris, but I could not resist.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 7:07 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Simple enough. As I discussed above, you're an agnostic.


Nope.

Maltheist.

Which is not a faith, but rather a consideration that the powers that be are undeserving of faith.

Every time someone says "God" i get this image of a vicious, hungry, invisible force wrapped around our planet, pyschically *squeezing*, and ravenously feeding on the death and misery that religion and it's practices seem to bring without fail.

Tell me, would YOU think such a parasite is worthy of belief, of faith, or even Faith ?

Do I believe it is there ? no.
Have faith in it's existence ? no.
Have Faith in it (or it's so-called benevolence)? no.

Pure logic would dictate that our bent to self-destruction makes us a failed species but if such were true we would not have lasted this long, ergo, the possibility of an outside force is a logical conclusion, but that is not belief, is it now?

Angostics are indifferent, Maltheists are hostile.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 7:35 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Do I believe it is there ? no.

...

Angostics are indifferent, Maltheists are hostile.

Please clarify, how can you be hostile to something you do not believe exists?

I understand the school of thought that says god does not deserve worship just fine, but I don't see how you can be hostile to something when you say, "Do I believe it is there ? no."

I mean no offence but isn't that hostility sort of ... worthless? I mean if you don't believe it is there why waste your hostility on it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 8:47 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey CTC,

First of all we gotsta-gotsta fix your cat analogy. It don't fly. God is not just some object/entity that you may have in your house without my knowing. God, by any pertinent definition interpenetrates everything and is, theoretically at least, available to everyone. I may not be able to say whether there's a cat in your house, but, God being God, I have at least my own experience to tell me whether He exists or not--see what I mean?

There's the issue of relevance; whether your cat exists or not is pretty irrelevant to me until I have occasion to visit your home. But God, purportedly, is pretty darn relevant to every last living creature on this planet. If God's existence is definitively relevant to my existence, my experience of such a Being (or lack there of) is epistemologically significant.

If however, you're saying that your cat is in fact God, my question is: how come I've never met him?

Quote:
...how can people go through life believing that, "I don't believe __," is the same as saying, "I believe the opposite of ___"?
These statements are identical if and only if the ___ you're talking about supposedly exists everywhere and is everyone's constant invisible friend. God is not a dress you've never worn, or a resort hotel you've never visited. God is absolutely Everything and God is absolutely Nothing, depending on your point of view. Nothing else in human experience has this much phenomenological mutability.

Whom do you trust to tell you about things you've never experienced for yourself? Some folks trust consensus opinion, some folks trust a church, a lot of folks nowadays trust "science" to tell them what's happening beyond their five senses.

I have reason to believe (evidence, repeated experience spanning a lifetime) that I have awareness beyond my five senses and this awareness of mine suggests that there is indeed a unifying awareness at the heart of reality that connects all life and is a useful guide to consult once we've decided on a course we wish to pursue. I have come to accept that some folk don't or won't understand what the heck I'm talking about. Many of the folks who don't understand what I'm talking about believe in a God, many of them don't. Go figure.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 8:55 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


I do not believe in ______
is NOT the same as:
I believe that ______ does not exist.


If it did then one saying "I do not believe in Christmas" would then also mean "I believe that Christmas does not exist". And clearly, as the retailers will tell you Christmas DOES exist.




one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 10:03 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
...how can people go through life believing that, "I don't believe __," is the same as saying, "I believe the opposite of ___"?
These statements are identical if and only if the ___ you're talking about supposedly exists everywhere and is everyone's constant invisible friend. God is not a dress you've never worn, or a resort hotel you've never visited. God is absolutely Everything and God is absolutely Nothing, depending on your point of view. Nothing else in human experience has this much phenomenological mutability.

I think this is the heart of the matter and I can tell you without any doubt that I have no idea what you're talking about.

Apparently it is only true if
1 the thing exists everywhere
2 it is the friend of everyone
3 it is invisible
4 it is those things constantly

Well where do the requirements come from?

If I was just talking about something that supposedly existed everywhere always invisibly but not the invisble friend of everyone why would that be different?

Why is that one case so different from everything else?

Why is it that in this one case and this one case alone, "Maybe," suddenly equals ",No," and vice versa? (I.e. lack of belief sudden equals belief in lack and vice versa.)

Nothing that you said explained it for me so please try again because I don't see how it is any different from anything else.

I'm going to try one more time to explain what is confusing me before I finish this post.

The cat is an absolute, it either exists or it does not exist, there is no middle ground, it's size and composition doesn't change that. God is an absolute, it either exists or does not exist, there is no middle ground, it's size and composition doesn't change that.

So why should their size (god's being pretty big) and composition (god's being everything if you are a pantheist) change how we gauge the stances on their existance?

I mean there is no middle ground when it comes to the physical existance of the cat, but when picking a stance on whether or not it exists there is middle ground, that stance is simply not believing anything. A totally open mind.

I don't see why that would be different for anything, and god is included in anything. Why is not believing suddenly the same as believing something else when you hit god?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 12:07 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey CTC,

Sorry to confuse you. Let's try again. Firstly, if this discussion is even possible, we have to agree that God has certain defining characteristics which differenciate Him from your cat (if not, then you could name your cat "God" and say that therefore God exists). There are a lot of things that make God very different from your cat.

Principal among them is your cat's material existence vs. God's utter lack of material existence. You can send me a photograph of your cat. If I come to visit you, I can pet your cat (maybe). Your cat has specific material existence. God does not. God's "existence" is profoundly different than the existence of just about anything you can name, right? So it stands to reason that questions about God might be fundamentally different than questions about most anything else. With me so far?

How do you know God exists? You know by your own understanding. Period. God's existence is not given to you by a total stranger or proven by any theorem; God is a personal awareness for all of those who believe in God. So...the knowledge of God is a matter of personal awareness. Am I right?

So if someone is totally unaware of God, then there's something either wrong with their awareness or there's something wrong with God. And so it is, that when you assert God's existence to a non-believer, you're really telling them that their awareness is lacking. People don't like to hear that, so they come back with, "No, my awareness is just fine, thank you, must be your God that's lacking."

If one is told over and over throughout one's life that God exists and loves them and protects His children and so on, yet only ever sees evidence to the contrary, at what point is it okay, in your book, to write this whole God-business off as a lot of embarrassing nonsense?

A lot of people, based on historical evidence, believe that the ancient Greek gods were all made up. You know, according to mythology, the ancient Greek gods showed up from time to time; involved themselves in the everyday lives of their worshippers. Can you really fault modern people for writing Zeus off if he has never, to their knowledge, shown up in the past several thousand years? What makes your God any different?

Remember, there is no conclusive, objective evidence of God. There just ain't. Importantly, lot's of people take that as evidence that God is made up. There's a lot of information about "God" that is patently made up, don't you agree?

What's the practical difference between believing somethng is made up and believing that it doesn't exist? Again, in the case of your cat, you can send me pictures to convince me that you didn't make the cat up. Sadly, for us mortals, you can't do the same with God.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 1:11 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Leaving the hypothetical for a moment let me tell you, in spite of not intending to get a new cat, there is indeed a cat in my house. Do you believe that the cat, as defined, exists?

Returning to the hypothetical I can think of only three responses you can give to that (and a number of ways to say them.)
"Yes," "Maybe," and, "No."


Absent objective proof one way or another, the only logical answer seems to be "Maybe" (Aside from "I don't care", but that takes all the fun out of it). As HKC has pointed out, there are ways of providing objective proof that your cat is or isn't in your house ("Send in CSI, Chief"). Then we have a definite answer "Yes" or "No". You no longer need to believe or disbelieve, because you "Know", based on objective proof.

Providing objective proof of the existence or absence of a deity in your house is a whole other thing, and I can't think of any way to do it. Since you can never get a proven "Yes" or "No", looks like you're stuck with "Maybe". The range within "Maybe" - say with "doubt" on one end and "faith" on the other - is where religious belief or disbelief exists, and where all religious arguments have to take place.

Now, a Christian can sing in all earnestness "I Know That My Redeemer Lives", and an athiest can earnestly declare "No one can show me proof of a god, so I know that none exist." Both are actually talking about their belief - their faith - since they have no provable way of knowing that their assertions are true.

Based on your observation of the world and how it works, plus things learned when you were raised, you can form an opinion on the existence of a deity, but that's all it can be. Maybe, as The Hitchhiker's Guide would have it, God set it up this way to encourage faith. Maybe there's a whole pantheon up there and every religion is true. Maybe not. Maybe is all we got.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 1:14 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE


Quote:
lack of belief sudden equals belief in lack and vice versa


I think that's the crux of the issue, and cleanest I've seen it stated yet. I also think that there are three very simple words missing from this discussion:

I. Don't. Know.

Admitting that you don't know what is the "truth" of such a sensitive topic is a difficult thing. It's much more comfortable to say "I believe in god, and believe he/she/it is ___." Or, on the other side of the coin, to say "I believe there is no god, and anyone who does believe is very silly." I've even heard people say "I *know*" which personally I dismiss out of hand. Until you can prove it, you can't know. You can have personal knowledge, which is more aptly called belief, I think. Unshakeable Belief based on something so profound that it would change you as a person to deny that belief, but belief all the same.

So in my opinion, if people are being honest with themselves, there are three basic camps:

1. I believe in god.
2. I DON'T KNOW.
3. I believe that god is made up.

(Parenthetically, I believe that this is actually more of a spectrum than sharply delineated camps. More on that later.)

We can get into a lot of semantic gymnastics over this -- "I believe god does not exist" is not necessarily the same as "I do not believe god exists" -- but I think it clears the air quite a bit to just say "I don't know."

There can be qualifiers on that "I don't know" of course. (Just as there can be qualifiers on "I believe in god", i.e., "I believe in god but think he's a mean SOB whom we shouldn't worship.") Myself, for instance, I don't know. I look at nature and it makes sense that a cognizant being set it all into motion (more or less the definition of being a Deist, btw). But I also realize that it may just be that I do not know enough about science to understand how nature could be created without a Supreme Being. (As they say, last century's magic is this century's technology.)

But beyond that, I *want* to believe. I was raised with belief, but I have searched my own heart and mind and found that my own personal Unshakeable Beliefs -- those things so intrinsic to my soul that denying them would change who I am -- do not mesh with what I was raised with. So I have dismissed the belief I was raised with, but find myself wanting to believe in something. I've found a place of "worship" that meshes with my own beliefs, and even meshes with "I don't know." I do not know, I believe I cannot know, but I find value in meeting with like-minded people and practicing something that would be religion, if we were less comfortable saying "I don't know." I find comfort in the culture of religion without the dogma of belief, and in the community support of living a good life even when we don't know what will meet us when we die. That sort of community allows me to believe in something larger than myself -- in this case, the community as a whole, rather than god.

Maybe someday I will move from the "I don't know" column into the "I believe" column. But I'm not going to force that. I am comfortable saying, "I don't know."


-Edit: As an aside, I am quite comfortable saying "I don't know" to you people, to myself, to my husband, etc. But I am not at all comfortable saying that to my religious parents. To them, "I don't know" is an opening to teach, to convert. So to them, I just say that I am going to synagogue, stop sending the missionaries.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


While you include the word 'cynic' in your name here, I tend to see myself as a 'skeptic'. There is some confusion, by some, on the difference between the two. I would consider myself a skeptic, much in the line as w/ Carl Sagan and James Randi. Cynics, on the other hand, are unlikely to believe anything at all. If you really believe in what you hold as true, then you can objectively show me, or anyone else, that your belief is based in fact. If you can't do that, then I have nothing left to either confirm or deny your view on the matter, and am released from any obligation to accept it a priori .

No offense meant, mind you.

And while I never met your cat Hannah, I figured that she meant a great deal to you. Having had pets in my life, and being one who adores animals, I took it on 'faith' that Hannah was indeed - one cool cat. Regardless of how I may have interacted w/ Hannah in life, she touched you , and for that , I conclude she must be a cool cat.

Sorry for your loss, no 'guessing' required.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:04 PM

MSG


Chris- I believe there is a cat. Until someone shows me conclusive and I do mean conclusive proof that there is no cat I will continue to believe there is a cat.. I have seen evidence of cats in the world and that leads me to believe I am right, there are cats and there is one in your house. In case that was too existential..yes I believe there is a divine presence and that divine presence gives us evidence of his existence all the time...look at a baby sometime people:)

and hey I have two cats in my house ( the non theoretical kind) and I am sorry for your Hannah's absence Chris... you will see her again:)

I choose to rise instead of fall- U2

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:48 PM

CITIZEN


You can't ask for evidence that God doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative.

Until someone shows me conclusive, and I do mean conclusive, proof that there is not a little leprechuan sitting on my shoulder telling me to burn things, well dang there IS a little leprechuan sitting on my shoulder telling me to burn things.

Except there isn't, and even if I saw one there still wouldn't be, though there would be an incredibly good reason for me to see a doctor. You however could never prove there was no pyromanic Irish sprite perched on my shoulder, whether it exists or not.

When people say evidence of god they mean scientific verifiable evidence, not "The Universe exists so their must be a God!" or something that belongs on a greeting card like "The proof of god is in a babies smile!" A baby is proof of nothing more than the ability of biological life to replicate; it requires a Mother and a Father and nothing besides.

There is no proof of Gods existence, neither will there ever be, whether that proves, disproves or neither the existence of god is an exercise for the reader.

Although I will say that too say Atheism is a belief in such away as to make it equivalent to belief in a deity is wrong. It's fair to say that there is an element of belief in Atheism; it is not fair to say or imply that Atheism is a religion or belief structure in its own right. Atheism is the absence of religion, not a religion in and of itself.

If I were to take you to a field point out a clear portion and say "there is an invisible Sheep right there!" to which you reply "no there isn't" we are both talking on a level of belief, neither one of us can prove or disprove each others postulate on available data. However saying "there is no invisible Sheep there" is far closer to saying "I do not know if there is an invisible Sheep there or not" than assuming its existence.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 21, 2006 5:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Please clarify, how can you be hostile to something you do not believe exists?


I am hostile to the very concept of it.

Whether it exists or not, insufficient evidence to conclude, via lack of faith.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:55 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I know the issue of belief is a fav of Joss's. I was reintroduced to that point when watching the 1st ep of Angel, S5, CONVICTION. Angel and the gang have just moved into W&H , and one of the lackys, who is still holding to the old way of doing things, doesn't learn how to play nice w/ his new boss.

I found this theme repeated precisely in the BDM, when Book tells Mal that he mmust 'believe'.

I don't care what you believe in, just believe in it



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 4:05 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
With me so far?

I think so, you're saying that since my cat can be proved as a result of it's defining characteristics it is diferent from god which can not be proved.

(I.e. if it were invisible and massless it wouldn't be a cat, so it must be visible and have mass, that makes it detectable, god does not have such requirements.)

Is that right?

Quote:
How do you know God exists? You know by your own understanding. Period. God's existence is not given to you by a total stranger or proven by any theorem; God is a personal awareness for all of those who believe in God. So...the knowledge of God is a matter of personal awareness. Am I right?

Everything I know of is a matter of personal awareness, but I take it you mean something that isn't based on normal senses.

Quote:
So if someone is totally unaware of God, then there's something either wrong with their awareness or there's something wrong with God.

And here is where you loose me. Most people define god as omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnispective (all-seeing). This doesn't cover all gods mind you, but I think that if something had those qualities it would be considered a god even without making everyone aware of them.

Quote:
And so it is, that when you assert God's existence to a non-believer, you're really telling them that their awareness is lacking. People don't like to hear that, so they come back with, "No, my awareness is just fine, thank you, must be your God that's lacking."

So I guess what I'm getting is that you are saying that to be a god one must be able to make themselves known to all without lacking awareness. Thus to say both that god has not made himself known to you and that your awareness is not lacking is to say that god doesn't exist.

Did I get that right?

If I did I have a new question ask, I have met people, and once was a person, who did not believe that my awareness was "just fine" in that I would know whether or not there was a god, I believed that my awareness was woefully lacking in that field, but I didn't believe in god either.

How does that factor in? People who say, "Yes my awareness is lacking, and until that changes I won't choose a side," do exist, I used to be one of them.

Quote:
If one is told over and over throughout one's life that God exists and loves them and protects His children and so on, yet only ever sees evidence to the contrary, at what point is it okay, in your book, to write this whole God-business off as a lot of embarrassing nonsense?

In my opinion god is an axiom. It is something you don't base on evidence or lack there of. The reason is that you can not prove that god does exist, and you can't prove that god doesn't.

What other things are there like that? Well how about reality itself? You can not prove that reality outside of yourself does exist (it is thus non-verifiable) because any so called evidence can be explained by simpler means (it is just an extension of yourself like the leprechuan Citizen still has on his shoulder is an extension of himself.) It also can not be disproved (thus is non-falsifiable) because even if everything you see is indeed an extension of yourself like the leprechuan there still could be something out there that isn't, and the leprechuan could theoretically be something outside of Citizen that the rest of us just can't see or hear.

Well there are people who believe there is no reality outside theirselves, and they live normal happy lives, well not all of them, but the point is that it does not inconvinence them at all. Most of us take the opposite stance. (I certainly do. I don't think that Citizen or his leprechuan are delusions of mine.) We believe that there is a reality out there and our senses are (usually) just a means of getting a look at it.

Why believe in the existance of such a thing if it lacks pragmatic value (the people who don't believe in it get along fine) has no proof for it, and can not be disproved? Well personally I think it makes sense, and that's enough for me. Science takes it as an axiom and so do I.

What would it take for me to abandon that axiom? Well quite a bit. Actually I can't think of anything. That's more or less my base axiom. But you can't operate on a single axiom. I mean if the only thing you believed without proof was that reality exists that wouldn't help you very much. Causality is a good thing to take as an axiom too. The fact that your senses present a more or less accurate picture is a must as well because otherwise all the electron microscopes in the world won't help since you won't be able to trust that your eyes gave you the correct results.

So you build up a set of things you believe without proof and then build up everything else on top of that.

Well what if you take as an axiom:
There is an all powerful all knowing all seeing all loving god, and then that contradicts what you've learned based on your other axioms? That means that something has to change because you're veiw of reality is contradictory. What you change is up to you, if everything but god makes sense why not reject god? I've got no reason. Of course you could just reject part of god, for example some people said, "Ok, god can't be all powerful and all loving and have reality the way it is," for reasons of their own, some conculded, "God must be limited in power," others said, "God must not be all loving," and a few even said, "Reality must not be the way it is."

Each to his or her own.

-

Quote:
What's the practical difference between believing somethng is made up and believing that it doesn't exist?

Is that what you were trying to answer? That could be where all the confusion came from. I wasn't asking about made up or not made up. I just want to know why some people think that those who merely don't believe in something are exactly the same as those who believe the thing doesn't exist.

-
--
-

You know I really wanted this to not be about god, but apparently you can'd separate the two. You claim it is a special case and apparently so do others.

If I'm understanding the thread correctly we have two camps:
Not believing in something is not the same as believing the thing doesn't exist.

and

Not believing in something is not the same as believing the thing doesn't exist except when it comes to god.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 4:41 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If you really believe in what you hold as true, then you can objectively show me, or anyone else, that your belief is based in fact.

My friend I can't even conclusive prove that you exist to you unless we take certain things on faith first. I certainly can't prove that I exist to someone other than myself, and considering that it is rather absurd to ask me to prove that what I believe in is true.

Like Citizen is so happy to point out, just because you can experiance something through your senses doesn't mean that it is there. So we'll take on faith that reality is really out there, since we can neither prove nor disprove it, we'll take on faith that you're not halucinating at the moment, we'll take on faith that the person who shows up at your door is who he says he is (me) and the cat is who and what he says she is, and then all I need to do is have someone show up at your door with a random (female) cat under his arm and I'll have proved that the cat is real, it could be a totally random cat but I chose to use the word, "she," instead of, "it."

If you're willing to do the legwork I can have you come to a house where someone will say he is chris the cynic and have a cat to show you.

It might be my house and my cat, it might be someone elses. Who cares? The evidence is the same either way.

I could show you pictures that I claim are of me with a cat I claim is mine. I could show you pictures of someone who is me with a cat I claim is mine, I could even show you pictures of me with my cat, but you'd never no which it was.

But if you can take on faith that I'm not going to go through too much trouble to trick you for no apparent reason, and you take the accuracy of your senses on faith I can prove the cat.

If it takes several leaps of faith to prove a kitten how can you hope to prove anything? Well the answer is we take some nice little leaps of faith, call them axioms, pray (not in the religious sense) that they don't contradict, and prove everything else on top of those.

The problem with people saying, "Prove god," is that god is an axiom. The reason it is an axiom is because it can not be proved or disproved.

I mean what's one of the first things that people say when describing god? All-powerful. You can't prove that. All that you have to is prove that there is nothing that god can't do, you know, prove the non-existance of such a thing, which is impossible. Of course if a being showed up claiming to be god you could disprove its claims of being all-powerful, just find something it can't do.

The same holds for all-seeing and all-knowing, you could disprove them for a given being, you could never prove those things, because to do so would require proving that there did not exist something that the being in question did not see/know. Damn proof of non-existance again.

You could try proof by exhaustion, having god do every single possible thing, describe every single possible thing that could be seen or known, but it wouldn't work. For one thing just doing the things isn't enough it needs to be done in such a way there is no doubt that god did it. At the very least there needs to be notification ahead of time for each and every thing. Since that takes time, and there are an infinite amount of things to do it would take an infinite amount of time, and thus be impossible to prove.

Quote:
If you can't do that, then I have nothing left to either confirm or deny your view on the matter, and am released from any obligation to accept it a priori .

Of course not, I have no intention of converting anyone. For all I care you can worship the leprechaun on Citizen's shoulder, after all there's as much evidence for it as there is for reality itself.

Mind you if you do that I'll probably look at you oddly, and might laugh, but that's not because I'd be looking down on you, it would just strike me as funny.

Quote:
No offense meant, mind you.

People can get by in this world without even believing the world exists. They pay their imaginary money earned at their imaginary job to their imaginary government to stay out of their imaginary jail all the while believing it no more real than the dream they had the night before.

If they can get by without beliving they have ground to stand on I think I can get by without you falling to your knees and deciding I am the great purveyor of truth.

No offence was taken.

(I don't know why I'm bringing up such people so often in this thread though, maybe because it is something related to belief but not to god.)

Quote:
And while I never met your cat Hannah, I figured that she meant a great deal to you. Having had pets in my life, and being one who adores animals, I took it on 'faith' that Hannah was indeed - one cool cat. Regardless of how I may have interacted w/ Hannah in life, she touched you , and for that , I conclude she must be a cool cat.

Sorry for your loss, no 'guessing' required.

I wasn't trying to be ungreatful, it's just that with anything you care about, pet or person, someone saying that they're sorry doesn't really mean much. It is nice to know that someone cares, and I thank you for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 5:30 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
For all I care you can worship the leprechaun on Citizen's shoulder, after all there's as much evidence for it as there is for reality itself.
I wouldn't start on O'leary if I were you, he can get a mite 'burny'.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:00 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If I were to take you to a field point out a clear portion and say "there is an invisible Sheep right there!" to which you reply "no there isn't" we are both talking on a level of belief, neither one of us can prove or disprove each others postulate on available data. However saying "there is no invisible Sheep there" is far closer to saying "I do not know if there is an invisible Sheep there or not" than assuming its existence.

I love the way you always have to bring unrelated things into it, this one is great.

So you have a sheep, meaning it is a memeber of the genus ovis, family bovidae, order artiodactyla and so on. It's got certain physical properties from bone structure to bodyheat to the way it reacts with light. But let's ignore the impossiblity of a simple invisible sheep for a momment and make the perfectly reasonable assumption that "invisible sheep" is shorthand for, "sheep which is not visible due to properties unrelated to the sheep itself," perhaps the person thinks it has on an ultra top secret backpack on that causes the light to bend around it in a way that would also make it appear to have passed through empty air and thus not leave the sheep shaped "bubble" that would appear if there were a totally transparent sheep.

So here's the guy saying, "there's a sheep you can't see there," and you say, "no there isn't." And you've got good reason, if there were a sheep there you would see secondary signs, and smell them too. (Have you ever met a sheep? I have, you can tell whether they are their or not with your eyes closed, sort of like goats and horses.)

So now the person says, ok, there is an invisible, massless, odorless, nondisplacing, nonresprating, nonheat-producing, nonaudible sheep there," and all of a sudden it isn't about a sheep anymore now is it?

The thing being described is nothing like a sheep, and now you can talk about belief, because if someone does say to you, "There is something there that does not reflect refact or absorb light which takes up no space has no mass does not effect the outside envroment in any way and is totally non-dectectable you are not talking about a sheep, or a dragon for that matter.

So now the time has come to ask that person, "Well what exactly does it have in common with a sheep?" Something is only a sheep if it shares certain characterstics with a sheep, so which ones does the person have in mind? If it isn't putting off heat then it isn't a (live) sheep, if it isn't breathing then it isn't a (live) sheep, if it never ate anything then it isn't a sheep at all, if it doesn't take up space then it isn't any kind of sheep, if it doesn't interact with the light in a certain way then it isn't made of the materials something must be made of to be a sheep, if it does not depress the ground under its feet it isn'tr made of the materials necessary for it to be a sheep...

Your leprechaun is better. Lets say you claim to have a leprechaun on your shoulder and I keep an open mind, I pass my hand through the space, I look for signs that something is breathing or at least displacing air, I feel for body heat. I find no such thing. I reach the conclusion that leprechauns exist as facets of deranged minds because it is having a distinct effect on reality, it's effecting you, but is not exhibiting any of the properties claimed by those who do not think them mere delusions.

So how does god come into the leprechaun thing though? I say, "There is a god and there is an objective reality outside my own perceptions."
I make three unsupported leaps of faith:
1 God exists.
2 Reality is objective
3 That objective reality exists outside of my own perceptions.

I build a belief system on these and use them to predict things and I find that they do no better or worse than if I pick the opposites.

In experimentation it is the same, the only thing it does change is how I write the answer:
no god+subjective reality+reality outside the self
In my reality the mass of an electron is ____, god had nothing to do with it.

no god+subjective reality+reality outside the self
In my reality the mass of an electron is ____, for me there is a god.

no god+objective reality+reality outside the self
The mass of an electron is ____, god had nothing to do with it.

god+objective reality+reality outside the self
The mass of an electron is ____, god might have been involved.

no god+objective reality+no reality outside the self
The extension of myself that I percive as an electron has a mass of ____, as there is only me there is no god.

god+objective reality+no reality outside the self
The extension of myself that I percive as an electron has a mass of ____. Since I am everything I am god, cool.

And so on, but when you apply Occam's Razor they all come out the same:
The mass of an electron is ____.

The predictive power is also the same, for whether I think god did it or not, and whether I think it is the same for everyone or not, and whether I think that it really exists or not, I still predict the path of a projectile in a vacuum the same.

So I'll ask you this, do you believe in a reality outside of your own senses? (I do.) There is not a shred of proof for it, and it does not effect you either way. Believe there is no such reality and all of a sudden you're posting on a board that is only in your imagination talking to people who are other facets of yourself and all of science is just a way of getting closer to understanding the way that self presents itself to itself. It might make you think twice about preforming a multigenerational experiment, but other than that it has no effect on you, certainly no value.

So why believe in it? Why believe in a thing for which there is no evidence whatsoever? Well I can think of a few reasons, I believe in it because it makes sense to me, others might beleive in it because they find it arrogant to think they are the one it all revolves around and traumtizing to think that they are someone else's figment (which are the only two options I know of.) But that hardly matters, the fact remains that here is this thing that almost everyone on earth belives in, a reality that extends beyond themselves, and as far as I know you are one of those people, but why believe?

Not only is there no proof but there can be no proof, and it can't be disproved either which means it fails to meet the basic scientific criteria of falsifiablity. Yet people believe, and believe so strongly that there is nothing you can do to convince most of them.

So now that I've gone on that rant let me ask a few questions.

Am I right in thinking that you believe in a reality outside of your own self?

If I am, why do you believe in it when it can not be proven?

Finally, (if you answered yes to the first question) since there's only as much evidence for that as for the leprechaun (none) where do you draw the line for what should be believed without proof and why do you draw it wherever you do.

-

Where I draw the line is very simple, if something does not contradict what I already believe most strongly believe on faith (the universe exists, my senses are a semi-good way of learning about it, causation is more than just an illusion etc.) makes sense, has no evidence against it, and is not self referentially incoherent, it is worthy of consideration, if not then it goes into the spagggeti-is-by-defintion-manmade-thus-by-order-of-cause-and-effect-could-not-be-a-creator file.

Anything that is worthy of consideration which is impossible to prove or disprove is something that will either need to sit under consideration forever, or have me simply decide that I think it's one way or the other without proof. However because these things are not under the "most strongly" catagory something that contradicts them might still be worthy of consideration and could indeed supplant them.

For example if I what I considered a good reason to believe that god as I see it does not exist (not proof mind you) I'd reject god in a second. I do have things that I would consider a good reason, and I'm waiting on any one of them to come along but thus far ... zip.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:41 AM

CITIZEN


I love how you accuse me of bringing things up with no relevance when all I've done is use a similar analogy too many of the ones you've used throughout. Furthermore it's you who made a big long thing about sheep, so it's you who is bringing up things that are completely irrelevant. I'm really sorry I'm furthering a viewpoint you don't agree with, how terrible of me.
Quote:
So now the person says, ok, there is an invisible, massless, odorless, nondisplacing, nonresprating, nonheat-producing, nonaudible sheep there," and all of a sudden it isn't about a sheep anymore now is it?
I never said any of these things, you did in order to rubbish my analogy, maybe because you can't think up an appropriate answer for them, who knows? I've been within sight of sheep countless times, yet didn't always smell them, where the hell you got inaudible non respiration or anything else from is beyond me, seems to be a function of your straw manning, and has nothing to do with my original analogy.
Quote:
Your leprechaun is better. Lets say you claim to have a leprechaun on your shoulder and I keep an open mind, I pass my hand through the space, I look for signs that something is breathing or at least displacing air, I feel for body heat. I find no such thing. I reach the conclusion that leprechauns exist as facets of deranged minds because it is having a distinct effect on reality, it's effecting you, but is not exhibiting any of the properties claimed by those who do not think them mere delusions.

So how does god come into the leprechaun thing though? I say, "There is a god and there is an objective reality outside my own perceptions."
I make three unsupported leaps of faith:
1 God exists.
2 Reality is objective
3 That objective reality exists outside of my own perceptions.

I build a belief system on these and use them to predict things and I find that they do no better or worse than if I pick the opposites.
And you've just done what an atheist does with god. They see no miracles, they see no omnipotent being, and they reach the conclusion that a god is the product of deranged minds, what's your point exactly? You wish to turn Atheism into a religion for reasons that, well dang no one including yourself seems to be sure of; absence of religion isn't a religion in and of itself.

I don't appreciate your opening remarks, or your straw manning of my statements, IF you want me to look at and debate what you have to say logically then you can damn well extend me the same courtesy.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 7:07 AM

ODDSBODSKINS


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You wish to turn Atheism into a religion for reasons that, well dang no one including yourself seems to be sure of; absence of religion isn't a religion in and of itself.


okay, so i'm seizing on one small aspect of the debate, but aside from personal slanging it seems to be the crux of the debate.

Atheism is not a religion, (as defined here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion )it meats none of the criteria mentioned. it is, however, a position of belief; i believe there is no god, or if you want, i know there is no god but can't prove it ( i.e., i believe) i don't mean to be insulting to anyone, but i'm not sure i see how this can really be disputed (although that could be because i'm being hugely intolerant towards someone else's belief's, i don't mind too much, i'm comfortable with doing that).

regardless, i thought the debate was about differance's between atheism and agnosticism. regardless of whether or not the existence of a god will produce knowledge of his being in all properly receptive creatures, there still remains a differance between stating that you believe something is the case, and stating that you don't know, and don't believe whether it is or is not the case. it's not a matter of whether there's a differance from the perspective of one who is initiated, as from the perspective of either the atheist or the agnostic, that makes no differance whatsoever to what they profess to believe. the discussion/debate/argument/bitchfest wasn't started on the premise that god is a special case, but to discuss whether or not there is a differance between believing you don't know, and believing it's not so.

regardless, if some people take the stance that the existence of a deity is a differant matter, and some people take the point of view that it isn't, then constructive debate is going to be impossible as the two points of view are so radically differant. perhaps the debate should be whether we can find a way to discuss this from some manner of mid-ground?

(confused, not exactly good debating technique on display, i was making soup and only half concentrating


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 7:43 AM

RIVER6213


Well, it’s good to see that some things stay consistent. It looks like the Will Hung look-a-like is as overblown and bigheaded as ever. The god given mind of a limey never ceases to amaze me.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 7:46 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ah, Feline Philosophy at it's finest.

You do realize that belief blinds as much as it awakens, and thus most folks who believe in one thing or another will not understand a word you speak on this ?

I understand only because I have no faith, no Faith, and believe in nothing at all in such a fashion.

But I am not an Atheist.
(solve THAT riddle, and there will be cookies.)

There's belief, there's Belief, and then there's what you believe in, or believe to be true.

-Frem


you are the letter e

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:05 AM

KANEMAN


ctc.....If you haven't looked outside, but believe the sky is clear. Your answer to the question, "Do you believe there are clouds outside" would be "no". In your mind the word outside makes you think of your immediate surroundings. Your answer to the question "Do you believe there are no clouds outside" does not have to be "no"...If you use the same definition of outside, "yes" works perfectly. Only if you believe "outside" to mean further than in the first question, would your answer also have to be "no".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:24 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
ctc.....If you haven't looked outside, but believe the sky is clear. Your answer to the question, "Do you believe there are clouds outside" would be "no". In your mind the word outside makes you think of your immediate surroundings. Your answer to the question "Do you believe there are no clouds outside" does not have to be "no"...If you use the same definition of outside, "yes" works perfectly. Only if you believe "outside" to mean further than in the first question, would your answer also have to be "no".

I was going to type that so that no one could say what you just said, but then I thought no one would say it anyway and if I did people would just get annoyed at adding conditions that seemed to be superfluous.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:32 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
the discussion/debate/argument/bitchfest wasn't started on the premise that god is a special case, but to discuss whether or not there is a differance between believing you don't know, and believing it's not so.

Apparently you can't discuss that without god coming into it. I said it had nothing to do with god in the first post, and brought up god only to explain what was making me bring up the question. God was back in the fray by post number three.

-

The idea that god was a special case was brought up by HKCAVALIER.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:38 AM

ODDSBODSKINS


oh i know, it just seems a bit futile, as discussions go, when the differant parties are coming from utterly unreconcilable points of view. one PoV can't be accurate if the other is, and vice versa

there now, managed to sum up my load of ramble in a sentence.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:42 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Since my entire post jsut disappeared i'll start with you last statement and try to make it quicker.

Quote:
I don't appreciate your opening remarks, or your straw manning of my statements,

I didn't try to, I obviously missinterperted them though. When you said that there were people at a feild and one said there was a sheep I assumed you were saying that the person who was standing there being told there was a sheep could not hear the sheep breathing, see the prints of the sheep (which would be there even on the driest ground while the sheep was standing in those prints even if they did not remain when the sheep moved), see the grass/crop/dirt in the field moving under the influence of the sheep or it's breath or even the results of the air displacement caused by an animal which is "standing still", or see, hear, or otherwise experiance any other secondary signs of the sheep.

If you were saying that the person could experiance these things then I have a very simple response to your analogy. The person would be well within logic and reason to say that there was no sheep there, however likelwise out of his mind if he said there was nothing there but air. Paranioa might cause one to claim there was a "sheep faking aperatus" there but simple observation would indicate that there was something.

If you were saying that the person could not experiance those things, which is what I thought you were saying, then that is evidence against the sheep because even if one assumed there were something other than empty air there observation would have proven that the something was neither a sheep nor sheep-like.

However why I said it didn't apply has to do with the core of this:
"I love how you accuse me of bringing things up with no relevance when all I've done is use a similar analogy too many of the ones you've used throughout."

What you mean by similar is lost on me. I brought up the cat for the simple, and stated, reason that you have no reason to believe one way or the other. You have reason to disbelieve an invisible sheep based solely on what you know about sheep. I also brought it up because you can't check. The cat is in a place which you can not go to and even if you could any results would be inconclusive. (I could have simply borrowed a cat for your visit. Or, if you found that there were no signs of a cat I could have sent the cat out while we cleaned removing all hair, urine, feces, phermones, and so on.)

In other words the basis for the analogy was simple:
Like god you have no evidence to base it on one way or the other.
Like god you can not go where it was said to be.
Like god you can not make observations about it.
Like god it is not against itself by definition. (That is I didn't claim it was an invisible cat, or a flying cat, or anything else that would have to somehow go against the defintion of what a cat is.)

I figure you're going to say that what I have to say from here on out is wrong, but I would appreciate greatky it if you told me exactly what is wrong in detail because this is what I understood you to be saying.

Your analogy was:
Unlike god you have evidence to base it on (knowledge of sheeps and how they interact with their enviroment combined with observations of the field that you are currently at which would be impossible to aviod making assuming you are a normal human with functioning senses.)
Unlike god you ARE where it is said to be.
Unlike god you ARE already making observations about it.
Unlike god it is against itself by defintion.

So how were the two similar? And how is the sheep related?

Or were you talking about the cloud analogy which went something like this:
I am not where I can observe the clouds.
I have no evidence to base the existance or non-existance of clouds on (because I have not previously observed the clouds).
Clouds are not remotly unheard of so it is possible that there are clouds.

So then your sheep thing would be like it because it said:
Unlike the clouds I am where I can observe the sheep.
Unlike the clouds it is unstated whether or not I have evidence to base an opinion on.
Unlike the clouds the invisible sheep is completely unheard and, of course, impossible unless we overthrow zoological science.

Or was it something else? I believe those were the two biggest ones and certainly the two most related to god, and between the two of us this has certainly become about god, but if you mean that it was similar to an analogy simply about belief, or a minor god related one that I've somehow forgotten about please tell me.

As far as I'm concerned something is only a relavent analogy if it holds things in common with with thing it is meant to be an analogy of.

lastly, you said:
"You wish to turn Atheism into a religion"

You know that isn't true, I keep on saying that isn't true, but now that you say it I think it would be fun. If memory serves most of the people here who do believe in god are not part of any religion, so I think it would be mildly amusing if the atheists were part of a religion and the theists weren't.

I do however believe that when there is neither proof nor evidence one way or another, and for some things (god, reality outside the self, objective reality, causation) it is impossible for there to be either, to take a stance other than, "I don't know," is a stance of belief based on faith since there is nothing else it can be based on.

That has nothing to do with god, that has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with belief. Either a belief that has no basis is on faith or it isn't. You seem to be saying that a belief in the nonexistance of something is not one that requires faith even if it has no evidence to back it up.

This stance is not new, as you are well aware there are people who believe that reality itself (outside of themselves) doesn't exist. Since there is no evidence that reality does exist outside of an individual's perception I'm sure some of them use the same logic as you, "There's no evidence for it, so I believe it doesn't exist." After all, all someone has to go on is their senses, senses that you wouldn't trust with a lepurchan, and to say that the senses are interpretations of something outside of the self is to bring in an entity that is not needed to adiquately explain any observable phenomena, unecessary multiplication of entities if ever there was such a thing.

But they are making the same mistake as you: Occam's Razor is not a proof or even an evidence, and while it helps us create less complex models of reality it does not tell us anything about the state of reality. Obviously the simplest and most consistant version of reality is the one that says it isn't real (just like the simplest and most consistant ending is, "Then the boy fell out of bed, it was all a dream,") so if you are right and believing in nonexistance is not something taken on faith why, considering that you don't seem to like taking things on faith, do you believe in a reality outside of yourself? (Or are you a steadfast solipolist of the highest order and I just didn't know?)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:47 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Well, it’s good to see that some things stay consistent. It looks like the Will Hung look-a-like is as overblown and bigheaded as ever. The god given mind of a limey never ceases to amaze me.

Shut up River, if I want the opinion of an ignorant crazed moron I'll go to the nut house where you belong.

Haven't you got a thread to start telling people your going to take all those pills and vodka, really you will honest, not just infantile attention grabing!

Though it's good to see you actually have the 'courage' to use your real login now rather than making one up.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 9:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
My friend I can't even conclusive prove that you exist to you unless we take certain things on faith first. I certainly can't prove that I exist to someone other than myself, and considering that it is rather absurd to ask me to prove that what I believe in is true.


You're not related to Shirley McClain by any chance, are you ?

Quote:
Like Citizen is so happy to point out, just because you can experiance something through your senses doesn't mean that it is there.
On that one piece of info alone, no. But if others share in the experience,and 'something' can be objectively measured, via instrumentation, then that leaves far less room for doubt than your position indicates.

Quote:

The problem with people saying, "Prove god," is that god is an axiom. The reason it is an axiom is because it can not be proved or disproved.
I personally tried to keep the 'prove God ' angle out of my replies. I have my own views, as do you, and am not interested in turning anyone, or even explaining myself. I didn't start this thread.

Quote:
You could try proof by exhaustion, having god do every single possible thing, describe every single possible thing that could be seen or known, but it wouldn't work
God could simply do ONE thing, and that would suffice. But some folks will dismiss anyhting out of hand, simply because it's too much to ask for them to change their world view. They're too stubborn, or stupid, to imagine .... something they couldn't imagine before. It's down right scary for some, I imagine. So they don't acknowledge it.

Quote:
I wasn't trying to be ungreatful, it's just that with anything you care about, pet or person, someone saying that they're sorry doesn't really mean much. It is nice to know that someone cares, and I thank you for that.


I suppose we say ' sorry ' for a lack of anything else to say. I've felt strange saying it in the past, and I know for damn sure it doesn't help matters when folks told me they were sorry for MY loss. We've all have, or will, feel the pangs of losing that which we care greatly about. Even a close friend, despite all their caring and intent, can't feel the emptiness you feel inside. It's good that they care, but didn't they care for your feelings already? Isn't that what makes them a friend regardless of your current situation?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:06 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Like Citizen is so happy to point out, just because you can experiance something through your senses doesn't mean that it is there.
On that one piece of info alone, no. But if others share in the experience,and 'something' can be objectively measured, via instrumentation, then that leaves far less room for doubt than your position indicates.

Not really, delusions can build on each other, there are recorded cases of people believing in one delusion because another delusion told them it was real.

Obviously the only way you can learn that someone else shared the experiance is if they tell you, which is simply something you base on your five failible senses, the person could be a false themselves, it's happened to people before. Another thing that has happened is people have remembered events that never occured, conversations that never took place. Even if the confirming person is real you have no way to know that the confirmation is.

And for the intrumentation you've got a similar problem, even if we skip over the question of how you know it is real (people have believed themselves to be in high-tech labs when they were near nothing of the sort) we have the problem of how do you find out what results it gives. Well there are only two ways I know of, one is to see them yourself, in which case you're back to the problem of your senses, the other is to have someone else tell you, a person/conversation which might not even exist outside of your mind.

When you take it all into account it's easy to understand why some people have break downs the first time their senses fail them. It's also easy to understand why some don't, there comes a point when you have to say, "It is possible that I'm in a mental institute or a coma right now and nothing I'm sensing is real, but that doesn't really change anything."

After all whether the pain comes from an imaginary stubbed toe or a real one it still hurts, so there is a point where it isn't worth worrying about it.

But it doesn't change the effect it has on proof, since you can't prove that what you see and hear is real you've got to take at least some of it (like say the people and instruments you get your confirmation from) on faith. Just another axiom.

Quote:
Quote:
The problem with people saying, "Prove god," is that god is an axiom. The reason it is an axiom is because it can not be proved or disproved.
I personally tried to keep the 'prove God ' angle out of my replies.

Since people already brought god back into and I've heard things like, "If you really believe in what you hold as true, then you can objectively show me, or anyone else, that your belief is based in fact. If you can't do that, then I have nothing left to either confirm or deny your view on the matter, and am released from any obligation to accept it a priori," on the subject of god I jumped to the wrong conclusion, I'm sorry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:21 AM

CHRISISALL


CTC, If I believe the cat exists, it exists in my perception of it's existence, and therefore it's existence is subjective, and not worth getting clawed over.

Some of my best cats are existing right now Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:39 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
CTC, If I believe the cat exists, it exists in my perception of it's existence, and therefore it's existence is subjective, and not worth getting clawed over.

Well it exists in my perception of its existance too, and probably isn't worth getting clawed over, but I still get clawed. It thinks feet are toys, kittens claw and bite their toys.

It also thinks that fingers and wrists are toys, but my ankle is the part of me that has the most reason to believe the kitten exists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:09 AM

HKCAVALIER


CTC, if you honestly believe that there is no proof that a reality outside yourself exists, you've trumped every argument I can make. Now it's my turn to ask, "How can anyone live like that?"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:11 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
CTC, if you honestly believe that there is no proof that a reality outside yourself exists, you've trumped every argument I can make.

Do you believe that such proof does exist? I guess you must, I'd be interested to know what it is.

As for whether or not it effects your arguments, it shouldn't. I mean whether you assume that reality outside of yourself is there or you somehow prove it doesn't matter as long as the participants in the argument all agree to assume it is true for the purposes of the argument.

Quote:
Now it's my turn to ask, "How can anyone live like that?"

Without too much trouble. I assume that my senses are indeed telling me about a world that is not mearly an extension of myself. All science I know of starts with that same assumption, and look at what it's produced.

I should point out that people get by just fine without that assumption. Like I said before:
They pay their imaginary money earned at their imaginary job to their imaginary government to stay out of their imaginary jail all the while believing it no more real than the dream they had the night before.

But why they believe it is simple enough to see:
If you first assume that everything you see, hear, taste, smell or touch is an illusion created by your mind then no new evidence can change that because for you to learn of the new evidence you must see, hear, taste, smell or touch either it or a sign of it. And those are the very things you don't trust. It can't be disproved so once someone starts believing it there is nothing that can make them stop. (Doesn't mean that they can't stop mind you, just that nothing can logically force them to change their minds.)

I believe in reality outside of myself because it's simple to do so and I personally find it more likely than the idea that I'm all there is. The belief that there is a reality outside of yourself is known as asolipsism nonsolipsism antisolipsism and probably several other terms as well.

I think it is fair to say that everyone in this thread is an asolipsist, it might not be true, but it probably is.

The opposite of asolipism is not solipsism, that would be to simple. Solipsism has several meanings, only one of which is the opposite of asolipism. In its simplest form solipsism just says that because your senses are falible you can not trust that they give you an accurate picture of the outside world. However by another definition it says that the world outside simply doesn't exist, all that there is is you and your perceptions.

Wikipedia, an inaccurate source if ever there was one, calls this by name metaphysical solipsism and has this to say about it:

Metaphysical solipsism is not falsifiable, because, once one has taken the solipsistic position, any evidence that might establish an external world is already viewed as being within (or produced by) the self. Anti-solipsism--the position that an external world does exist--is also non-falsifiable, because no matter what evidence is produced, it is always possible that an external world exists (even if one cannot detect it in any way).

This is actually true, imagine that, and exactly the problem. You can't disprove solipism because any evidence presented is dismissed by axiom, and you can't prove it because even if you do manage to show that everything you have ever experianced was a delusion there's still a possibility that somewhere out there there is something that isn't.

The problem is the same the other way around. Proving a reality outside of yourself exists is exactly the same as disproving (metaphysical) solipism, it can't be done because any such proof relies on your unreliable senses the same senses that tell certain people things like, "Purple elephants are flying." (Didn't we need a firefly quote?)

But reality (outside the self) is also non-falsifiable because disproving it is the same as proving (metaphysical) solipism and that's also already been touched on.

-

It's not as if I made this up, it's well known and well recorded.

-

The point of bringing this up isn't to say to everyone, "Reject reality," but to point out that god isn't the only thing you can neither prove or disprove. And some of the things like that are very important.

Another one is causality, try to prove that causality exists without first assuming causality. It can't be done. Yet everyone I know of, even those that reject reality itself, accepts causality because it makes a hell of a lot of sense to them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 1:02 PM

HKCAVALIER


So I gotta ask you, CTC, after all that sophisticated (sophistic?) noise about reality maybe not existing and all, was your original question not a little insincere? Seriously, if you can and obviously enjoy wrapping your head around all this silliness, how is it you can't understand some one who discounts the reality of God based on lack of evidence?

The reason that your argument trumps any argument I could make is because that is precisely what it was designed to do. You're saying that nothing can be known and so nothing can be discussed. It's cheap and childish and not worth my time. If you'd ever loved anyone in your life, really, you'd know that there was a reality outside your own head--not believe, know.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:26 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, if you can and obviously enjoy wrapping your head around all this silliness, how is it you can't understand some one who discounts the reality of God based on lack of evidence?

My original question had nothing to do with someone discounting the reality of god based on lack of evidence.

It was very very simple:
"how can people go through life believing that, 'I don't believe __,' is the same as saying, 'I believe the opposite of ___'?"

In other words, how can someone operate when they think lack of belief is belief of lack?

Quote:
The reason that your argument trumps any argument I could make is because that is precisely what it was designed to do.

By whom exactly? Not by me because I didn't make it up. I don't know who made it up, I do know that it has never been successfully refuted and few things hold that status. I'm fairly sure that the reason it has never been refuted is that it is true, i.e. these things can be neither proved nor disproved.

Also how does it? We both believe in a reality outside of ourselves, at least I know I do and I think you do, so since we agree on it how does it effect anything?

I mean lets say you can prove beyond doubt that reality does exist (in other words I'm wrong everyone whoever said what I said is wrong, my entire concept of perciving reality is wrong, and my argument is flawed beyond all recognition.) Then we say, "Ok, that's settled, reality is real and our senses are a good way to get information within reason, let's move on to other things."

How does that effect your arguments any differently than saying, "Ok, that's settled, we agree that reality is real and our senses are a good way to get information within reason, let's move on to other things."

Quote:
You're saying that nothing can be known and so nothing can be discussed.

No I am not. If you got that impression I'm very sorry, what I am saying is that there are certain things that can't be known for sure, some of these things are very important, and we don't reject them off hand simply because they can't be known for sure. In some cases we do the opposite.

However, once we take these things, these axioms, other things can be known. I didn't say that part but it is very true.

If you assume that the world exists then you can prove, and thus know, a hell of a lot. The mass of an electron, the time it takes for the earth to go round the sun, the path of a projectile, the gross national product of Peru, the genetic heritiage of a random person's Y-chromosome, and so forth.

While it does all come with a thing preceeding it saying, "This only holds if the universe is real," that has no effect on its usefulness or its truth. Because that's true enough even if you don't say it. I mean I don't think there are any scientists who would say, "Well this is going to be true even if the world turns out to be a 3-year-old's dream and none of the laws of physics really apply," about too many things. I also don't think a palentologist would say, "We know that this carnavore fed on early mamals even if all of the bones and other evidence turn out to be fabrications made on a whim." Any statement of knowledge depends on the assumptions it was based on are correct, that doesn't mean the statement is bullshit. It means it is conditional.

Considering that almost, but not quite, everyone on earth takes the existance of reality for granted the fact that it might not be real doesn't effect anything because we all assume it is and based on that assumption we've built up skyscrapers and philosophies. We built science on that assumption. And once we make it we can know a lot of other stuff.

Quote:
It's cheap and childish and not worth my time.

I don't see how, I really don't, and I'm sorry you feel that way.

I really don't see how it has an effect on anything other than as an example, the example being one of a non-provable non-disproveable widely held important belief.

Quote:
If you'd ever loved anyone in your life, really, you'd know that there was a reality outside your own head--not believe, know.

Guess you don't believe in soul mates then, none of that, "He/she was the part of me that was missing all this time stuff." I don't believe in soul mates in that sense either.

The people I've loved were different from me as sure as I'm sitting here, but not any more sure than that. The only thing more sure than that is the fact that I loved them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:05 - 12 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 01:38 - 4931 posts
COUP...TURKEY
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:38 - 40 posts
Dana Loesch Explains Why Generation X Put Trump In The White House
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:21 - 7 posts
Alien Spaceship? Probably Not: CIA Admits it’s Behind (Most) UFO Sightings
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:18 - 27 posts
IRAN: Kamala Harris and Biden's war?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:34 - 18 posts
Countdown Clock Until Vladimir Putins' Rule Ends
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:32 - 158 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:04 - 251 posts
Who hates Israel?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:02 - 77 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:59 - 4839 posts
Jesus christ... Can we outlaw the fuckin' drones already?
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:55 - 3 posts
Turkey as the new Iran
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:42 - 45 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL