/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 11 KB, 513x211, ac.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:26:07 2011 No.4169708 [Reply] [Original]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:27:14 2011 No.4169711 How do you know?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:28:23 2011 No.4169715 Read "The God Delusion" for some great opinions on why agnosticism is not a valid standpoint.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:29:36 2011 No.4169717 >>4169715 >TGD laughingwhores.jpg

>>	sage sage Wed Dec 21 05:29:36 2011 No.4169718 File: 22 KB, 400x400, but_thats_wrong_billnye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The wise man knows the absurdity of taking a median position between believing and disbelieving a non-falsifiable claim with 0 supporting evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:29:36 2011 No.4169719 Agnosticism-Because you are too stupid to know if you believe in god or not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:30:38 2011 No.4169721 >>4169715 daily reminder that dawkins invented the whole agnostic atheist,agnostic theist crap agnostic alone IS a valid standpoint and was a valid standpoint for hundreds of years

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:31:45 2011 No.4169724 >>4169718 actually that the only logical route for a non-falsifiable claim

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:32:54 2011 No.4169727 >>4169721 Indeed. Dawkins is also an idiot because he tries to claim that such a thing as passive atheism exists. By his logic, rocks, goldfish, and Nike sneakers are atheists because they lack a positive belief in a god.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 05:33:02 2011 No.4169731 Agnosticism isn't restricted to god. It also applies to ghosts, aliens and supernatural / paranormal phenomena in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:34:02 2011 No.4169733 >>4169721 >daily reminder that dawkins invented the whole agnostic atheist,agnostic theist crap You sure know your history. Actually, Richard Dawkins invented atheism, full stop.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:34:02 2011 No.4169735 >>4169731 No, it only applies to gods because their existence is unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:36:18 2011 No.4169743 >>4169735 Wrong.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 05:36:18 2011 No.4169744 >>4169735 Good luck falsifying the other things I mentioned.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:36:26 2011 No.4169745 >>4169735 So is the existence of ghosts and... everything else that's unfalsifiable, for that matter. God, talking to agnostics is like conversing with a stuffed animal.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:37:26 2011 No.4169747

>>4169724

So every claim made by anyone in the world should be viewed with an agnostic approach?

I don't believe the schizophrenic that lives down the streets claims that an invisible minotaur is standing by him at any given moment. Why? Because it's obviously fucking bullshit. Religion is no different and you know that.

Why so many people are okay with perpetuating a random yet complex fairytale made up by ignorant and primitive human beings BLOWS MY MIND.

By taking an agnostic stance you are actually a part of the problem. It also make you look weak since you can't take a stand on a really basic issue. I do not respect you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:37:26 2011 No.4169750 >>4169744 If gods exist outside the physical universe, we can't test them scientifically.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:38:34 2011 No.4169752 >>4169747 god is nothing like ghosts god is a creator of the universe and it makes sense and logical to be agnostic about

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 05:40:41 2011 No.4169754 >>4169747 >Why? Because it's obviously fucking bullshit. Who are you to judge on what is bullshit? Your emotional resistance against certain ideas is not an argument.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:40:50 2011 No.4169756

>>4169750
Same goes for the proverbial invisible dragon and most paranormal phenomena, like telepathy or telekinesis. If it doesn't work under controlled conditions, you can always render it unfalsifiable by claiming that it's actually the controls themselves that are affecting the phenomenon negatively, or some shit like that.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:40:50 2011 No.4169757

>>4169752

Why does that make sense? Really, give me a nice little paragraph about how it makes sense about that.

Why do you assume there is a creator to be agnostic about? Because some people 2000+ years ago wrote a book about saying there was one? You know, people have been writing religions since the beginning of time yet we don't see anyone giving Zeus a chance. Should I be agnostic about Zeus?

Should I also be agnostic about Little Red Riding Hood since someone wrote a fairy tale about her too?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:41:58 2011 No.4169759 >>4169754 Who am I to judge that the invisible minotaur is not real? Are you joking or just trolling?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:41:58 2011 No.4169760 >Agnosticism. Because I haven't read Russel's Teapot yet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:45:21 2011 No.4169768 >>4169757 i havnt said anything about a book or a flying wizard or whatever logical fallacies you want i came up on my own that a creator is worth being agnostic about i completely believe in one now deal with it

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:46:30 2011 No.4169770 >>4169768 Have a fucking point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:48:45 2011 No.4169774 >>4169768 >completely believes in creator >agnostic Are you really going to spend your life being completely irrational? I get the feeling you are underage so hopefully you'll grow out of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:49:55 2011 No.4169775 >>4169774 i meant i was agnostic once and now i fully believe in god because i thought it through it had nothing to do with any of the fallacies you just said "hurr fairy tales" etc

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 05:50:55 2011 No.4169777 >>4169775 What made you believe?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:52:10 2011 No.4169784 >>4169775 Well I'm curious about your thought process on the issue. For my own enlightenment can you go over it with me please? I'm genuinely curious about what brought you to believe in a creator.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:52:17 2011 No.4169786 >>4169777 5 years of isolation got me thinking and i think ive got some arguments that people have never seen ive never lost a debate with them takes a good 2 pages to type it out though

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:53:17 2011 No.4169788 I think if there were a god, he would come out and maybe do some cool shit, like a magic show or something, and then I wouldn't have to be anything but amazed and enchanted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:53:17 2011 No.4169790 So what exactly does it make me if I don't feel like I know God does or doesn't exist, but I strongly and wholeheartedly find it unlikely that such a creature does, and therefore live my life as though God is a lot of nonsense?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:54:26 2011 No.4169792 >>4169786 Did those people exist outside your head?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:54:26 2011 No.4169794 >>4169788 now why would he do that is he a attention seeking vegas talent show? is that what you want in charge of the universe?

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 05:54:26 2011 No.4169795 File: 19 KB, 294x294, ohboyherewego.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4169786 >some arguments that people have never seen >ive never lost a debate A new challenge for /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:54:26 2011 No.4169796 >>4169786 >5 years of isolation got me thinking >5 years of isolation made me go insane Okay I've had enough. This is getting weird. Night fellow homo sapiens.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:54:28 2011 No.4169791 >>4169784 Not same guy, but one thing I noticed is that atheists seem to have an awful lot of hatred towards a god that allegedly doesn't exist. I get the impression they know he's out there and they're really terrified as fuck of him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:55:26 2011 No.4169798 >>4169792 the debates were on 4chan it usually ends with the atheist leaving the thread mid-debate

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:55:34 2011 No.4169799 File: 3 KB, 300x57, lords really small..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4169791 I don't hate god, I just hate his followers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:55:34 2011 No.4169801 >>4169791 Yeah, I, too, noticed that a lot of people like to jack off to that sort of straw man.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:57:42 2011 No.4169807

>>4169791

Well the god of the old testament is actually a sick fuck who is fully worthy of hatred. But I think you're wrong and atheists actually just hate the concept of organized religion. That's really it. Some variations of heaven and god actually sound kind of nice, but that doesn't mean they are any less BS.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 05:57:42 2011 No.4169808 >>4169798 That's just the usual edgy teenager atheists shitposting here. You can ignore these. I'm sure some people here might be up for a serious debate as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:57:49 2011 No.4169809 >>4169794 >is he a attention seeking vegas talent show? Not sure if we're talking about the same god here, but the one I'm referring to, namely the abrahamic one, certainly is a dedicated attention whore.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:58:49 2011 No.4169811 File: 31 KB, 640x650, 1302369508001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:58:58 2011 No.4169812 >>4169808 Or maybe people just lose interest halfway through when they realize they're talking to a brick wall. He doesn't sound like the type of person who might be persuaded by reason.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:59:06 2011 No.4169813 >>4169808 >believes AGW is an elaborate hoax >believes in God You sure aren't one to be subtle in your trolling.

1/2 Anonymous Wed Dec 21 05:59:06 2011 No.4169815

Consider the following:

We have a limited understanding of the universe and how it came into being. There must have been a cause for the universe to come into being. The creation of our universe does not have to be the only event, and the tiers of creation can be infinite. A universe cound have been created by a higher universe, in an infinite loop by whatever means. At any tier in this loop, an intelligent creator can exist. This can be true because we exist as intelligent lifeforms, yet we are composed of atoms and energy which are not. This is similar to a computer being somewhat intelligent but being composed of computer parts. Our universe could have been created by an entity which is intelligent by our definition. It could be a universe which is composed of particles which interact with eachother to form a "brain" via its own laws of physics. We appreciate life on earth due to the great difference to the rest of the known universe. God1 can contain a similar scenario within itself as well as a less interesting big bang resulting in us. The intricacy of life on earth does not have to be based on just our universe, but also to possibilities of God1 which may exceed our own. God1 must also have a cause, and this scenario is now a possibly infinite loop. God2 created God1 and God2 does not have to be more complex than God1.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:00:06 2011 No.4169817 >>4169813 Where did I say I believe in god? I'm agnostic.

2/2 Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:00:06 2011 No.4169818

This is one dimension of a 'God complex'. There may be infinite dimensions with infinite God tiers for each. IE: Multiverse is the idea of an infinite 3-space universe having unidentical siblings. This is a two-dimensional 'God complex' since every infinite set of multiverses can have multiverses.

A distinct possibility is the idea of non-existence, that at the end of a finite set of God tiers, God(n) appeared from non-existence into its own "Big Bang". This transition is difficult to understand. How can something come from nothing? Non-existence implies that time does not exist either. Non-existence could initiate a God tier in this dimension or a God dimension. As a God dimension, this 'God' is similar to x = 0 ÷ ∞ in {x| -∞ < x < ∞}. This is similar since this God can be the original God that initiates the infinite dimension 'God complex' from nothing into everything. As a God Tier, time must have started along with the "Big Bang" of a universe. This 'something from nothing' is a puzzle no one can solve since a definition implies existence.

Any of these possibilities can be labelled God. God is not limited to the creator of Earth or the initiator of the big bang.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:00:13 2011 No.4169819 >>4169817 IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:01:13 2011 No.4169821 Related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:01:13 2011 No.4169823 >>4169817 I hope you're at least consistently agnostic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:02:22 2011 No.4169824 >>4169815 Yeah, lets just invoke an infinite number of gods. That is a totally sound and logical argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:02:22 2011 No.4169825 >>4169808 >usual edgy teenager atheists thats exactly what they are i usually defend agnostics because at least their position is somewhat logically based. atheism is pure dogma and the least logical of the 3

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:02:22 2011 No.4169826

>>4169815

>could

I too have the ability to concoct inviting sounding creation stories but that doesn't make them any more plausible. You do realize how much you are pushing it in your arguments right? People misconstrue the idea of infinite way too much and you are too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:03:30 2011 No.4169827 >>4169825 >implying we're the ones who claim a bearded sky man cares about what I do with my penis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:03:30 2011 No.4169828 I believe in god. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:05:38 2011 No.4169830 >>4169828 You can't objectively prove God exists, therefore I have no reason to believe it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:05:38 2011 No.4169831 >>4169825 I don't believe in anything that I have no rational reason to believe in. Feel free to point out the logical flaw in this approach.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:05:46 2011 No.4169832 >>4169825 >atheism is pure dogma >believes in god Why the FUCK were you isolated for 5 years? Can you at least recognize that this most likely SERIOUSLY altered your ability to accurately perceive the world around you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:05:46 2011 No.4169833 File: 48 KB, 329x346, coolio-blank-stare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4169825

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:05:46 2011 No.4169834 >>4169827 implying this isnt the only thing you atheists can do, make sky wizard jokes implying we know anything about god or what form he takes

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:05:46 2011 No.4169836 The only thing more disheartening than the desperation of deists is watching atheists continue to care.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:06:54 2011 No.4169837 >>4169834 >implying we know anything about god or what form he takes Or whether he even exists, but that doesn't stop you from believing in him... because you're irrational.

GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:06:54 2011 No.4169838

>>4169815
>There must have been a cause for the universe to come into being.
What makes you think that causality applies here?

>>4169818
Please don't mix philosophical ideas with mathematical notation.
When you want to use mathematical model, you need to define all the properties beforehand.
The comparison you made was unnessecary at this point.

>>4169819
Atheists actively reject belief.
I don't make a decision on what to believe in.

>>4169823
I'm always consistent ;)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:07:54 2011 No.4169839 >>4169834 >implying your religious texts don't describe exactly such a god

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:07:54 2011 No.4169840 File: 3 KB, 300x300, blank stare.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4169834

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:07:54 2011 No.4169841 >>4169834 >implying we have any reason to even start to believe in "him" in the first place >any reason at all

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:08:02 2011 No.4169843 >>4169834 We don't imply anything of the sort. We leave that to you. You're correct, however, in deducing that it's a fucking stupid thing to do, please extend such logic to the moronic act of believing in a fucking sky wizard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:08:02 2011 No.4169844 >>4169838 >I don't make a decision on what to believe in. If you don't make the decision to believe in god, then you are in fact an atheist.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:08:02 2011 No.4169845

>>4169826
The idea is that there are nearly an infinite number of stories that cound be true. It's impossible to prove true or false given what we know, so they are all distinct possibilities. They are as reasonable as common mono/poly theistic beliefs. Your chance of being right is nearly zero. This is why I am agnostic.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:09:10 2011 No.4169846 >>4169844 No, I'm not. An atheist has already decided not to belief in god.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:09:10 2011 No.4169848 >>4169831 look at what you are saying "I HAVE NO RATIONAL REASON TO BELIEVE THIS" its exactly what religious people do and you cant even see it. thats why the people who follow science are bar none the laziest and most dogmatic of the group

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:10:18 2011 No.4169850 >>4169845 You must be agnostic about everything then, right? I mean, even about stuff with hard evidence, like physics, because physics might not be consistent within every incarnation of a universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:10:18 2011 No.4169852 >>4169838 The only time causality doesn't apply is in the beginning, if there was a beginning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:11:26 2011 No.4169854 >>4169846 No, he just doesn't believe, exactly like you. The degree of certainty involved is irrelevant, unless you're differentiating between strong and weak atheism. Do you lack a positive belief in god? Then you're an atheist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:11:26 2011 No.4169855 >>4169845 Okay. So this means that you are equally agnostic to the idea of subatomic homosexual hippopotamuses that work together to make the physical world function as you are to that of a typical Christian god? Agreed?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:12:26 2011 No.4169857 >>4169855 Really, nothing is provable if you think about it.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:12:37 2011 No.4169859 >>4169850 Of course you have to be agnostic about physics. Physics (or science in general) deals with theories. Theories might be refuted one day.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:12:37 2011 No.4169860 >implying you can't be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist babby's first god thread?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:13:41 2011 No.4169861 >>4169846 I do not hold a belief in god. I didn't decide not to hold a belief in god. I just don't ascribe to it. The same way I don't hold a belief in Puzhnamic Rectalfrying Inebrioids from Planet Xormacrillium.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:13:41 2011 No.4169863 >>4169857 Really, you're actually completely wrong if you think about it. And if you're >>4169845, please answer my question directly.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:14:50 2011 No.4169865

>>4169848
So, you're not actually gonna point out the flaw in this approach, are you? You're just gonna say "dogmatic" over and over again, as if it were an argument for or against the validity of my position? Okay.

Well, as I said earlier, I think whenever people stop debating you halfway through it may have more to do with fatigue than your superior line of reasoning.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:15:50 2011 No.4169868 >>4169854 Call it whatever you want as long as you make a distinction between non-decision and active rejection.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:16:08 2011 No.4169874 >>4169868 That would be strong and weak atheism.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:18:14 2011 No.4169877

>>4169865
theism assumes the least because it explains everything in 1 theory with 1 axiom (god is omnipotent and can do anything)

atheism assumes the most because its usually associated with science which has thousands of axioms which have no justification AND they constantly change

talk about a wild theory.

pure agnosticism should be about taking no axioms, but a lot of agnostics believe in science which is why they ruin it for themselves (but the idea is still better than atheism)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:18:14 2011 No.4169878 >>4169815 >Things need to have a cause >Therefore infinite universes >Therefore infinite gods What the fucking fuck? Admittedly, I stopped reading about 1/3 the way through.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:19:22 2011 No.4169881 Agnostics are just failed nihilists who are afraid to follow their logic to the end.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:20:30 2011 No.4169882 >that feel when anecdotal evidence of God, is often taken for fact.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:20:30 2011 No.4169883 >>4169874 Feel free to use these terms if you deem them appropriate. I for myself prefer to stick with agnosticism for not being confused with the hate spouting children wich are usually associated with atheism on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:21:38 2011 No.4169884 >>4169877 10/10

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:22:46 2011 No.4169891 >>4169884 believe in god yet?

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:25:10 2011 No.4169900

>>4169877

Sounds like you never learned even the basics of probability. No wonder you're so confused. Nor do you even understand what science is. Why are you even using the internet? Shouldn't you be out picking up trash with a claw? My highways are looking particularly dirty today.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:27:18 2011 No.4169904 >>4169900 dat ad hominem I know exactly what probability is, and im using it to prove why god is more logical

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:29:34 2011 No.4169907 >>4169904 Where in your argument did you use probability?

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:29:34 2011 No.4169908

>>4169877
>atheism assumes the most
I'm not making any positive assertions from my mere lack of belief in deities. It's just a consequence from lack of positive evidence.

>pure agnosticism should be about taking no axioms
That's ridiculous, not to mention impossible. Whatever reasoning you employ to actually come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the "most logical position", or whatever, it's already based on several axioms. You cannot reason *at all* without axioms.

Still waiting for you to point out some flaws in the approach of not believing in something until provided with a sufficient rationale.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:30:41 2011 No.4169910 >>4169904 You don't understand shit about probability. Read over what you wrote a few times and then go watch some educational videos on the subject. This is for your own good. Seriously.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:30:41 2011 No.4169913 >>4169883 Just call yourself a skeptic or freethinker. Or don't. Whatever. I call myself a don'tgiveafucksist. I hope that's a thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:31:41 2011 No.4169914 >>4169900 >>4169908 >>4169907 Stop sucking Troll cock.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:31:50 2011 No.4169915 >>4169914 Yeah, you're right.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:32:50 2011 No.4169916 >>4169914 but it tastes so good

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:34:06 2011 No.4169917

>>4169817
>I'm agnostic
Then you waste your time with semantics.

There is doubt behind every "fact" aside from those that are defined to be true (eg the mathematics derived from axioms). To say one is DOUBTFUL is redundant. Atheists are of course doubtful as are many theists.

There is no practical difference between an atheist and a "non-theistic" agnostic as both are defined by the lack of deities in their respective models of the universe.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:36:22 2011 No.4169920

>>4169908
the fact that you are requesting evidence already shows the complexity of the logic system you are using and is inherently invalid

>to the conclusion that agnosticism is the "most logical position"

I think theism is the most logical position because i think its most logical to just accept 1 axiom. The idea of agnosticism is essentially no axioms because you arent making any assertions. Thats perfectly fine to do but most of them will accept at least empirical evidence as facts which I do not. Only god.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:36:22 2011 No.4169922 >>4169917 But I still insist on being called an agnostic, because I want to be one of the cool kids.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:40:54 2011 No.4169925

>>4169920
So when it comes to believing in bullshit, you're all about "go big or go home!" Rather than believing in several thousand different axioms that may or may not be accurately reflecting the universe as it truly is, it's better to believe in the one most impossible thing... and that's right because 1 is less than 'many'?

How much smack/crack/tranqs did you do before you finally found meth?

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:41:01 2011 No.4169928 >>4169917 There's nothing wrong with wasting my time on semantics. I don't force you to do the same .

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:43:10 2011 No.4169932 >>4169925 You guys are the ones who came up with occams razor. I dont even use occams razor for my analysis though. I just dont have any reason to believe in anything that science tells me.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:43:18 2011 No.4169933

>>4169920
>the fact that you are requesting evidence...
I'm not. Never have, actually. I was asking for a GOOD REASON. It could be in the form of empirical evidence, sure, but just some decent logic may persuade me as well.

>The idea of agnosticism is essentially no axioms because you arent making any assertions.
Agnosticism is just as full of axioms as any other philosophy. One of its axioms is that of limited knowability, for example, about which it makes assertions, too. You have a really skewed definition of the term, I think.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:45:25 2011 No.4169935 >>4169928 Do you believe in deities?

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:46:34 2011 No.4169936 >>4169935 I cannot say for sure whether they exist or not.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:47:42 2011 No.4169938
File: 10 KB, 180x180, face010.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4169928
Fair enough, but you waste other people's time when you enter a conversation knowing full well the source of the disagreement and yet not sharing it. Debating for the sake of debating instead of for the sake of educating just rustles my jimmies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:48:42 2011 No.4169940 >>4169936 That's not what he was asking you, though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:48:42 2011 No.4169941 >>4169932 I think you're confusing a complex system with a complex argument and applying it to the wrong one.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:48:49 2011 No.4169942

>>4169933
>It could be in the form of empirical evidence, sure, but just some decent logic may persuade me as well.

This whole deductive system is flawed and the only reason you use it is because it is "useful". Stop assuming that you need to use your personal logic for things and think outside the box because you have no reason to use it.

>Agnosticism is just as full of axioms as any other philosophy.

Thats true in a way... I guess im thinking of a person who just makes no assertions... which would be an apathiest?
It doesnt really matter because they all believe in science and logic. Until they drop that shit you cant even debate with them without the bias.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:49:49 2011 No.4169945 >>4169936 You can't say with certainty if they do or they do not. Then you both believe and disbelieve in them at the same time.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 06:50:06 2011 No.4169947 >>4169938 It's up to you to decide whether you want to waste your time with me. (implying we have free will) >>4169940 I answered it correctly, because I had to be sure in order to take one of the options.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:52:13 2011 No.4169954 SPOILER: BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE ARE SEPARATE any atheist who isn't hard stupid (positively "knows" doesn't exist) is agnostic: they know this knowledge is empirically impossible

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:56:38 2011 No.4169961

>>4169947
>It's up to you to decide whether you want to waste your time with me.
You already said that GL, and it isn't relevant to my post.

You are the one wasting other people's time when you let on that there is a real disagreement when you know full and well that the source of the argument is your own absurdly extreme definitions (in this case, your definition of atheism excluding all doubt). It's not the fault of other's choices when you are consciously dishonest in that regard.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:57:46 2011 No.4169964

>>4169942
>This whole deductive system is flawed and the only reason you use it is because it is "useful".
Which is enough to give it an edge over any other system I'm familiar with.

>Stop assuming that you need to use your personal logic for things and think outside the box because you have no reason to use it.
I don't think I'm able to think and reason outside a framework of axiomatic logic. I'm not sure if anyone can, to be honest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 06:59:03 2011 No.4169969 Showing god doesn't exist is like proving 3*1=1 It's obvious to the rational thinker, but fucktarded to prove with science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:00:11 2011 No.4169972 >>4169969 >3*1 = 1 That doesn't seem too obvious to me.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:00:11 2011 No.4169973

>>4169964
>Which is enough to give it an edge over any other system I'm familiar with.

Just because 1 system is more useful does not mean it is any more truthful, humans just like patterns and do not like cognitive dissonance which is why you are saying that, learn to deal with it.

>I don't think I'm able to think and reason outside a framework of axiomatic logic.

You can but only when you are AT USE, when you talk about god you can not use this bullshit. I can define ANY axioms I want and say NOPE NOPE GOD IS A FAIRY TALE BECAUSE IT SAYS RIGHT HERE IN MY SCIENCE BOOK. (axiom book)

Get it?

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:00:11 2011 No.4169974 >>4169961 I'm not dishonest. I explained my views ITT.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:01:18 2011 No.4169975

>>4169961
notice GL didn't say whether he both believed and disbelieved, as he knows it's an absurd position. He would have us believe that agnosticism is a duality of beliefs coexisting naturally in the mind. You can't believe the earth is spherical or cubic at the same time, even if you claim agnosticism with those positions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:02:25 2011 No.4169977 >>4169974 >>4169973 >>4169972 >>4169969 >>4169964 >>4169961 hey, you candy-asses. thread over. go home. >>4169954

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:02:25 2011 No.4169978 >>4169969 Don't make mathematical comparisons if you don't understand them yourself. 3*1 = 1 is true in any field of characteristic 2

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:05:51 2011 No.4169984 >>4169975 Why should one be forced to take a position on belief or not belief? In your comparison I would neither say the earth is spherical nor it is cubic, because I don't have sufficient knowledge to make a statement.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:06:59 2011 No.4169987
File: 147 KB, 271x253, face015.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4169974
It took plenty of time itt and I'm sure it will take even longer for someone to force out of you the acknowledgement of your absurd definition the next time you rail against atheists.

You could avoid wasting people's time by simply stating in the very beginning of such a debate "I define atheism as the doubtless belief that deities do not exist" and then going off about how absurd such a position is. You didn't, you don't, and you most likely won't make such a declaration in the future and that rustles my jimmies.

Good day.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:07:07 2011 No.4169991

>>4169973
>which is why you are saying that, learn to deal with it.
No, I'm saying it, because it is accurate. Logic really is more useful than illogic. I didn't say shit about it being *truthful* because of its utility. I don't know where you pulled that from.

>Get it?
No, I don't. Your points have been pretty incoherent so far. I don't even know what you're trying to get across here:
>You can but only when you are AT USE, when you talk about god you can not use this bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:09:15 2011 No.4169996 >>4169991 Its because you are too used to using logic. You literally need to isolate yourself to grasp this. Tell me, what is the justification to use logic over my own made up imagination?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:10:23 2011 No.4170001 >>4169984 Are you mistaking believing X and believing (not X)? Notice both are beliefs of different expressions. However, logically (law of the excluded middle), you either believe X or you don't believe X. not believing X ≠ believing (not X)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:12:39 2011 No.4170004 File: 8 KB, 417x429, Hurr Durr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:12:39 2011 No.4170005 >>4170001 Are you trying to apply logic to believes? The law of excluded middle doesn't apply here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:13:47 2011 No.4170008 >>4170004 atheists actively deny god agnostics dont.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:14:55 2011 No.4170011 >>4170005 not I'm applying logic to the statement 'GL believes X' notice, still a statement

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:14:55 2011 No.4170013 File: 25 KB, 712x956, 1312512223753.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4170008

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:16:03 2011 No.4170016

>>4169996
>Tell me, what is the justification to use logic over my own made up imagination?
Well, as I've said earlier, I think its practical utility is a major benefit of logical reasoning, one which your own axioms may not have. This doesn't say anything about its truthfulness, of course, but then again, nothing can really reveal the truthfulness of *any* system of thought. Regardless of your axioms, you will never approach anything close to objective, absolute truth, so the best thing I (or rather we all) can do is stick with what works and reject what doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:16:03 2011 No.4170018 >>4170013 you cant know.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:18:19 2011 No.4170022 >>4170011 Except that belief cannot be represented in a formal statement without losing some of its semantics.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:19:26 2011 No.4170024 File: 90 KB, 676x550, agnostics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4170013

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:19:26 2011 No.4170025 >>4170013 Agnostic belief in apples. I like it.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:19:26 2011 No.4170026

>>4170016
>stick with what works and reject what doesn't work.

but "what works" is itself an axiom .
it might not even mean anything.
you are taking a leap of faith by believing in it and it is no different than religion. It is still less justified than religion because the complexity unless you tell me how you justify it.

told[x]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:20:36 2011 No.4170027 God here. You're all gonna burn in hell for playing with yourselves anyway, so you might as well stop bickering. Also, Allah is a myth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:21:42 2011 No.4170031 File: 313 KB, 792x485, Fagnostic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4170018

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:22:42 2011 No.4170033 >>4170024 Problem is by posting this you completely contradict everything it says. You are forcing stereotypes on people. Calling their beliefs stupid.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:22:52 2011 No.4170036

>>4170024
But of course, any binary division is going to be false, with the truth lying in between.

I consider myself a gnostic non-cognitivist myself. The cosmos is everything axiomatically, and the conception of a monotheistic god is merely the result of the superego.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:22:52 2011 No.4170037

>>4170013
assuming the agnostic hasn't seen that apples, he is right.

He is right again for the Easter bunny. It could exist despite a low probability.

For believing in God, he is right again although the probability of God existing is larger than the probability of the Easter bunny existing.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:22:52 2011 No.4170038

>>4170022
uh, no
"GL believes X" means what it states. no lost semantics. it's either true or false.
likewise for "GL believes (not X)". captures believing the contrary, and it's true or false.
notice, both can be false and consistent: means you don't believe.
both can be true: means you can't make up your mind, retard.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:25:07 2011 No.4170047

>>4170026
>but "what works" is itself an axiom
Uhm, yeah, I know. I was the one who had to point out to you that *every* philosophy is based on axioms, remember?
>>4169908
>>4169933

>It is still less justified than religion because the complexity unless you tell me how you justify it.
I don't think I have to tell you that a lack of belief isn't actually more complex than a positive belief.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:25:07 2011 No.4170049 >>4170038 Man, do people really not understand Wittgenstein?

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:25:15 2011 No.4170051 >>4170038 The negation of "believe X" would be "not believe X", which constitutes a false dichotomy as you already accidentally pointed out by confusing it with "believe not X".

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:26:24 2011 No.4170055 >>4170036 false dilemma: true or false includes every possibility. not "black or white", but "black or not black". 2nd statement is way broader (a tautology).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:28:30 2011 No.4170061 >>4170051 >as you already accidentally pointed out by confusing it with "believe not X". the confusion is yours >not believing X ≠ believing (not X) seeing what you want to see? READ BETTER

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:29:39 2011 No.4170064 >>4170061 You were the one confusing them logically. Semantically on the other hand it's undecidable wheter they are equal or not.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:31:47 2011 No.4170069

>>4170055
I disagree. True/false statements are descriptive, not explanatory. That is, they can describe what appears, but not what is.

(Also, while the second sentence is tautological, tautological statements are generally speaking the only "true" statements. Everything else is abstraction.)

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:31:47 2011 No.4170070

>>4170047
>*every* philosophy is based on axioms

So will you admit that no theory is superior to another theory because of this?

After you assume this, then we will make our decision based on the number of axioms rather than what the axioms are?

If you pick 1 particular set of axioms you can not make fun of a religious person because you are a hypocrite.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:32:55 2011 No.4170074

>>4169790
>So what exactly does it make me if I don't feel like I know God does or doesn't exist, but I strongly and wholeheartedly find it unlikely that such a creature does, and therefore live my life as though God is a lot of nonsense?

I think this is a good question and it says a lot that it's been completely ignored.

I am in the same boat as you. Because atheitsts get so pissed off about all this, and self-proclaimed agnostics will try and claim anyone for their side as well, it's really hard to actually tell the two apart.

I believe the only thing we can do if we want to be scientific about it is say that it is extremely improbable, but not impossible, that any sort of god exists based on logic and the way the world works, and that therefore arguing the existence would be a moot point. Since these terms are so debated and cause so much animosity, clearly, I just refrain from using either. If someone asks me "do you believe in god?" the answer is simply "no". /topic
/thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:34:11 2011 No.4170078 >>4170064 o rly? quote it >Semantically on the other hand it's undecidable wheter they are equal or not. decideable. they're distinct statements. mean different things. logically unrelated: you can assign any truth value to either READ BETTER

GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:38:44 2011 No.4170088

>>4170078
Now you're confusing syntax and semantics.
They are syntactically distinct statements but can be considered to have the same or different semantics.
By choosing one of these options (when you decide which truth values to assign), you're taking away the ambiguity which is given by natural language and is not representable in second order logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:42:07 2011 No.4170096 >>4170088 semantics = truth assignment the statements have unrelated truth values quit being a retard: this is beginner logic

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:44:22 2011 No.4170099 >>4170096 The statements have truth values as soon as you assign them arbitrarily. These assigend truth values fail to represent the informal semantics of natural language which are distinct from the formal semantics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:44:22 2011 No.4170101 >>4170069 whatever you said is unsupported by basic logic you're either a huge faggot or not a huge faggot you can still be faggot, though

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:45:31 2011 No.4170102 >discussing semantics >2011 i warded off my atheist it seems

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:46:39 2011 No.4170104

>>4170070
>So will you admit that no theory is superior to another theory because of this?
That's too ambiguous a question, I think. Superior in what sense, under what conditions? Personally, I'd say that, when it comes to axiomatic frameworks, utility and reliability are generally "superior" to uselessness and unreliability, but I certainly do reckon that someone might evaluate things differently, especially if they wanted to play devil's advocate for illogic and nonsense.

However, I'd love to see them actually argue the invalidity of logic without resorting to the use of it. Both, you and the guy without a shift key have yet to pull this off, which is strange, considering you were the one who told me to think outside my axiomatic box.

>If you pick 1 particular set of axioms you can not make fun of a religious person because you are a hypocrite.
I think that's the tu quoque fallacy or something, but in any case, I find it a bit irritating that, after all this talk, you still mis-characterize my simple lack of belief as a ridicule of religion. I haven't said a single word against religion in this entire thread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:47:47 2011 No.4170106 >>4170099 natural language is irrelevant: no one is modeling that here we're talking about what's logically true or not true: you can't have both. you still haven't quoted the 'mistake' I requested: digression fallacy

GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:51:11 2011 No.4170116

>>4170106
>natural language is irrelavant
We are talking in natural language all the time and this is the source of many confusions and mistakes in understanding.
I'd be totally fine with restricting anything to formal logic, if it was possible.
Would kill all the ambiguities.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:51:11 2011 No.4170119

>>4170099
I believe you're still thinking
>not believing X ≠ believing (not X)
looks like
>not believing X = believing (not X)
which is not what I wrote at all
I WAS POINTING OUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU'RE NOW SAYING, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:53:27 2011 No.4170121

>>4170104
>I'd say that, when it comes to axiomatic frameworks, utility and reliability are generally "superior" to uselessness and unreliability

see my other replys, that is completely invalid

>Both, you and the guy without a shift key have yet to pull this off, which is strange

im the same person, but you can not disprove logic using your own axioms..... If I was going to disprove your logic I would have to come up with my own axioms and teach you them.

>you still mis-characterize my simple lack of belief as a ridicule of religion.

i am assuming you believe in the big bang or something scientific as the cause of the universe , which is why i ridicule you

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 07:53:27 2011 No.4170123 >>4170116 the quoted statements WERE in sentential logic

GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 07:56:51 2011 No.4170127

>>4170119
They can be the same depending on who you ask, because it isn't well defined.
Writing them down as if they were second order logic statements is a fallacy, because the "not X" put in parenthesis in the expression "believe (not X)" is not the negation operator applies to X, but an inseparable atom and as such not a logical statement, especially not the negation of X.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:04:47 2011 No.4170146 >>4170127 Those aren't second order logic statements, but modal logic statements. Modal logic is a fragment of first order logic.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:06:55 2011 No.4170149

>>4170127
if they can 'differ depending', then they differ!
I didn't write 'if and only if' to compare their truth values
>"not X" put in parenthesis in the expression "believe (not X)" is not the negation operator applies to X, but an inseparable atom and as such not a logical statement, especially not the negation of X.
no one said it was, or implied you break them down.
nothing you wrote contradicts the point "they're different statements"
call them different "atoms" if you like. it means the same thing, because you might as well treat them that way.
are you that unperceptive you're unable to unfuck your head out of your ass to grasp it's the same point?
in your fucktarded language:
Atom: "RL believes X"
ANOTHER atom: "RL believes (not X)"
don't insert suggestions I never made about using operators "inside" these statements or any other digression

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 08:10:27 2011 No.4170173 >>4170146 Same applies to modal logic. A variable is syntactically not allowed to contain statements. >>4170149 Then what the fuck ist your point? Make it clear, please.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:12:43 2011 No.4170177 GL neither believes nor disbelieves in logic

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 08:13:43 2011 No.4170180 >>4170177 GL believes in you getting banned for inane trolling garbage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:16:06 2011 No.4170195 >>4170173 it should be clear enough. reread it and forgoing posts without asperger's. the 1st post should be clearer

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:20:39 2011 No.4170205 >>4170173 Don't know what you're on about bro. B(\not x) does not equal \not B(x) And both are valid statements in doxastic logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:20:39 2011 No.4170206 >>4170205 where x is any (modal) logic expression

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:25:11 2011 No.4170219

>>4170173
in case it's not clear, I'm telling you to treat
1: "GL believes X"
2: "GL believes (not X)"
as distinct atoms that you can assign any truth values to
the point is these atoms have no logical relation, and denying 1 doesn't imply 2
basically what I said the first time around, fucking ass

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:26:20 2011 No.4170221 >>4170219 GL neither believes nor disbelieves in X

GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 08:26:20 2011 No.4170224

>>4170205
>doxastic logic
Sorry, I'm outta here. Can't talk about things I never heard.
You should have posted it right in the beginning that you were dealing with such a special kind of logic.
(Did I get trolled?)

>>4170195
The thread is way too long now for rereading.
If you have a point, post it.

Side note: I gotta go now. If the thread is still alive in 4 hours, expect my reply then.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:27:26 2011 No.4170226 >>4170219 That's not true either. Logically speaking, both cannot be true at the same time. (But both can be false at the same time)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:27:26 2011 No.4170227 >>4170221 logically impossible: GET OUT

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:28:26 2011 No.4170230 >>4170224 >"special kind of logic" lolno If you want to apply logic to belief, you have doxastic logic. You cannot argue about logic and belief if you have no way of denoting belief.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:28:35 2011 No.4170232 >>4170226 they can be true (if the person is extremely retarded or schizo)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:30:51 2011 No.4170239 >>4170224 following out backlinks up to >>4170001 is too long? fucking dumbass

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:31:51 2011 No.4170241

>>4170232
B(x) can be true at one point in time, whereas B(\not x) is true at another point in time. This is actually quite common. But they can't be true at the same time. It's part of the definition of belief. So if someone claims to belief x and not x, he's lying, or incapable of holding beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:34:15 2011 No.4170249 >>4170241 I hold humans to be capable of extreme irrationality, although if it makes it nicer, we can exclude that possibility for the purpose of defining B(x)

>>	Z !!O2fk1/KTeCk Wed Dec 21 08:43:19 2011 No.4170271 Yeah, I don't know if god exists, but I don't believe he does, so I'm an atheist. Retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:44:26 2011 No.4170272 A question for atheists. In a world where there's no proof of God's existence or of life after death; how will you explain to your children why you brought them into the world and why they will have to die?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:51:15 2011 No.4170294 File: 42 KB, 320x240, 1310124619099.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4170272 >why you brought them into the world they will tell them "to reproduce" mfw

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:54:39 2011 No.4170299

Agnosticism is the most logical stance wrt the existence of God (or the lack thereof). Sure, most agnostics don't believe in God, but that only makes them atheists by the idiotic new definition created by all these silly "new" atheism websites.

not science

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:56:47 2011 No.4170301 >>4170299 this /thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 08:59:11 2011 No.4170309 >>4170299 atheism and theism are the only two possible categories, agnostics who do not believe in god are agnostic atheists, have a nice day. -Linguist

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 09:00:19 2011 No.4170311 > implying there's only 1 god in all mythology > being agnostic about faries and flying spaghetti monster SURE IS SOUND REASONING IN HERE

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 09:02:35 2011 No.4170314 >>4170309 I do not believe that there is deity. Therefore I am not a theist. I do not believe that there is no deity. Therefore I am not an atheist. Problem? >inb4 etymology herp derp atheism is the lack of belief i'm 12 durr

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 09:05:59 2011 No.4170320 >>4170311 So what now, you claim to know that fairies don't exist and you claim to know that the FSM doesn't exist? Irrational belief is irrational

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 09:32:11 2011 No.4170389 bump

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 12:28:55 2011 No.4170727 >>4170239 Now I'm back. There's still no fucking point you have. All you did was accusing me of confusing "believing X" and "believing not X", which is obviously nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:31:07 2011 No.4170739 >>4170727 GL neither believes nor disbelieves in nonsense

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:34:31 2011 No.4170756

I agree with the statement.

Bertrand Russell, even as an atheist, said it best:

"You believe in something if it is true, and you don't believe it, if it is false. It you can't determine whether it is true or false you suspend judgement on it until you can."

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:44:42 2011 No.4170791 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 >>>/pol/777777 CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:45:51 2011 No.4170796 >>4170756 suspending judgement is a state of not believing. Fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:48:07 2011 No.4170803 >implying there is any controversy over the nonexistence of every god but the deist god >implying any reasonable non-religious person claims anything more than agnosticism towards the deist god

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 12:49:15 2011 No.4170810 >>4170803 >any reasonable person That's the point. We're on 4chan here.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:49:15 2011 No.4170813

>>4169718
The position of the true agnostic is that of the most professional scientist in all unsolved matters:
- epistemologically neutral
- probabilistically sensible

The B. R. quote about suspending disbelief and essentially moving past the question is perfectly sensible.

/thread

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:53:47 2011 No.4170827

>>4170810

Let me put it this way: once you get the conversation around to the deist god, the god that gives no revelation, I have never met an atheist who has said anything but 'I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows, it can't be known'.

Perhaps the atheist who says that they do know this doesn't exist, in more than a Russell's teapot sense, is a real thing. But I haven't encountered them, in real life or online.

The problem is that the religious folks want to obfuscate the argument. They argue that you can't prove the deist god doesn't exist, then they argue that this is a concession that their favorite theist god could exist.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 12:56:03 2011 No.4170838 >>4170827 You lucky guy never had to read some "hurr god doesn't real" post on /sci/? Now I'm jelly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 12:56:10 2011 No.4170840 >>4170838 GL neither believes nor disbelieves in jelly

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:02:52 2011 No.4170869

>>4170838

God, as a discrete character, doesn't real.

The god that religious people are talking about, the god of the bible, or the koran, or the gods of the hindu pantheon, doesn't real at all. This is not a strong statement to make. They just doesn't into existing.

When you get to the deist god, then it is only not real in the same sense that the teapot isn't real. It has been conceived of, and there is no way to verify it, but also no way to disprove it. I don't think such a thing exists, there is no reason to think so, but then I don't think you can know for sure. When even a single iota of evidence appears, I will reconsider. This does not change ones status as an atheist.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 13:04:58 2011 No.4170879 >>4170869 How do you define the difference between the "deist" god and the god that is usually meant by religious people?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:05:07 2011 No.4170882 Right on OP.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:07:23 2011 No.4170891 >>4170869 >God, as a discrete character, doesn't real. You know what's weird is that the principal character is ALWAYS real. You can't explain that.

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:12:55 2011 No.4170908

>>4170879

Revelation.

Is the god supposed to have communicated itself to us in some way? Then it's theist. These gods can be investigated, and the descriptions of them always end up being obvious writings of human authors making stuff up. How I normally put it, they are described as doing things that they don't do, as having done things that didn't happen, and they describe the world as being a certain what that it just isn't. They are total fabrications, or at the least, humans have no description of them that is in any way accurate.

If the person who claims it exists cannot point to a discrete revelation, it's deist.

I can see that this might get close to tautology territory. But really, there are only two kinds of gods. Disproven and unprovable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:29:55 2011 No.4171016 >>4169708 Idiots. Because wise men know that some things are simply imposssible.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 13:31:11 2011 No.4171027 >>4171016 >wise men [definition needed]

Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:36:43 2011 No.4171063

>>4171027

Because a wise man doesn't waste time wondering if something, that's an artifact of both propositional language, the transformation of the narrative/religious impulse in the transition of primitive to neolithic societies, and of unconscious justifications for a state of class relations, connoted by "God" exists anymore than we wonders if transdimensional anal raping demons exist.

Such knowledge is useless to such a wise man unless he lacks the will to create meaning out of his world of experience and is forced to adopt the asceticism of priests.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:38:07 2011 No.4171075 >>4171027 Let OP handle that one.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Wed Dec 21 13:38:07 2011 No.4171078 >>4171063 >implying transdimensional anal raping demons don't exist

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:40:14 2011 No.4171084 >>4171078 >implying an infinity of propositions and an infinity of contradictory propositions aren't just undiscovered facts in our picture of the world and our description of its state of affairs

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:43:39 2011 No.4171096 >know >believe >ect. >ect.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 21 13:50:28 2011 No.4171126 >>4171078 ah, but they do

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]