|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 19:31:59 [Permalink]
|
Jen McCreight has apparently weighed in a lot on this subject (she says the "horse hadn't just been beaten to death - it has already decomposed and had its molecules reassembled into the surrounding flora and fauna"), but here's a choice tidbit from her latest post:"But what about a deist God?" you ask. "What about a definition of God that's wishy-washy and nebulous? God is love. God is in all of us. You can't even test those!" Exactly. And since you can't test them, you can't gather any evidence for them. And since you can't gather any evidence for them, you fail to reject the null hypothesis of atheism. (Emphasis hers.) Oh, she also says she went to an atheists' group meeting:...Yesterday I showed up to my first official meeting of the Seattle Atheists (which was awesome, by the way), and what was the panel discussion on? Yep, skepticism versus atheism.
What was curious about that discussion was how different it was since an atheist group was hosting it, rather than skeptics. The atheists freely admitted that not all atheists are skeptics. Some, at least initially, reach their decisions thanks to emotional or value-based arguments, and don't skeptically examine religious beliefs until later (if ever).
But to those of us who came to atheism through skeptical analysis of religion, it was literally inconceivable how skeptics couldn't be atheists. The only explanation the panelists could think of for this current debate was that it was based on public relations, not intellectual merit - that yes, skepticism leads to atheism, but please hush about it so we don't scare away the religious members... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/23/2010 : 20:19:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Funny how in the one definition you use something you appear to have pulled from your own ass, and in the other, the common use definition is wrong. Are we to proceed on all future argument being restricted to the dictionary of dave w?
I will add: if that is the popular parlance of agnostic please show me which dictionaries (who's job it is to collect, collate and codify popular use) has subscribed to this definition of yours? |
Random House. The Free Dictionary. Merriam Webster. Is that enough?| As to the validity of inference as "good evidence" for a conclusion it seems that all of philosophy disagrees. |
Except science, I suppose. It's all about inferences. We haven't checked the rest mass of every electron that once existed, exists now or might exist in the future, after all.| While as a pragmatist might say, the inference makes us act as if we know something, it does not allow us to exclude other possibility. |
Yeah, that's what I take "tentative" to mean.| Indeed (without getting into flavors of gods) many believers in gods use both inference (correctly) and personal experience (personal revelation) to determine their own position on god or no god. They can (not to say they always do) do so without failing the critical thinking test as long as they are claiming only a personal belief and not a universal truth. |
If personal revelation counts as evidence in favor of some position, then it's okay to believe in leprechauns.
As for the dichotomy of personal beliefs vs. universal truths: it's utterly irrelevant. Faith doesn't stop being the opposite of skepticism just because one limit's one's faith to oneself.| Hal Bidlack did so exceedingly well in his noted TAM presentation. |
No, he didn't. He made excuses for why he refuses to apply the same skeptical standards to his notion of god that he applies to just about every other strange claim.| He did not make any claim of fact or special knowledge, but rather a detailed thought process that led him to believe there was something with intention rather than random vacuum fluctuations that started the universe. INdeed the amount of evidence for any position on that is equally non existent. |
So you're saying that there's no good reason to believe any of them. Atheism wins again.| Critical thinking can get us far, but only so far. This is the same as the value judgements you have spoken of before. About Hitchens smoking or similar. I may think the way I drive into the city on a given trip is the best possible way, but even if we could run a simulation of all possible routes and scenarios eventually that "best" route is going to take in many value positions that may be exclusive. The scenery, the speed, the toll, the location of things that interest one. It is indeed hubris if I proclaim that my way is the only way, that there are not multiple paths towards the approximate and value ridden truth. |
What a lousy analogy.| If I begin to claim I have the answers for everyone...well. BUt that does not mean I have to abandon my own beliefs and hunches or else I have not considered them critically. |
I can't even parse these sentences.| The new Atheists do want to claim the field as their own. |
Evidence?| Dave I have seen you tell me that I am an agnostic just because I am a coward. |
Then you must have misunderstood me, because I don't recall telling you anything of the sort and I'm unable to Google up anything like that.| In doping so you have abandoned your own critical thinking skills and have claimed a high ground you can not possess. Thus abandoning your own critical thinking iun favor of bigotry and hubris. |
Such intense conclusion-making rejects your own notions of skepticism, doesn't it?| Have fun at it, I really don't care, as a gay, an expatriate, and an agnostic I am used to being ridiculed by small minds..what is one more more or less? |
So much for the moral high ground.I had planned on not posting here anymore, but the amount of unreason in many of the posts is sometimes enough to spur me to try to interject some reason. I am back to where I was last. Indeed I have avoided this and other topics because of the nonsense I see here.
However I do think the site should certainly change its name from Skeptic Friends Network, as it does not appear to do much in the way of skepticism, or networking and is not very friendly...perhaps Cold liberal atheists knitting circle is more apt?
With that - Mgoi Mai Dan...that is to say, webmaster cheque please. I would like to be removed from the rolls of this forums membership with all haste I am certainly not deemed worthy by your members, and I find them largely unworthy of their judgement.
Seriously please delete me as a member. |
Can't do so, because you've posted. But don't let that stop you from martyring yourself.
Actually... I've seen this silly kiss-off script so much that it must be me. Even if it's not me, I'm sick of it, and need a break. Later, all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2010 : 21:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Funny how in the one definition you use something you appear to have pulled from your own ass, and in the other, the common use definition is wrong. Are we to proceed on all future argument being restricted to the dictionary of dave w?
I will add: if that is the popular parlance of agnostic please show me which dictionaries (who's job it is to collect, collate and codify popular use) has subscribed to this definition of yours? |
Random House. The Free Dictionary. Merriam Webster. Is that enough?
|
I am done, but could not let this nonsense stand. Did you even bother to read the links you posted? They do confirm the common (and my) definition of agnostic. but they do not even come within lightyears of yours which is:
Originally posted by Dave W.
]In popular parlance these days, "agnostic" means "wishy-washy about the existence of god," which is a subjective definition.
|
So you cant even be honest. Good day. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 00:23:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Thanks for characterizing my explanations of why I think that report will be taken by noobs as being about atheists doing atheism as hand-waving. |
Well sorry. But I thought your arguments were weak.
| Dave: Odds are that very few people who watched that particular newscast would associate that convention with any sort of skepticism we think of, despite the name. |
Excuse me if I misrepresented your argument as hand waving. In any case, I don't agree with your assessment of the broadcast.
Dave:
…I'm sick of it, and need a break. Later, all. |
You know. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff. Too much time perhaps. And I’m probably as baffled as you are as to why we don't see eye to eye on this. Plus, I’m way out numbered here. How do you think I feel? Don’t take too long of a break, eh? As much as I am SFN, you are SFN too…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 01:17:48 [Permalink]
|
Jen McCreigh:
But to those of us who came to atheism through skeptical analysis of religion, it was literally inconceivable how skeptics couldn't be atheists. |
Well. Considering that there are skeptics who are not atheists, it's hard to understand how that fact could be "literally inconceivable." But there you go...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 02:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Dude......
| Atheism is the conclusion reached when you apply skepticism, logic, and critical thinking to religion. If it isn't, then what is? |
| Skepticism being an antonym for faith, and faith being an essential element of virtually all religions, most clear (if not critical) thinking respondents would reply to your statement/question in the following manner: "Applying skepticism to religion is a non-starter at least, if not a non-sequitor; because the nature of the premise of the subject denies the very essence of the predicate. The incompatibility of the two concepts makes the exercise quixotic, if not impossible." |
The application of Logic, (at least Aristotelian - primarily syllogistic logic) - to religion may produce superficial results, but such an effort fails to produce compelling rational persuasion for belief in God, or much else that is formally religious.
For example, Thomas Acquinas' life was largely devoted to such work, but a brief glance at his need for "special revelation" of concepts such as the Trinity decry the "logic" of his theology. Yet his thinking is yet today a cornerstone of Catholicism, the faith of tens of millions of people.
By and large, it seems neither religion nor God(s) is/are subject to logical demonstration, evidence, or proof. I am not literate enough in contemporary predicate logic, (or classical dialectic for that matter), to comment on either's application to the analysis of a subject such as religion.
Perhaps there are more highly educated polyhistors here that could could comment? |
| Critical Thinking, Logic being a subset thereof, has been described in its broadest sense as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do". This certainly sounds like something that could and should be applied to a a subject like religion, but most attempts at using the precepts of CT about religion and gods, be they Christian, Vedic, or Pastafarian, quickly seem to lead to nothing but critical thoughts - certainly not productive ones. |
Point being that frustration, not atheism, is the conclusion that many reach after attempting to apply skepticism, logic, and critical thinking to the general or specific subject of (a) religion or
god(s). I don't think there is sufficient compatibility between the cognitive processing of skeptics as compared to that of believers to allow for any true understanding, much less agreement, between the two positions.
This certainly doesn't suggest an argument against a position of atheism, particularly for those whose cognitive predeliction is towards skepticism, logic, and critical thinking. Perhaps there is some defense here for the much-maligned position of agnosticism. Simple incompatibility of thought processing may also suggest a partial explanation as to why some credentialed and respected scientists can still remain Skeptics and not be atheists. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 03:22:26 [Permalink]
|
chef said:
Have fun at it, I really don't care, as a gay, an expatriate, and an agnostic I am used to being ridiculed by small minds..what is one more more or less? I had planned on not posting here anymore, but the amount of unreason in many of the posts is sometimes enough to spur me to try to interject some reason. I am back to where I was last. Indeed I have avoided this and other topics because of the nonsense I see here.
|
I was going to post a response to your nonsense, but it seems you have some deep personal issues you need to deal with. It doesn't appear that any rational conversation is possible until you work through that bit of self hate you have going there. Good luck with that.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 03:40:00 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Skepticism being an antonym for faith, and faith being an essential element of virtually all religions, most clear (if not critical) thinking respondents would reply to your statement/question in the following manner: "Applying skepticism to religion is a non-starter at least, if not a non-sequitor; because the nature of the premise of the subject denies the very essence of the predicate. The incompatibility of the two concepts makes the exercise quixotic, if not impossible." |
That would only be accurate is religion made no testable claims. Since most religions do, especially the ones practiced by the majority of the people on this planet, make testable claims, that analysis falls short. In fact it seems like a pathetic bit of stupidity designed to grant cover to those claims made by religion. I'm sure it isn't a position held by you and you are just putting it out there for argument's sake.
| Perhaps there is some defense here for the much-maligned position of agnosticism. |
Agnosticism is atheism. If you say that there is no way to know if a deity exists, or that there is insufficient evidence, then you lack a belief in a deity. That makes you an atheist.
Some people just don't like the word due to the fact that religious people use it as an insult. Sort of how republicans use the word "liberal" these days. Fucking atheists.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 08:15:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Funny how in the one definition you use something you appear to have pulled from your own ass, and in the other, the common use definition is wrong. Are we to proceed on all future argument being restricted to the dictionary of dave w?
I will add: if that is the popular parlance of agnostic please show me which dictionaries (who's job it is to collect, collate and codify popular use) has subscribed to this definition of yours? |
Random House. The Free Dictionary. Merriam Webster. Is that enough?
|
I am done, but could not let this nonsense stand. Did you even bother to read the links you posted? They do confirm the common (and my) definition of agnostic. but they do not even come within lightyears of yours which is:
Originally posted by Dave W.
]In popular parlance these days, "agnostic" means "wishy-washy about the existence of god," which is a subjective definition.
|
|
Those are wishy-washy opinions on the existence of God if you've used pragmatism to reach your conclusion of (strong) atheism.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 08:26:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Point being that frustration... <snip>
|
Talking about frustration...
The texts in those boxes above, did you write those? (Nudge nudge wink wink...)
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 11:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
It doesn't appear that any rational conversation is possible until you work through that bit of self hate you have going there. |
Is the armchair psychology really necessary? Are you qualified to make such an assessment? Like what he wrote or not, I, who also lacks the qualifications to make such an assessment, don't get that at all. What you are saying here is that you were going to respond to his post but decided not to because he can't be rational due to your diagnosis of him based on something he said to Dave. If that isn't an ad-hom, what is?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 11:58:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
It doesn't appear that any rational conversation is possible until you work through that bit of self hate you have going there. |
Is the armchair psychology really necessary? Are you qualified to make such an assessment? Like what he wrote or not, I, who also lacks the qualifications to make such an assessment, don't get that at all. What you are saying here is that you were going to respond to his post but decided not to because he can't be rational due to your diagnosis of him based on something he said to Dave. If that isn't an ad-hom, what is?
|
He is in here all up in arms and throwing down (out of the blue as far as I can tell) insults. Dave_W was criticising chef's comments about what I posted, chef then melts down and starts playing with his own poop. Do you really see a chance of rational conversation with him when he instantly (and unprovoked) just blankets everyone here as small minded (and therefore incapable of even understanding what he is saying, because he is soooo much smarter than everyone else here).
And really, it doesn't take a degree in psychiatry to recognize self-hate in a person's writing. Who here has ever, even our religious fundamentalist members, insulted chef for being a gay, agnostic, expatriate? Anyone? Nope. Yet suddenly, when he is confronted with some sharp criticism of his positions, he wants to take his stuff and go home, because he is a gay, agnostic, expatriate who has suffered a lifetime of small minded people and doesn't want to deal with the small minded homophobic haters of agnostics at SFN!
Maybe if he calms down and/or sobers up we can speak rationally about the differences in our positions, but clearly that isn't going to happen now just now.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 12:18:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
As to the validity of inference as "good evidence" for a conclusion it seems that all of philosophy disagrees. While as a pragmatist might say, the inference makes us act as if we know something, it does not allow us to exclude other possibility. |
While as a pragmatist might say: "the inference makes us act as if we know something, it does not allow us to exclude other possibility".
The last sentence you wrote in the quote above seems incomplete, can you please add what's missing?
Because, to claim that a pragmatist would exclude all other possibilities would be to present a false dichotomy.
| Hal Bidlack did so exceedingly well in his noted TAM presentation. |
His presentation isn't fresh in my memory, please remind me: didn't he label himself a deist?
| I may think the way I drive into the city on a given trip is the best possible way, but even if we could run a simulation of all possible routes and scenarios eventually that "best" route is going to take in many value positions that may be exclusive. |
As long as you use logic, and eliminate personal bias because of the scenery, math can fix your problem.
It's when you start weighing in your personal bias you get problems deciding the "best" route.
Just as Bidlack's emotional state is preventing him from logically and critically examine his belief. That he can be a skeptic in relation to other stuff just means that he's become good at compartmentalising his faith from his skepticism.
| The scenery, the speed, the toll, the location of things that interest one. It is indeed hubris if I proclaim that my way is the only way, that there are not multiple paths towards the approximate and value ridden truth. |
It's not hubris at that point, it's denying fact. Since math and logic can provide several routes to pick from, each with a number on how well they fit your request to the optimal route. Again without having you input what your value judgement is.
If you want to take a longer route because you feel you need to see that Buddhist temple or whatever, then you reject the road which reason dictate.
The new Atheists do want to claim the field as their own. |
Do they?
Really?
That's a pretty serious accusation, can you back it up with quotes and/or references?
| Dave I have seen you tell me that I am an agnostic just because I am a coward. In doping so you have abandoned your own critical thinking skills and have claimed a high ground you can not possess. Thus abandoning your own critical thinking iun favor of bigotry and hubris. |
That is also a pretty serious accusation...
Have fun at it, I really don't care, as a gay, an expatriate, and an agnostic I am used to being ridiculed by small minds..what is one more more or less?
<big snip>
|
Zzzzzzz...
Your departing words made you loose any kind of moral high ground you possibly had, and made you look just as small minded as you accused others of being.
I had higher opinions of you than this, Chef. Much higher.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 12:30:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Nope. Yet suddenly, when he is confronted with some sharp criticism of his positions, he wants to take his stuff and go home, because he is a gay, agnostic, expatriate who has suffered a lifetime of small minded people and doesn't want to deal with the small minded homophobic haters of agnostics at SFN! |
Don't forget renaming SFN "Cold liberal atheists knitting circle"
You know, I was actually called nazi by a highly irrational and emotional person on a Swedish forum the other day. Some people just aren't open to rational arguments, for some reason or another, and they start getting abusive instead.
By doing so, they have effectively lost the argument.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2010 : 12:48:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
And really, it doesn't take a degree in psychiatry to recognize self-hate in a person's writing. Who here has ever, even our religious fundamentalist members, insulted chef for being a gay, agnostic, expatriate? Anyone? Nope. Yet suddenly, when he is confronted with some sharp criticism of his positions, he wants to take his stuff and go home, because he is a gay, agnostic, expatriate who has suffered a lifetime of small minded people and doesn't want to deal with the small minded homophobic haters of agnostics at SFN! |
Well, if you really want to play armchair psychologist, Chef's reflexive defensiveness probably isn't caused by self-hate, but instinctual self-preservation. He's an outsider who's almost certainly had to battle prejudice all his life, and in response he's developed a fierce independence fueled by a black-and-white belief that all of his critics are small-minded and wrong. That attitude probably served him well most of his life, but unfortunately it means that he isn't able to tolerate even constructive criticism very well and has a tendency to take critiques of his position as a personal attack. I think he can remain a valuable voice of dissent in the SFN community, but he needs to work on how he handles disagreement.
[/head shrink mode off]
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/24/2010 12:49:38 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Too many atheists?
