|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 14:18:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Leonkennedy said: I don't agree. If, for example, I say, "The existence of God is an absolute truth," that doesn't imply by any logical necessity that I have "full (absolute) knowledge that the thing is true" -- it only means that I believe it to be the case. |
Belief without evidence is delusion. Do you have any evidence? | That really depends on what, for you, would qualify as evidence -- but that, and the whole issue of "Do you have any evidence for your belief in God?", is completely tangential to the discussion at hand. |
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 14:24:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Sure, there are some people who have a semi-rational position on the topic and would never claim absolute certainty, but they rarely visit this forum. Most who own a god-belief here are just here to preach, argue, or tell us godless atheists we are going to hell. (some even come here to shill for their political views... you should read some of the global warming threads, its enough to make a sane man cry tears) | Well, rest assured, I'm not here to preach, argue, or condemn. I feel like I'm on thin ice here, though, because there appears to be a lot of hostility (as opposed to just general skepticism) towards "god-belief" on this forum, and I've almost walked right into it, in spite of the fact that any statements I've made about the existence of God have been completely incidental to the actual discussion.
I'm not complaining or whining about persecution -- I just really would like to prevent any sort of degeneration into: "You're an irrational buffoon!" "Well, that doesn't change the fact that you're a hellbound jackass!" That just wouldn't accomplish anything, and it's absolutely not what I'm here for. |
Edited by - LeonKennedy on 02/17/2008 14:25:15 |
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 14:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You won't get much argument here if you were to assert "either God exists or he doesn't, it's not a question of preference." You'll get plenty of argument if you assert his existence. | Perfectly understandable. I think there ought to also be a differentiation between the statements "I believe God exists" and "I know God exists." |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 16:41:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
I think there ought to also be a differentiation between the statements "I believe God exists" and "I know God exists." | There is, but belief should still follow evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
LeonKennedy
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 18:21:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
I think there ought to also be a differentiation between the statements "I believe God exists" and "I know God exists." | There is, but belief should still follow evidence.
| Well, that's one philosophical worldview anyway...
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 20:19:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Well, that's one philosophical worldview anyway...
| Winky aside, is there a better stratagem for deciding which things should be believed and which shouldn't? I mean, if belief doesn't follow evidence, how does one choose which things to believe and which to doubt? What "filter" does one apply that isn't wholly arbitrary (like, "I believe in X because X is red")? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 23:21:51 [Permalink]
|
LeonKennedy said:
I think there ought to also be a differentiation between the statements "I believe God exists" and "I know God exists." |
Oh, there is. I don't think you'll get much argument on that particular subject.
The question, as I pointed out before, and as Dave_W has also just asked, is: So what?
Unevidenced belief is just as untenable as unevidenced certainty. To borrow the IPU (invisible pink unicorn) again, if I say I believe there is an IPU in my livingroom, what would your response be?
The simple bottom line is that assertions made without evidence are fallacious, even if you present them with the specious modifier "I believe...".
I feel like I'm on thin ice here, though, because there appears to be a lot of hostility (as opposed to just general skepticism) towards "god-belief" on this forum, and I've almost walked right into it, in spite of the fact that any statements I've made about the existence of God have been completely incidental to the actual discussion.
|
Not really hostility. People who state they believe in some deity are making an assertion of fact about the nature of the universe. How can you posit such a belief with no evidence? There is always a reason why people "believe", and that reason always boils down to something they consider evidence (some personal experience, the word of an authority figure, etc).
And in the mind of a skeptic (mine anyway) all assertions of fact must be accompanied by legitimate, verifiable, repeatable evidence. Those that are not, are dismissed. Sometimes that can be mistaken for hostility.
I'm not complaining or whining about persecution -- I just really would like to prevent any sort of degeneration into: "You're an irrational buffoon!" "Well, that doesn't change the fact that you're a hellbound jackass!" That just wouldn't accomplish anything, and it's absolutely not what I'm here for. |
Probably won't happen.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 16:53:29 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Emsby!! Your ID has disappeared from IMDb - wha hoppen?? Did you delete yourself or did the admins attack?? |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 17:17:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Originally posted by Dude
Sure, there are some people who have a semi-rational position on the topic and would never claim absolute certainty, but they rarely visit this forum. Most who own a god-belief here are just here to preach, argue, or tell us godless atheists we are going to hell. (some even come here to shill for their political views... you should read some of the global warming threads, its enough to make a sane man cry tears) | Well, rest assured, I'm not here to preach, argue, or condemn. I feel like I'm on thin ice here, though, because there appears to be a lot of hostility (as opposed to just general skepticism) towards "god-belief" on this forum, and I've almost walked right into it, in spite of the fact that any statements I've made about the existence of God have been completely incidental to the actual discussion.
I'm not complaining or whining about persecution -- I just really would like to prevent any sort of degeneration into: "You're an irrational buffoon!" "Well, that doesn't change the fact that you're a hellbound jackass!" That just wouldn't accomplish anything, and it's absolutely not what I'm here for.
| Hi Leon!
Dude is correct; probably won't happen. It's mainly a matter of attitude; we can, and do, disagree, sometimes feverently, but as long as the rules of common courtsey are followed, there are no fireworks and few hurt feelings.
There are a large number of atheists here, including myself, and when things get slow, we often have a little fun at religion's expense, and sometimes get a little angry at some of the acts committed in the name of religion(s). But it's nothing personal. Most of us, including, again, myself, have read the Bible; some of us might even be considered minor scholars on the topic (but me, I ain't all that knowledgable). Any time you might wish to have a sane discussion on it, you will find plenty of non-hysterical argument.
In the past, there have been some real stinker-threads, but it's been a quite a while since one happened. Do enjoy the argument, 'cause the ice under your feet is the same thickness as that under mine!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
Edited by - filthy on 02/18/2008 17:25:14 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 19:45:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by LeonKennedy
Originally posted by Dude
Leonkennedy said: I don't agree. If, for example, I say, "The existence of God is an absolute truth," that doesn't imply by any logical necessity that I have "full (absolute) knowledge that the thing is true" -- it only means that I believe it to be the case. |
Belief without evidence is delusion. Do you have any evidence? | That really depends on what, for you, would qualify as evidence -- but that, and the whole issue of "Do you have any evidence for your belief in God?", is completely tangential to the discussion at hand.
|
Actually, Dude is quite right in this matter.
The statement of "The existance of God is an absolute truth" is a very strong statement. Indicating that the person or persons have such evidence before them.
Dude is of the mind that the assumption of existance of a being without evidence for it is logically invalid. The theological construct, however, i believe to be a special case and mostly harmless as long as I don't make decisions based solely on it. Ergo, "Yo God, take the wheel while I climb into the back seat and make a sandwich." = bad.
And I am theistic.
The points you posited were logically incongruent. The statement that the existance of God is an absolute truth indicates the speaker knows it to be true. Not that they merely believe it. It is a context game that only serves to confuse the common usage of words. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 20:01:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer The theological construct, however, i believe to be a special case and mostly harmless as long as I don't make decisions based solely on it. | What's special about it?
|
"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 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 23:17:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The statement of "The existance of God is an absolute truth" is a very strong statement. | Not if all it says is that God's existence must either be true or false.
LeonKennedy seems to have ducked my "clarification is necessary" comment, so the statement is still ambiguous. Some here are obviously interpreting as being the same as "the existence of God is absolutely true," but I don't get that from Leon's other writing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Lambchopsuey
New Member
14 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 23:59:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The points you posited were logically incongruent. The statement that the existance of God is an absolute truth indicates the speaker knows it to be true. Not that they merely believe it. It is a context game that only serves to confuse the common usage of words.
| Damn! *I*'ve been saying that for a couple of years now and getting nowhere with the "Absolute Truth" crowd! Maybe they'll listen to you - I don't have a penis, you see, and apparently that makes a difference somehow...
Somehow, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can apparently be ignored if you think you can simply make a compelling enough philosophical argument, and redefining words for your own convenience is considered acceptable in that context. Doesn't work for me, and I'm glad to see that there are others who don't buy it, either.
I don't get that from Leon's other writing. | Leon plays the false dichotomy game - either it is or it isn't - even when I have provided examples of more possible options (since we're all free to make up as many different scenarios as we want, in the presence of no restrictive evidence, so long as the scenarios are reasonable). |
Edited by - Lambchopsuey on 02/19/2008 00:01:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|