Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No you don't. You believe that I'm an atheist (If you get to tell me what I believe, I get to return the favor).
Yes, I increasingly do, and no you don't. I am not asserting your belief, I am expressing increased doubts (based on evidence of your posts) that I accept your claim. You do NOT thereby get to tell me what I think
Quote:
Well, against anti-theism, yes. Because anti-theism is the opposition of a worldview, and it hasn't been able to justify itself.
I consider myself anti religion, or specifically, anti religious influence in society. I don't mind about people believing what they like (as such) and don't believe in a god enough to be anti - it. I gather that 'New' atheism has the general same view.
Quote:
I've said that numerous times
I can't remember seeing it. Then you are saying that you do not believe that a god (or God) really exists? If so I accept that you are an atheist, but the most pro -religious one I ever met.
Quote:
But you hold to the view that it isn't the case. You believe that what you experience is veridical, even though you do not have (and cannot possibly have) evidence to support that belief.
Yep. By default, by experience, by the unpredictable nature of reality as well as it's predictability and the improbability of it being in My head, or even yours. It isn't much to go on, but better than nothing. As to a matrix, the universe in some alien computer or a hologram projected from beyond the universe (that last is a serious science hypothesis by the way), it doesn't matter; the universe is what it is and works as it does and we can rely on it, more or less. So what is happening at the supra -Cosmic level bothers me no more than what is going on at quantum level. No more than it bothers me (or you) that the computers we are banging away at are made, effectively, or nothing.
Quote:
What is this "we"? Because all you know for certain is that there's "you". And how are you studying that which doesn't exist/is misleading you?
The 'we' is humanity; specifically those qualified (and willing) to study these matters. 'They' report back to the rest of us with the best results of the best methodology (on track record) for discovering facts about ourselves and the universe we inhabit, that we have. The Holy books and visionaries, by comparison, lose ground daily.
Quote:
Again, this isn't religion or apologetics, just Philosophy 101.
This is not the Philosophy forum. Religious, not phiosophical debate, is the topic here. Though so far I have got to say that you rather seem to have picked up some philosophical jargon without having learned to reason correctly. I've had to point out some major flaws in logical thinking to you already.
So you told us. We frankly find it hard to believe, because you argue just like a theist and apparently For Theism. We are willing to be proved wrong and convinced that you are an atheist. Like saying on the boards that you do not believe that God exists.
This is not the Philosophy forum. Religious, not philosophical debate, is the topic here. Though so far I have got to say that you rather seem to have picked up some philosophical jargon without having learned to reason correctly. I've had to point out some major flaws in logical thinking to you already.
Have a nice day
Vic, this particular characteristic of Arq and his antics is probably the single most irritating and annoying of his many other qualities. He will acknowledge his failings philosophically (and scientifically) yet he presumes to judge others on their philosophical or scientific acumen. It is the most brazen display of completely unwarranted hubris as he claims to "debunk" or educate others who have clearly displayed superior knowledge and intellect. Most frustrating.
Vic, this particular characteristic of Arq and his antics is probably the single most irritating and annoying of his many other qualities. He will acknowledge his failings philosophically (and scientifically) yet he presumes to judge others on their philosophical or scientific acumen. It is the most brazen display of completely unwarranted hubris as he claims to "debunk" or educate others who have clearly displayed superior knowledge and intellect. Most frustrating.
No, Vic has been shown to not know what he is talking about in both history and cosmology; and when Vic's arguments have been refuted, he either simply stops talking about that subject, or he comes up with empty rhetoric to pretend he is correct and the person who has refuted him is being irrational.
No, Vic has been shown to not know what he is talking about in both history and cosmology; and when Vic's arguments have been refuted, he either simply stops talking about that subject, or he comes up with empty rhetoric to pretend he is correct and the person who has refuted him is being irrational.
You are not fooled. Mystic does it much, much better than Arach, but it is essentially people who may not understand what the other atheist -basher says, or even care; that he is bashing atheism - or more particularly atheists - means they they are only too willing to huddle together and swap lying accusations about us, whilst they both vigorously nod their figurative heads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Vic, this particular characteristic of Arq and his antics is probably the single most irritating and annoying of his many other qualities. He will acknowledge his failings philosophically (and scientifically) yet he presumes to judge others on their philosophical or scientific acumen. It is the most brazen display of completely unwarranted hubris as he claims to "debunk" or educate others who have clearly displayed superior knowledge and intellect. Most frustrating.
What is frustrating is your insistence that your paper certificates makes you right and me wrong all the time, when in fact I trund and trounce you all the time, and everyone can see that I do, and even more that you then deny it so that I had to ask the posters to take note of when I did so they wouldn't be fooled when you denied it later - as you did the very next page.
Your mental failings as well as the arrogance, conceit and the hubris that you project onto everyone else means that you have no business to point the finger at me, or at anyone else.
Get you gone back to your Personal thread, where you may weave your fantasies and damn' everyone who dares to disagree with you and insult Gaylen's intelligence by claiming that he supports your cockamamie theories when he is actually debunking you. You are a waste of space, elsewhere. We learn nothing from you - ever - other than that you are convinced of your divine rightness and mandate to lecture and berate everyone else.
But I still love you to pieces, old mate This is merely smacking the desk with a ruler to make you wake up from your dreams about your own brilliance.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-31-2019 at 06:10 AM..
No you don't. You believe that I'm an atheist (If you get to tell me what I believe, I get to return the favor).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yes, I increasingly do, and no you don't.
How very convenient. So you know what I believe, but I don't know what you believe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
based on evidence of your posts
BS. The "evidence of my posts" is that I'm defending Christianity against anti-theism, not that I'm a Christian. Try again.
Quote:
I consider myself anti religion, or specifically, anti religious influence in society. I don't mind about people believing what they like (as such)
Just so long as they shut up about it, right?
Quote:
and don't believe in a god enough to be anti - it.
You and the straw men, I swear. No one ever said you were anti-god. I suggested you were an anti-theist, meaning that you oppose theism (the belief in a god).
Quote:
I can't remember seeing it.
Also convenient (and probably a lie). Pretty much every time someone pretends to suspect that I'm a theist, I tell them I'm not.
Quote:
Then you are saying that you do not believe that a god (or God) really exists? If so I accept that you are an atheist, but the most pro -religious one I ever met.
Idk about that. Chances are, most atheists you run into are "pro-religion" (if you mean okay with it, having no issue with people being religious). They're just not all that interested in the topic to engage with you and other anti-theists.
Quote:
Yep. By default, by experience,
Exactly. By default we trust our experiences to be veridical even though we have no evidence to support that trust. No reason, on the invalid and self-refuting evidentialist view, to believe what you admit to believing
Quote:
by the unpredictable nature of reality as well as it's predictability and the improbability of it being in My head, or even yours.
We can't speak to the improbability/probability of the world being a dream, a program in the Matrix, etc., as we've nothing to compare it to.
Quote:
It isn't much to go on, but better than nothing.
Is this to imply that theists have nothing to go on?
Quote:
As to a matrix, the universe in some alien computer or a hologram projected from beyond the universe (that last is a serious science hypothesis by the way), it doesn't matter; the universe is what it is and works as it does and we can rely on it, more or less. So what is happening at the supra -Cosmic level bothers me no more than what is going on at quantum level. No more than it bothers me (or you) that the computers we are banging away at are made, effectively, or nothing.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter as that isn't relevant to the point, that evidentialism is a joke.
Quote:
The 'we' is humanity
What humanity? Are you assuming the very thing in question, to support the thing in question? Because you could be just turning to one of your illusions to verify that the external world you perceive isn't an illusion...
Quote:
This is not the Philosophy forum.
It's very much a metaphysical topic, and therefore philosophy is relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
"Eh? I'd be fine with defining it as "belief without evidence". It wouldn't make it irrational in the least."
Indeed not; it would make it irrational to the limit.
As I've been pointing out, evidentialism is dead. It is invalid as we all believe things without evidence, and it's self-refuting to say that we should only believe things on the basis of evidence because there's no evidence to support that statement!
Quote:
Incidentally I was dubious about the claim that Evidentialism is dead. Perhaps in the Philosophic sense it is as there are possible ways that evidence can mislead.
That's not what evidentialism refers to, but you're quite right. This is why when people harp on William Lane Craig for saying he wouldn't change his beliefs upon finding (hypothetical) evidence against them, they're incorrect to do so.
Quote:
But that does not invalidate the practical value of basing views and decisions on evidence.
Nor is that what's meant by "evidentialism". No one's anti-evidence, just anti- the view that this is the only way we can rationally believe something.
Quote:
We find that noral Common sense, our conclusion and even our senses are not always reliable, and science has a stiff system of tests checks and tools to ensure that we are not misled, limited or fooled, and that is the level of evidence that we refer to in discussions of this kind,
Not quite. Again, this is a metaphysical question. We can use science on sub-topics where it is relevant, but it's not going to be enough to answer the god question. And even less than "enough" to answer the broader question of rationality.
For those who engage in the quest I'm describing, the intended destination is not God or religion. It's the Truth, or at least as close as we can get to it in this lifetime.
We believe this quest and the understanding of the Truth at which we arrive is important both because it informs and guides our conduct in this lifetime and because it may have eternal consequences.
This is all just as true for someone who engages in the quest and arrives at atheism as for one who does so and arrives at Christianity or some other species of belief. Anyone engaged in the quest is on "the ladder," even if the ladder stops at atheism.
Deciding there is no God and living as though there isn't is the faith of the atheist, simple as that. This is no different in substance from the faith of the deist, Christian or Hindu.
Those who engage in this quest recognize the value or they would not engage in it. The quest itself has value, even if the understanding of the Truth at which we arrive ultimately proves to be wrong.
Those who claim the quest for the Truth arises out of some "need" to "find God" completely misunderstand the nature of the quest. It arises out of a recognition of the value of approaching as close to the Truth as is possible in this lifetime, even if the Truth happens to be atheism.
Those who think atheism is some sort of default position for those who choose not to engage in the quest at all are completely misguided. Mindless atheism is no more a legitimate default position than mindless Christianity or mindless Scientology.
There is no legitimate default position. You can certainly choose not to engage in the quest at all, but you will be a shallow and superficial human being (as many people are). You may attach yourself to atheism or Christianity or some other belief system for cultural, social, political or economic reasons, but you will have no real belief system, merely the illusion of one.
It's interesting to me how those who believe they occupy some intellectual higher ground with atheism so consistently reveal their utter lack of comprehension of the epistemology of belief and unbelief. This is true of many believers as well, of course.
About the only time a non belief in any Gods is when I am on this forum or watching something on YouTube. I will take your word that the only time that faith in a God affects theists lives is when they are on CD. Otherwise what you posted is rubbish.
You are not fooled. Mystic does it much, much better than Arach, but it is essentially people who may not understand what the other atheist -basher says, or even care; that he is bashing atheism - or more particularly atheists - means they they are only too willing to huddle together and swap lying accusations about us, whilst they both vigorously nod their figurative heads.
What is frustrating is your insistence that your paper certificates makes you right and me wrong all the time, when in fact I trund and trounce you all the time, and everyone can see that I do, and even more that you then deny it so that I had to ask the posters to take note of when I did so they wouldn't be fooled when you denied it later - as you did the very next page.
Your mental failings as well as the arrogance, conceit and the hubris that you project onto everyone else means that you have no business to point the finger at me, or at anyone else.
Get you gone back to your Personal thread, where you may weave your fantasies and damn' everyone who dares to disagree with you and insult Gaylen's intelligence by claiming that he supports your cockamamie theories when he is actually debunking you. You are a waste of space, elsewhere. We learn nothing from you - ever - other than that you are convinced of your divine rightness and mandate to lecture and berate everyone else.
But I still love you to pieces, old mate This is merely smacking the desk with a ruler to make you wake up from your dreams about your own brilliance.
basically mystic does the exact same thing you do arg?
I mean I use the words "I trounced you", only after you said it to me, and you cried fouls. I mean you stated it as reason to shun me. And here you are doing it?
Do you mean like how you weave your anti-theist fantasies and damn the rest of us that don't share assault theist at all cost indractrantations?
are you intentionally doing this? or you actually that far behind? Oh no, I am fraud, you and I are ob opposites sides. I have to protect people from you expression of atheism. And teach people that atheism is a valid alternative and that we don't have to live our lives by the central dogma of "hating theist".
I "hate injustices" I will teach my children to stop injustice. But I also teach them not to focus on the hate part and focus on the injustice part. focusing on hate screws the view. Your stance on anti-theist is an excellent example, a living testimony, to just how hate clouds the the objective.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-02-2019 at 03:53 AM..
And we also need to do our due diligence to assert that what's the probability of the existence of a destination, and then reaching to it, after our physical death.
As I have stated earlier, we should make wise choices after doing our due diligence because in the end, we may be responsible for our choices.
due diligence? blind faith and due diligence?
but of course you know that due diligence puts us at odds with the fundy-think atheist and fundy-think theist? they don't want facts weakening that, already, wobbly ladder.
And belief that we are not just bodies in the Matrix is not a hypothetical, but an example of a belief we have!
And we have it without evidence.
An example of a belief is not stronger evidence than a hypothetical.
Quote:
No, I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the fence who have some sort of blind faith. Why?
Some people have your burden of "good reason" for everything they believe? Because surely, when you ask around, everyone has a reason/rationalization and excuse for everything.
Quote:
Not once did I say we should abandon or "kill" evidence. I only pointed out that evidentialism is invalid and self-refuting, because it is.
What evidence do you have that evidentialism is self-refuting? At the most, you are trying to refute evidence as the strongest argument for justification only through reference to your self-castrated logicism.
As such, "logicism" is much much worse. For you see, it should be killed at its root. I again point out that logicism is invalid and literally self-refuting, not just referentially so.
Quote:
And yet, we all do it, literally all day long.
No. Most experiences are falsifiable, as long as the evidence remains to be examined.
Quote:
Unfounded assumptions (these labels, I mean). It doesn't follow logically that because x is an unfalsifiable belief that therefore it's a false belief.
The facts of hallucinations and delusions are thoroughly founded.
Furthermore, hallucinations and delusions are often falsifiable, at least to some people.
Unverifiable true beliefs cannot be ultimately distinguished from unverifiable false beliefs. Same applies to the unfalsifiable.
That is the definition of unfalsifiable and unverifiable.
What doesn't follow logically is that because x doesn't follow logically, then that therefore it is an unfounded belief. There is plenty of evidence for largely "logically unfollowed" things, like quantum entanglement, a mathematically rational use for irrational numbers, and a real-world use for imaginary numbers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and the improbability of it being in My head, or even yours. It isn't much to go on, but better than nothing. As to a matrix, the universe in some alien computer or a hologram projected from beyond the universe (that last is a serious science hypothesis by the way), it doesn't matter; the universe is what it is and works as it does and we can rely on it, more or less. So what is happening at the supra -Cosmic level bothers me no more than what is going on at quantum level. No more than it bothers me (or you) that the computers we are banging away at are made, effectively, or nothing.
as that isn't relevant to the point, that evidentialism is a joke.
