Opinions on Christianity - Page 14 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Indepth Interests > Debates Section

Debates Section Enjoy a good discussion? This is the place for you! Only knowledgeable discussions allowed!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2008, 03:19 AM   #196
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthekage View Post
I once had a discussion with Mibs about applying Occam's razor, I wasn't a big fan. However, I was persuaded that perhaps it is should be applied to theism.
I am wary of Occam’s Razor, due to the frequency of its misuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthekage View Post
If the only valid information was that based on absolutes, we wouldn't be certain of very much. We can only go by what is observed to be most likely. If you truly are a fan of science, you have to be ready to accept being wrong on some issues. As we are constantly updating our understanding we are disproving our own theories. That's the nature of the beast.
As I am confident you know, science does not claim authority on ‘absolute truth’. We operate on the premise that our understanding of gravity is correct due to the benefits of doing so and the overwhelming evidence from induction and abduction supporting that premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthekage View Post
I just don't know about leaving open the possibility of something existing purely for the reason that it can't positively be shown to not exist. That sort of allows for the possible existence of one of Mib's flying purple cheese dragons.
What is gained from outright denying such claims? It does not take outright denial of a proposition to not operate on the basis that the proposition is true; I can say that a flying purple cheese dragon might exist, but that does not mean that I then have to live my life around its existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
No, I just asked you to stop underhandedly insult my intelligence. I have no problems with you points and stance other than the fact that I disagree with them, yet I respect your stance nonetheless and can see why you hold it.
My intention was to do nothing more than highlight that you suggested that you merely wished to express your opinion unchallenged, which seems contrary to the intention of a ‘Debates Section’. The reader could take that any way they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
So, I take it we have nothing more to say?
If you put forth something I feel compelled to respond to, I shall endeavour to reply.

Last edited by Miles T; 08-10-2008 at 03:21 AM.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote


Old 08-10-2008, 03:28 AM   #197
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Heh, don't listen to Trey, Matt. You've added plenty to the conversation. A lot more than some people, that's for damn sure. ; )

@Trey-Dude, this is getting ridiculous. I mean, what are you even debating? The belief in God is illogical. We've established that. So what are you trying to prove, seriously?

What if someone said something like "Black people are inferior to most other races." How would you respond? You can't really prove they aren't inferior, you can only show that there's no reason to believe they are. So it's pretty much the same exact shit, essentially. It's an illogical belief that cannot really be proven or disproven. Would you say it's wrong, or erroneous to hold such a belief? Do you consider racists to be equally reasonable and rational as non-racist people? That racists aren't deluded in any way, at all? GET WHAT I'M SAYING YET?

I mean, come the fuck on, dude. Seriously.


@Miles-Occam's Razor is a valid logical principle, and it can be applied to the existence of God.

Also, not all atheists make a claim stating non-existence. They simple see no compelling reason to believe any claim of existence, so they assume the default stance: non-existence. If no one ever claimed the existence of a magic flying space turtle with mounted machine guns on it's shell, your default stance on magic flying space turtles would be that they don't exist. There's no reason to consider the limitless imaginary, totally made up things that could possibly exist, you know?

Assuming the default stance in regards to such things until valid evidence can be presented to support their claims is the most logical choice according to the principle of Occam's Razor.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 03:31 AM   #198
Trey
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 139
Thanked 538 Times in 300 Posts
Trey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
@Trey-Dude, this is getting ridiculous. I mean, what are you even debating? The belief in God is illogical. We've established that. So what are you trying to prove, seriously?

What if someone said something like "Black people are inferior to most other races." How would you respond? You can't really prove they aren't inferior, you can only show that there's no reason to believe they are. So it's pretty much the same exact shit, essentially. It's an illogical belief that cannot really be proven or disproven. Would you say it's wrong, or erroneous to hold such a belief? Do you consider racists to be equally reasonable and rational as non-racist people? That racists aren't deluded in any way, at all? GET WHAT I'M SAYING YET?

I mean, come the fuck on, dude. Seriously.
Black people have contributed and have shown as much capacity as any other race. There is no reason to believe black people are inferior to any other race because that's simply not true. If a man is inferior to another, it's not because of the color of his skin. This is a proven fact, different from what I'm arguing.

So, your ensuing (and most likey rhetorical) questions are void.

Last edited by Trey; 08-10-2008 at 03:34 AM.
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 03:53 AM   #199
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Black people have contributed and have shown as much capacity as any other race.
I don't want to turn this into a race discussion, but there are statistics and historical evidence that can be used to show that blacks are more violent, less intelligent, and have contributed far less to human progress in comparison to other races.

Point is, I could make an argument against racial equality that would easily rival any argument for the belief in God in validity. Quite easily.
Quote:
There is no reason to believe black people are inferior to any other race because that's simply not true.
There is no reason to believe in God either. At least no credible one. = /
Quote:
If a man is inferior to another, it's not because of the color of his skin. This is a proven fact, different from what I'm arguing.
You can't prove that black people aren't inferior. You can only show that there is no credible reason to believe they are. Same thing with the belief in God. Can't prove he doesn't exist, only that there is no credible reason to believe he does. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.

You have to know I'm right; that the logic I'm using against the belief in God is logic you're completely familiar with and use yourself. You're just dismissing it on this particular issue for some silly reason.

Quote:
So, your ensuing (and most likey rhetorical) questions are void.
I'm open to that possibility, but you certainly haven't shown that. : )
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 04:14 AM   #200
Trey
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 139
Thanked 538 Times in 300 Posts
Trey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
I don't want to turn this into a race discussion, but there are statistics and historical evidence that can be used to show that blacks are more violent, less intelligent, and have contributed far less to human progress in comparison to other races.
Well, you're right, this isn't the place for this kind of discussion.

Though, about those studies, they obviously reflect the upbringing of the child (blacks are more prone to substandard education, grow up in relatively violent neighborhoods, and subsequently cannot hold a position of power that would allow them to do some good) and are merely results of the environment rather than the fact that they're black. Now if black folks were born mentally or physically incapable for the sole reason their skin is brown, then you'd be right. But, seeing as how that's not the case...

If you're going to refute this point, can you please create a new thread? We're straying from the principal dicussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Buro
Point is, I could make an argument against racial equality that would easily rival any argument for the belief in God in validity. Quite easily.
I see.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Buro
There is no reason to believe in God either. At least no credible one. = /
I'll agree to that. People shouldn't believe in God because they think he's the reason they found a grand on the ground. They shouldn't believe in him because they think he let their favorite team win a game. People should have a personal faith in him, whatever they believe him to be, and not impose their beliefs on others. I adhere to my own guidelines.

This is, of course, assuming they choose to believe in him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Buro
You can't prove that black people aren't inferior. You can only show that there is no credible reason to believe they are. Same thing with the belief in God. Can't prove he doesn't exist, only that there is no credible reason to believe he does. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Yes, you can. On average, it may seem that way: more white folks are rich, all our Presidents have been caucassian, et cetera. But, there have been black minds as great as any, black entreprenuers, contributors to society who have hailed from African American heritage.

Just because the average black (or Arab, Mexican, other minority) child is not as privileged as the caucassian one, doesn't mean that they are inferior. If given the same oppurtunities, they would both be pretty much the same. Skin color does not automatically make one superior or inferior to another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Buro
You have to know I'm right; that the logic I'm using against the belief in God is logic you're completely familiar with and use yourself. You're just dismissing it on this particular issue for some silly reason.
I know what you're doing; doesn't mean I agree with it. I can see what you're getting at, and why you used the racial thing as an analogy.

I'm not saying that my belief in god is logical--there was no logical processes utilized to come to the conclusion that god existed. I just believe in God 'cause I do, and there's no evidence to disprove him. I never denied that. However, I held fast to the notion that I'm not a fool (or religious people in general--some are fools though, but not because of their religion), or illogical in general, or handicapped just because of my faith. That's all I've been arguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Buro
I'm open to that possibility, but you certainly haven't shown that. : )
Okay.

Last edited by Trey; 08-10-2008 at 04:17 AM.
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 04:54 AM   #201
Mashed Potato
sunshine and biscuits
 
Mashed Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shitney, Australia
Posts: 525
Thanks: 4
Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
Mashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the rough
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
It is illogical to believe in God because belief is illogical: it does not adhere to deductive logic. The 'idea' of God itself is not contrafactual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miley
In my usage, 'belief' refers to holding a position one holds due to faith.
In my usage, belief is just something you find to be true. By that definition, belief can encompass both logic and faith.

You believe that the Earth is round [logic - this was deduced from valid evidence].
You believe in ghosts [faith - this sprouted from a sort of gut instinct, or maybe anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence would never hold up in a debate].

A belief in strong atheism [faith - no concrete evidence proving so].
A belief in agnosticism [logic - as it is currently true. There is no infallible way of proving God's existence]
A belief in orthodox christianity [faith - basically at the polar opposite of extreme atheism. Neither of them are a logical stance, as neither have reached or touched upon science's standards of what constitutes as fact.

These are all beliefs.

here's a neato spectrum spawned from my boredom ;]
[extreme atheism]----------[agnosticism]----------[orthodox Christianity]
[faith]----------[logic]----------[faith]

I see both miles and trey hanging out in the middle area, around agnosticism and logic. The only thing is that Trey leans more towards Christian ideals while Miles atheist.

I'll come back later. : o


lol edit [because I don't want to spring up randomly between mibs and trey's debate anymore]

The previous pages have been massive walls of text @__@ to extend the metaphor, I'll try and tend to some of the bricks : p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
I was under the notion that being deluded means believing in a lie. Seeing as how God's existence could go either way, I'm not technically deluded.
Technically, you are. It's just that your oppositional equivalent is just as deluded. XD

Meh, this is how I see it. Agnosticism may be the most logical stance, but people prefer to take sides. Two possible sides can be taken: belief in deity/ies or belief in lack of diety/ies. I think it's personally natural to assume one way or another, rather than be content with "I don't know."

But is one side more logical than the other?
I've always thought that if there isn't adequate evidence to prove something, you must always assume the negative. Always seemed like the most logical answer to me, and that is why I see myself as somewhat of an atheist. Kudos to anyone who can explain to me otherwise.


Also.... agnosticism =/= fence sitting. Fence sitting tends to have negative connotations. It's just isn't a fitting description for agnosticism, since it does technically have a viewpoint.
__________________
♥

Last edited by Mashed Potato; 08-10-2008 at 05:25 AM.
Mashed Potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 05:09 AM   #202
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

I'm only cutting some of your response out because my counter-arguments would be redundant. If I'm skipping over something you felt was a key point of your argument, then let me know and I'll gladly address it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Though, about those studies, they obviously reflect the upbringing of the child (blacks are more prone to substandard education, grow up in relatively violent neighborhoods, and subsequently cannot hold a position of power that would allow them to do some good) and are merely results of the environment rather than the fact that they're black. Now if black folks were born mentally or physically incapable for the sole reason their skin is brown, then you'd be right. But, seeing as how that's not the case...

No shit. I know racism is illogical.

But you keep saying it's wrong to believe that blacks are inferior, but every argument you've presented only shows that the claim that blacks are inferior isn't based on credible evidence, and is thusly illogical. Just like the belief in the existence of God.

It's impossible to show that everyone is equal, because NO ONE is equal. Everyone experiences different things, no two people are the exactly the same. To show equality is pretty much impossible.

All you can do is show that there is no logical reason to believe any claims that any race is inferior to another. We assume equality based on that. Not because it is proven that everyone is actually equal.

The belief in God is exactly the same. There's no logical reason to believe in God, so thats why it's illogical to believe in God. Its just like believing a race of people is inferior despite the fact theres no logical reason to believe that. It really is pretty much the same thing.

I mean, fuck. Is it completely impossible that a race of people could be somehow inferior to another race of people? Of course not. There's always the slim possibility that it's true.

That is why I asked you those questions, which you conveniently continue to ignore. If you believe its perfectly reasonable to believe in God despite the fact that its illogical, then you should feel the same way about people who believe in racial superiority despite the fact that its also illogical. I assume you don't feel that racists are being just as reasonable as non-racists though, which is why you're avoiding my questions. ; )

Quote:
I know what you're doing; doesn't mean I agree with it. I can see what you're getting at, and why you used the racial thing as an analogy.

I'm not saying that my belief in god is logical--there was no logical processes utilized to come to the conclusion that god existed. I just believe in God 'cause I do, and there's no evidence to disprove him. I never denied that. However, I held fast to the notion that I'm not a fool (or religious people in general--some are fools though, but not because of their religion), or illogical in general, or handicapped just because of my faith. That's all I've been arguing.
I'm not saying that my belief that black people are inferior to some other races of people is logical--there was no logical processes utilized to come to the conclusion that blacks are inferior. I just believe blacks are inferior 'cause I do, and there is no evidence to completely disprove my belief. However, I hold fast to the notion that I'm not a fool (or racist people in general--some are fools though, but not because of their racial beliefs), or illogical in general, or handicapped just because of my beliefs.

Looks like my statement is just as logical as yours, wouldn't you say? So going by your rationale, racists aren't fools, or illogical in general just because they're dumbass racists. Nice try, but you've got to see that your stance is rather silly by now. If not, then this whole debating thing really isn't your thing. =p
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 08:17 AM   #203
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
A belief in agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a ‘belief’ by either of our usages. It is a state of not holding a position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
I see both miles and trey hanging out in the middle area, around agnosticism and logic. The only thing is that Trey leans more towards Christian ideals while Miles atheist.
Trey not identifying as adhering to a mainstream religion does not mean he hovers around agnosticism. Also—as evidenced by this thread—Trey does not use logic to defend their position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
I've always thought that if there isn't adequate evidence to prove something, you must always assume the negative. Always seemed like the most logical answer to me, and that is why I see myself as somewhat of an atheist. Kudos to anyone who can explain to me otherwise.
It is not the most logical answer. By that principle, a defendant who has not been proved innocent should automatically be found guilty.

Last edited by Miles T; 08-10-2008 at 08:18 AM.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 08:40 AM   #204
Mashed Potato
sunshine and biscuits
 
Mashed Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shitney, Australia
Posts: 525
Thanks: 4
Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
Mashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the rough
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
Agnosticism is not a ‘belief’ by either of our usages. It is a state of not holding a position.
Noo that's a misconception. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for mankind to truly know if God exists. Hence why I so adamantly oppose it being synonymous with "fence-sitting".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles
Trey not identifying as adhering to a mainstream religion does not mean he hovers around agnosticism. Also—as evidenced by this thread—Trey does not use logic to defend their position.
From reading his posts, I see he acknowledges that we don't know whether a deity exists, but he just bases his life around the assumption that he does. Just like you base your life around the assumption that there is no God. You guys are on the same notch, but just on different sides of the spectrum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miley
It is not the most logical answer. By that principle, a defendant who has not been proved innocent should automatically be found guilty.
You're proving my point. ;]

When I refer to "the negative", I mean the position that doesn't hold the burden of proof.

When you are trying to prove someone guilty, you must provide sufficient evidence to charge them. Lack of evidence = innocent.
When you are trying to prove God exists, you must provide sufficient evidence. Lack of evidence = likely that God doesn't exist.
__________________
♥
Mashed Potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 02:09 PM   #205
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
Agnosticism is not a ‘belief’ by either of our usages. It is a state of not holding a position.
So, if someone came up to you and said "Hey, there's a huge, invisible magic flying space turtle sitting on top of your house and there's no possible way to ever observe it,ever, because it's fricken magic and shit" you would respond by saying "Well, while that is rather unlikely, I can't completely rule out the possibility of that being true so I'll consider it?"

Personally, I'd respond by saying "Well, since you cannot provide proof of your claim, I'll continue to operate under the default stance of magic turtle shit not existing, just as I did before your ridiculous claim was made."

That doesn't mean I'm not open to new ideas or anything. Just that I'm not going to take the limitless possible made up entities into consideration until sufficient proof can be provided to back up any claims that those things exist.

Quote:
Trey not identifying as adhering to a mainstream religion does not mean he hovers around agnosticism. Also—as evidenced by this thread—Trey does not use logic to defend their position.
Totally agree on this. =p


Quote:
It is not the most logical answer. By that principle, a defendant who has not been proved innocent should automatically be found guilty.
As Mashed said, the burden of proof would fall on the people claiming that person's guilt. If they cannot sufficiently provide proof of their claim then we assume the default stance before the man was accused, and man is not found guilty of the crime.

Sure, there's always the possibility that he may be guilty still. There's also the possibility that a god may exist, and that flying invisible magic space turtles may exist too. Hell, I could throw a tennis ball in there air, and by some form of magic the principles of gravity may stop applying to it and it'll continue going up and never come back down. I'm certainly not going to take gravity nullifying magic into consideration every time I toss a ball though, that's for damn sure. Know what I mean? : )
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 03:46 PM   #206
Miles T
Genin
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 67
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Miles T is on a distinguished road
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
Noo that's a misconception. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for mankind to truly know if God exists. Hence why I so adamantly oppose it being synonymous with "fence-sitting".
Agnostics can be categorised as follows:

1) those who think that the question of God is currently unsolvable
2) those who think that the question of God is inherently unsolvable
3) those who think that the question of God is ambiguous, and thus undecidable
4) those who feel that there is sufficient evidence neither to dismiss God's existence outright nor to claim God's existence outright
5) those who have never considered the existence of God, and are agnostic by default

Only one of those categories reflects your claim. Someone being an agnostic means that they do not hold a belief either way. It is like with my example of favourite colours earlier: someone being undecided as to which of the colours is their favourite means that they hold neither the belief that 'onetytwo' is their favourite colour nor the belief that 'threetyfour' is. To say that their not having a belief on the matter means that they do have a belief on the matter is fallacious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
From reading his posts, I see he acknowledges that we don't know whether a deity exists, but he just bases his life around the assumption that he does. Just like you base your life around the assumption that there is no God. You guys are on the same notch, but just on different sides of the spectrum.
There is a difference between working on the basis that something is not shown to be true and working on the assumption that it definitely is not true. My position allows for a development in favour of either position at any time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
When I refer to "the negative", I mean the position that doesn't hold the burden of proof.

When you are trying to prove someone guilty, you must provide sufficient evidence to charge them. Lack of evidence = innocent.
When you are trying to prove God exists, you must provide sufficient evidence. Lack of evidence = likely that God doesn't exist.
You put forward:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato View Post
I've always thought that if there isn't adequate evidence to prove something, you must always assume the negative. Always seemed like the most logical answer to me, and that is why I see myself as somewhat of an atheist.
But by that principle, the defendant should be assumed to be both innocent and guilty when there is sufficient proof of neither their innocence nor their guilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
So, if someone came up to you and said "Hey, there's a huge, invisible magic flying space turtle sitting on top of your house and there's no possible way to ever observe it,ever, because it's fricken magic and shit" you would respond by saying "Well, while that is rather unlikely, I can't completely rule out the possibility of that being true so I'll consider it?"
If I stood to lose nothing (including time or patience) by considering the position, then yes, I would consider it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Personally, I'd respond by saying "Well, since you cannot provide proof of your claim, I'll continue to operate under the default stance of magic turtle shit not existing, just as I did before your ridiculous claim was made."
As would I. Nothing I said (to my knowledge) has contradicted that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
That doesn't mean I'm not open to new ideas or anything. Just that I'm not going to take the limitless possible made up entities into consideration until sufficient proof can be provided to back up any claims that those things exist.
I also would not (or at least, I hope that I would not) think a position is correct until there is reasonable evidence to back it up. Again, I do not recall contradicting that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
As Mashed said, the burden of proof would fall on the people claiming that person's guilt. If they cannot sufficiently provide proof of their claim then we assume the default stance before the man was accused, and man is not found guilty of the crime.
Mash suggested that one should assume the negative of that which has not been proven, which is fallacious:

There is not adequate evidence for A being true
Therefore not A is true

Is equivalent to what they put forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Sure, there's always the possibility that he may be guilty still. There's also the possibility that a god may exist, and that flying invisible magic space turtles may exist too. Hell, I could throw a tennis ball in there air, and by some form of magic the principles of gravity may stop applying to it and it'll continue going up and never come back down. I'm certainly not going to take gravity nullifying magic into consideration every time I toss a ball though, that's for damn sure. Know what I mean? : )
Yes, I do. Acknowledging something as a possibility, not matter how remote, does not mean that one has to act as if it is true. I can say that there is a vanishingly small chance of gravity ceasing to be, but that does not mean that I am stating that it will cease to be. All I am advocating is not ruling out as impossibility that which has a remote possibility of being true. I am not advocating putting credence into that which has a remote possibility.

Last edited by Miles T; 08-10-2008 at 04:01 PM.
Miles T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2008, 04:40 PM   #207
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

So, in actual practice, agnostics and (weak) atheists are pretty much the same thing. They both operate as if no god exists without outright denying the extremely unlikely possibility that one may exist (that is inherent with almost any made up magic entity anyone can think up).

Also, I'm fairly certain Mashed meant one should assume the default stance, not the opposite or negative stance, when referring to burden of proof. In which case she would be correct.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 02:59 AM   #208
Mashed Potato
sunshine and biscuits
 
Mashed Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shitney, Australia
Posts: 525
Thanks: 4
Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
Mashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the roughMashed Potato is a jewel in the rough
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles T View Post
Agnostics can be categorised as follows:

1) those who think that the question of God is currently unsolvable
2) those who think that the question of God is inherently unsolvable
3) those who think that the question of God is ambiguous, and thus undecidable
4) those who feel that there is sufficient evidence neither to dismiss God's existence outright nor to claim God's existence outright
5) those who have never considered the existence of God, and are agnostic by default

Only one of those categories reflects your claim.
Really? Sounds more like all those categories fit into my claim (except for number 5, I'll talk about that later). They seem to sort of branch off from my original claim, and delve into specfics. The underlying premise of categories 1-4 IS "it is impossible to determine the existence of God.

Number 5, however, fits more into the label of "disinterested". ie. neutral.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rahh
Someone being an agnostic means that they do not hold a belief either way.
Wait, how is "I think it's impossible to determine the validity of God" not a belief? >_< Did we not establish that that was the definition of agnosticism?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles
It is like with my example of favourite colours earlier: someone being undecided as to which of the colours is their favourite means that they hold neither the belief that 'onetytwo' is their favourite colour nor the belief that 'threetyfour' is. To say that their not having a belief on the matter means that they do have a belief on the matter is fallacious.
Naw, that analogy isn't quite fitting.

For starters, in the God debate, only one variable is discussed - God. In your analogy, at least 2 variables are present - colour 1 and colour 2.

Secondly, the aim between the two comparative objects do not match. For the God debate, you aim to discuss the existence of one object; in your analogy, you aim to choose the more desirable object.

In fact, I don't even know why you chose that analogy. It's like trying to cram a square polygon into a circular hole. o_o See False Analogy.

Here's to illustrate my point (because I right suck at explaining)


That is what I actually see in my mind ATM. Baha sorry I suck at illustrating too. Feel free to ignore it if it's too messy for your liking XD



Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles
There is a difference between working on the basis that something is not shown to be true and working on the assumption that it definitely is not true. My position allows for a development in favour of either position at any time.
I don't quite understand the first sentence ;_; could you explain it in laymen's terms?

And I'm sure it's the same thing with Trey. He would swing the other way if disconcerting evidence came into view.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles
You put forward:

But by that principle, the defendant should be assumed to be both innocent and guilty when there is sufficient proof of neither their innocence nor their guilt.
Mibs got it right:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo View Post
Also, I'm fairly certain Mashed meant one should assume the default stance, not the opposite or negative stance, when referring to burden of proof. In which case she would be correct.
__________________
&hearts;

Last edited by Mashed Potato; 08-11-2008 at 03:00 AM.
Mashed Potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 03:24 AM   #209
Trey
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,251
Thanks: 139
Thanked 538 Times in 300 Posts
Trey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to beholdTrey is a splendid one to behold
Re: Opinions on Christianity

^Nice chart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Buro
Sure, there's always the possibility that he may be guilty still. There's also the possibility that a god may exist, and that flying invisible magic space turtles may exist too. Hell, I could throw a tennis ball in there air, and by some form of magic the principles of gravity may stop applying to it and it'll continue going up and never come back down. I'm certainly not going to take gravity nullifying magic into consideration every time I toss a ball though, that's for damn sure. Know what I mean? : )
Y'know, it's fascinating: it is theorized that gravity (along with the three other forces of nature) stopped working for an instant in order for the Big Bang to occur. So, under the assumption that is correct, it is possible for gravity to stop working, or become so insignificant, it for all intents and purposes did stop working. That's one of the reasons I'm so interested in the study of the Big Bang--for answers for these particular phenoms.

Also, what do you mean by magic? Forces that are beyond established physical properties, or supernatural? Regardless, to hold the belief that for whatever reason that particular ball you threw will defy gravity is markedly different from believing in a constant force that only comes into play following a set occurence (death). Your space ball would only be operating under random circumstances (in a controlled environment).
Trey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2008, 04:48 AM   #210
Miburo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Christianity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey View Post
Also, what do you mean by magic? Forces that are beyond established physical properties, or supernatural? Regardless, to hold the belief that for whatever reason that particular ball you threw will defy gravity is markedly different from believing in a constant force that only comes into play following a set occurence (death). Your space ball would only be operating under random circumstances (in a controlled environment).
You're wrong. It'd be operating under unknown circumstances. I didn't specify why or how it would happen, it's totally possible that it wouldn't happen randomly.

Also, the purpose of that example was to show that the unlimited amount of potential things one would have to consider if one chose to consider every completely baseless, silly claim anyone could present. In hopes of showing that functionally, atheists and agnostics are pretty much the same: Both operate under the default stance of non-existence when it comes to completely baseless claims.

I guess you concede to the argument I presented against your stance, which is why it was ignored, right? =p
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.