[Michael Rye]

Ughhh! Semantic word games...

This is really not complicated.

If you take the position that you don't know if a deity exists or has ever existed, then by default you are acknowledging that you don't believe in a deity.

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics like to change the subject by getting into the whole ' it's unknowable' thing. Nice try, but the only relevant question is: do you believe?

They don't at all.

Otherwise, you are just an atheist with an identity problem.

Doc, are you familiar with Thomas Huxley?

He came up with the agnostic position in order to keep Darwin's money coming in. Atheist was too extreme a position, so agnostic was a nice diversion. It still means you don't believe in god, but you sound more reasonable because you take the position that you can't know.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Michael Rye

Ughhh! Semantic word games...

This is really not complicated.

If you take the position that you don't know if a deity exists or has ever existed, then by default you are acknowledging that you don't believe in a deity.

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics like to change the subject by getting into the whole ' it's unknowable' thing. Nice try, but the only relevant question is: do you believe?

They don't at all.

Otherwise, you are just an atheist with an identity problem.

Doc, are you familiar with Thomas Huxley?

He came up with the agnostic position in order to keep Darwin's money coming in. Atheist was too extreme a position, so agnostic was a nice diversion. It still means you don't believe in god, but you sound more reasonable because you take the position that you can't know.

What about someone that thinks it is very likely that a god exists? Someone that believes, but doesn't claim to know.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Some numbers are prime. Therefore, some numbers are prime. True?

Yep.

So now turn your argument into one that doesn't rest on a fallacy - one where you don't leave out the second 'some'.

Something like:
Some atheists approach their disbelief with ardor or faith, therefore some atheists are really just as religious as theists.

Of course, this would require that you modify your other claims as well - like, perhaps, saying 'Some people treat atheism as (a/their) religion' rather than 'Atheism is a religion'. The first statement I'd have to agree with, as there are in all probability atheists who disbelieve 'on faith' (although, honestly, I've only ever met one that was anywhere near that description). The second statement is no better than trying to claim "Numbers are prime" simply because some are.

Honestly, I don't really expect that to happen, though. It's never stopped you before, and it certainly didn't stop you the last time it was pointed out that some is not all.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by English

Although I believe "life evolved" is true beyond all reasonable doubt, I find it hard to accept that it is a fact since the connection between similar species is theoretical. We can observe and count apples falling from trees and observe that none fall other than down. We can't do the same with life evolving because the process is too slow.

"Life evolved" is an entirely believable hypothesis and I cannot think of any other believable idea that explains the facts of the observable relationships of organisms within the taxonomic system and of components of organisms such as mammalian inner ear bones and fish and reptile jaw bones and the observable intermediate forms. But that does not make "life evolved" fact. We can say that taxonomy demonstrates the fact that many species are closely similar and can sensibly be put into related groups. We can go on and say that such groups can also be seen to be related to other groups which allows us to create supper group and so on. These things we can claim as facts, but making the step from that to the idea that one species can give rise to distinct "daughter" species is strictly theory. It is an explanation of how taxonomic relatedness comes about and hence how all life is probably related. Natural selection is the icing on that particular cake and genetic analysis removes the "probably".

The problem is that the language is not well adapted to this particular task. People want truth, proof and certainty when those concepts are inapplicable. They neglect the fact that even within a court of law the jury is asked only to find whether the charge is true beyond all reasonable doubt and to declare the case not proven, in one terminology or another, otherwise. People want theories they approve of or believe in to be facts, but theories (or hypotheses, explanations or ideas) and facts are two distinct logical entities.

Within this conceptual framework, falsifiable theories, hypotheses, and explanations are logically indistinguishable. I am, how ever, unsure of the nature of laws as in the case of the gas laws. The gas laws explain the relationship of the pressure, volume and temperature of gases in simple mathematical terms and so have the characteristics of theory. At the same time that behaviour can be demonstrated as simple observable fact given suitable equipment with very minor theoretical allowance for the impossibility of maintaining a completely closed system. Of course, we cannot be certain that someday an experiment will show the gas laws to be false, but that is virtually inconceivable. Here is the interesting thing! We could make the same argument about evolution. Its principles are so simple and its evidence so completely consistent that it is inconceivable that it is false and therefore it becomes as close to fact as the gas laws.

English

I think this is where the Gould quote comes into play. Given the preponderance of supporting evidence from multiple disciplines, I find it perverse to withhold provisional assent from "live evolved".

While falsification is always possible, I think falsifying "live evolved" is about as unlikely as "gravity exists" being falsified.

regards,
-ArtificialGrape

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I said: Yes I know what I believe about deities. I believe that it is possible that one or more have existed, and it's possible that none have existed. It's possible, I haven't made up my mind yet either way. That's an honest answer.

That depends on one's definition of "honest."

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

What don't you like about it?

I have never asked whether you believe it's possible deities exist, and yet that's the question you answered. Is giving an answer to a question that wasn't asked "honest"?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'll concede that I did not answer that question, let me fix that. No, I don't think about agnosticism as a religion. I'm not sure how it would fit into the definition of religion.

Your well-rehersed definition of region is "a belief system held to with ardor and faith." You hold to your "I believe I don't know" belief system with ardor and faith, to the point of being unable to answer questions about it.

Huh.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

But it's perfectly alright if you would like to think of it as a religion, or for that matter, if everyone on the planet did. It's just not a big deal.

It certainly is for you. You've gone on about some variation of it for hundreds of posts.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

That depends on one's definition of "honest."



I have never asked whether you believe it's possible deities exist, and yet that's the question you answered. Is giving an answer to a question that wasn't asked "honest"?



Your well-rehersed definition of region is "a belief system held to with ardor and faith." You hold to your "I believe I don't know" belief system with ardor and faith, to the point of being unable to answer questions about it.

Huh.



It certainly is for you. You've gone on about some variation of it for hundreds of posts.

You are asking for a digital answer, when a digital answer would be misleading. I've answered, just not the way you would like, take it or leave it.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Ah, now it's about me, right? Anything to shift the conversation away from the point you were called on, got it. Really, it makes no difference to me if you want to cling to ignorance with ardor and faith. I'm ok with it.

Not really about you, but just the overlooking of the emotion within the post we were talking about. If you missed it, it's not without motivation.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

...

...

...


It certainly is for you. You've gone on about some variation of it for hundreds of posts.

Maybe you didn't read what you were replying to???

I think I said I don't have a problem with you thinking of agnosticism as a religion, we've been talking about atheism being one mostly.

Why does it bother you so much if someone just has a different opinion, based on a different perspective than your own?

What possible harm could come from that?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Yep.

So now turn your argument into one that doesn't rest on a fallacy - one where you don't leave out the second 'some'.

Something like:
Some atheists approach their disbelief with ardor or faith, therefore some atheists are really just as religious as theists.

Of course, this would require that you modify your other claims as well - like, perhaps, saying 'Some people treat atheism as (a/their) religion' rather than 'Atheism is a religion'. The first statement I'd have to agree with, as there are in all probability atheists who disbelieve 'on faith' (although, honestly, I've only ever met one that was anywhere near that description). The second statement is no better than trying to claim "Numbers are prime" simply because some are.

Honestly, I don't really expect that to happen, though. It's never stopped you before, and it certainly didn't stop you the last time it was pointed out that some is not all.

Atheists, by definition are religious.

There are many self described atheists that don't fit the definition. A lot of them are actually atheistic agnostics, IMHO based on their description of their belief. But then again, those guys probably wouldn't spend a lot of time online evangelizing.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Not really about you, but just the overlooking of the emotion within the post we were talking about. If you missed it, it's not without motivation.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Atheists, by definition are religious.

Ah yes, and your incessant, nearly compulsive repetition of the same vacuous proposition says nothing of your emotional investment in your own hollow worldview.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Ah yes, and your incessant, nearly compulsive repetition of the same vacuous proposition says nothing of your emotional investment in your own hollow worldview.

You don't have to approve. I don't approve of the view that our freedom requires that all other religious views be eliminated, I just understand some people feel that way.

We aren't going to agree, and that's ok.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

We aren't going to agree, and that's ok.

Excellent, then we are on the same page.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Atheists, by definition are religious.

No, by your argument, atheists, by definition, disbelieve in the existence of a deity. Whether they base that disbelief on faith/ardor or take it as a provisional statement that they're perfectly willing to change should there ever be a valid reason to change it is something you can't determine merely from the definition. We've been over this, why do you ignore it?

There are many self described atheists that don't fit the definition. A lot of them are actually atheistic agnostics, IMHO based on their description of their belief.

An 'atheistic agnostic' is nothing more than someone who disbelieves in the existence of a deity while recognizing they can't know because it's not a falsifiable proposition (at least in the case of a posit like 'A deity set up initial conditions and then let physics take over'). You could also describe them as an agnostic atheist or an atheist or an agnostic, depending on the context. It's not some wholly different category, it's a subset of atheists.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

No, by your argument, atheists, by definition, disbelieve in the existence of a deity. Whether they base that disbelief on faith/ardor or take it as a provisional statement that they're perfectly willing to change should there ever be a valid reason to change it is something you can't determine merely from the definition. We've been over this, why do you ignore it?

Yes, we have been over this, those that believe a deity does not exist are atheists, those that believe one does exist are theists. Both are beliefs based on faith. Ardor can be recognized in many ways. Endless questioning and criticism of other beliefs on an Internet forum for example.

Looks like we are at an impasse? Wouldn't you agree?

An 'atheistic agnostic' is nothing more than someone who disbelieves in the existence of a deity while recognizing they can't know because it's not a falsifiable proposition (at least in the case of a posit like 'A deity set up initial conditions and then let physics take over'). You could also describe them as an agnostic atheist or an atheist or an agnostic, depending on the context. It's not some wholly different category, it's a subset of atheists.

How many that had a passive belief would spend a significant amount of time evangelizing for atheism?

[Cavalry Doc]

In conclusion, evolution is definitely possible. OP fail.


Anything else that's on topic?

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Both are beliefs based on faith.

Do you consider someone saying 'The probability of a deity existing appears to be very low. Therefore, for now, I will provisionally accept the idea that there are no deities, and if evidence should arise that indicates there are, I will reassess at that time' to be faith based?

Endless questioning and criticism of other beliefs on an Internet forum for example.

When you misrepresent people's positions, you should expect that they will object. That's not evidence of faith, that's evidence they object to your misrepresentations. Kind of like now, how you're attempting to take my objections to your position to mean it's based on faith. That works both ways, you know.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Do you consider someone saying 'The probability of a deity existing appears to be very low. Therefore, for now, I will provisionally accept the idea that there are no deities, and if evidence should arise that indicates there are, I will reassess at that time' to be faith based?



When you misrepresent people's positions, you should expect that they will object. That's not evidence of faith, that's evidence they object to your misrepresentations. Kind of like now, how you're attempting to take my objections to your position to mean it's based on faith. That works both ways, you know.

Void, I hear you.

I have my perspective, you have yours. We have reached different conclusions on a few details. That's all.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Void, I hear you.

I have my perspective, you have yours. We have reached different conclusions on a few details. That's all.

You are assuming that all people who disbelieve disbelieve on faith.

That's not how belief works. Beliefs can be supported or unsupported, taken on faith, not taken on faith, absolute, or provisional.

We're not disagreeing on a minor detail, here - your entire argument rests on the idea that you get to claim that 'disbelief' is equal to 'faith', when it is clearly not.

[void *]

If, for instance, you were to claim there were a duck sitting on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, my disbelief in that posit is not faith based. It's based on the fact that there's no evidence for a duck on my shoulder, whispering in my ear.

If you further posit that there's an explanation for there being no evidence of a duck on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, but cannot provide evidential support for that explanation, I am still justified in disbelieving that there is a duck on my shoulder - without invoking faith whatsoever. If you were to provide evidence for that explanation, I would reassess - which is precisely why it's not faith based.

[void *]

So yes, it's possible that there is a deity. There's no evidence that a deity is actually involved, and many, many times in history people have attributed causes to $deity that turned out to have natural explanations. I therefore assess the probability that any particular unexplained phenomenon, that people are currently using $deity as an explanation for, actually has natural causes as high. I could be wrong, and I freely admit that - that's why it's an assessment of probability.

With respect to abiogenesis: Was it primordial soup? Was it a radioactive beach? Was it something to do with suspension of clay and chemistry? Was it some natural process we haven't discovered yet? I don't know. But I'd lay odds on it being one of those, rather than $diety, right up until there's some evidence that $deity actually exists.

And that has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with the fact that it's plain to see that many, many times humans have not understood something, and invoked a deity, they've been wrong and it was actually a natural phenomenon or process that we eventually investigated and understood.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

You are assuming that all people who disbelieve disbelieve on faith.

That's not how belief works. Beliefs can be supported or unsupported, taken on faith, not taken on faith, absolute, or provisional.

We're not disagreeing on a minor detail, here - your entire argument rests on the idea that you get to claim that 'disbelief' is equal to 'faith', when it is clearly not.

Sure it is. Disbelief is more than a passive lack of belief.

Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

It's OK if you want to believe that disbelief is a passive word. It's OK if you want to believe that you only lack belief in a deity. It's OK if you believe the belief that there has been no deity is not an act of faith. It's OK if you believe there are not evangelical atheists in GTRI. It's even OK if you believe you aren't one of them.

Like I said, we just disagree a little.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

If, for instance, you were to claim there were a duck sitting on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, my disbelief in that posit is not faith based. It's based on the fact that there's no evidence for a duck on my shoulder, whispering in my ear.

If you further posit that there's an explanation for there being no evidence of a duck on my shoulder, whispering in my ear, but cannot provide evidential support for that explanation, I am still justified in disbelieving that there is a duck on my shoulder - without invoking faith whatsoever. If you were to provide evidence for that explanation, I would reassess - which is precisely why it's not faith based.

I have no opinion whatsoever about whether or not there is a duck on your shoulder.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I have no opinion whatsoever about whether or not there is a duck on your shoulder.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

So yes, it's possible that there is a deity. There's no evidence that a deity is actually involved, and many, many times in history people have attributed causes to $deity that turned out to have natural explanations. I therefore assess the probability that any particular unexplained phenomenon, that people are currently using $deity as an explanation for, actually has natural causes as high. I could be wrong, and I freely admit that - that's why it's an assessment of probability.

With respect to abiogenesis: Was it primordial soup? Was it a radioactive beach? Was it something to do with suspension of clay and chemistry? Was it some natural process we haven't discovered yet? I don't know. But I'd lay odds on it being one of those, rather than $diety, right up until there's some evidence that $deity actually exists.

And that has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with the fact that it's plain to see that many, many times humans have not understood something, and invoked a deity, they've been wrong and it was actually a natural phenomenon or process that we eventually investigated and understood.

OK. I hear you. The bottom line is how life began exactly, is a mystery. Theists and Atheists have chosen the scenario that fits best with the rest of their system of belief.

Good illustration.

The difference with me, is I'll wait until there is proof one way or the other, then decide. If I die before that happens, I can live with that.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Or is checkers more your style?

I was never trying to get him to believe anything about a duck. He started his hypothetical with a ridiculously false premise. I am not trying to convert him to theism.

A duck on his shoulder is not an unwitnessed event several hundreds of millions of years ago.