Bad faith of the agnostic

[Ross Dolan]

Can I just say I feel REALLY old now whenever someone refers to the last century as the 1900's. LOLOL!

Yeah, you can. I'm 87...gonna be 88 in just a few months.

Today I had to have a chest CAT scan. The tech brought a wheelchair for me because of my age.
I smiled through it.

I am a VERY robust 87.

 

[Hume]

There is absolutely no way that the word "god" in the US today refers to the Christian god...and only to the Christian god.

Give me your definition of "god." Then the criteria for determining whether it exists or not.

 

[Kafka]

You seem to be saying you are a departure.

Not necessarily. Not all atheists are the same. There are two primary streams (3 according to some) that atheism falls int:

1. Strong atheism: "There is no God" (this is a universal negative claim which is very hard to logically justify...God could be hiding or just not found
2. Weak atheism: "Failure to believe in God" (not unlike the example I gave about the null hypothesis)

Are you telling me that in addition to "failing to believe in" a god...you also fail to "believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?"

I have never fully understood the value of that question when you've asked numerous times on this forum. I can assure you that if I fail to believe in one god I fail to believe in all gods.

It's a pretty straightforward position.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The question is what does "god" refer to? Some say god has to refer to a physical entity or it is nothing, there is no referent.
Some say god refers to a concept or non-physical entity.

That is why I specifically say, "When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST."

I wish more people would explain specifically what they mean.

 

[Kafka]

bailing out banks was good for stability. but it was such glaring instance of overt elitism fascism that it basically morally invalidated the entire Keynesian banking fed system, proving it to be an endless corruption trough for elitist swine.

And the neo-GishGallop begins.

 

[Ross Dolan]

What would it refer to , then?

Zeus, Jupiter, Allah, Krishna...and for some, Trump.

 

[Hume]

That is why I specifically say, "When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'

Okay. So god is creator. Basic tenet of Christianity.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Give me your definition of "god." Then the criteria for determining whether it exists or not.

When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.

It contains a logical conditional...so there is no need to destermine if it exists or not.

Read it carefully.

 

[Hume]

When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.

It contains a logical conditional...so there is no need to destermine if it exists or not.

Read it carefully.

I get it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Not necessarily. Not all atheists are the same. There are two primary streams (3 according to some) that atheism falls int:

1. Strong atheism: "There is no God" (this is a universal negative claim which is very hard to logically justify...God could be hiding or just not found
2. Weak atheism: "Failure to believe in God" (not unlike the example I gave about the null hypothesis)



I have never fully understood the value of that question when you've asked numerous times on this forum. I can assure you that if I fail to believe in one god I fail to believe in all gods.

It's a pretty straightforward position.

The question was different from what you are interpreting.

Here is the question unadorned: Do you "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists?

The other alternatives are: Do you "believe" that it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist? or...

...do you believe the chances of "no gods exist" and z"at least one god exists"...are equal?

 

[Kafka]

Here is the question unadorned: Do you "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists?

I have no reason to believe any gods exist. As a subset of that I have no reason to believe that a single god exists. There is no likelihood involved. One is a special case of the other.

...do you believe the chances of "no gods exist" and z"at least one god exists"...are equal?

They are equal. I disbelieve in one God and multiple gods for the exact same reasoning as laid out earlier.

 

[QP!]

I approach it from the formalism of "inferential statistics". In science when looking at an hypothesis we start with the "null hypothesis" (eg "There is no effect from this drug") and then test AGAINST that hypothesis.

Lacking sufficient evidence to reject the null one is left only with the choice of FAILING TO REJECT THE NULL.

That's my approach to atheism. But it is also a matter of the "God Hypothesis" having no real basis other than someone CLAIMING it is true. I am under zero obligation to believe or even be undecided on a claim someone makes out of the blue.



For me the "weak atheist" position is the best. This is the one that does NOT say "There is no God" but rather "Fails to believe in God" if you will.



Hopefully I have done so.

Fair enough.

Based on the definition of 'weak atheist' i would say that is also how i see agnostic but the main difference is that i see having to conclude with 'fails to believe in X' as redundant.

If i say 'i do not have the data to decide either way' (my agnostic definition) then by default i 'fail to believe in X'. Just as i 'fail to conclude it is wrong'.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Okay. So god is creator. Basic tenet of Christianity.

Do you know how to read.

I have no idea of what any god is like...BUT WHEN I POST HERE IN THIS FORUM, WHEN I USE THE WORD "GOD" I MEAN "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST."

 

[Ross Dolan]

I have no reason to believe any gods exist. As a subset of that I have no reason to believe that a single god exists. There is no likelihood involved. One is a special case of the other.



They are equal. I disbelieve in one God and multiple gods for the exact same reasoning as laid out earlier.

So if I read you correctly (and I may be wrong)...you are saying for you, the likelihood of at least one god existing is the same as the likelihood that there are no gods.

Yet you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor..."weak atheist", but "atheist."

Sounds strange to me. Not to you?

 

[QP!]

Do you know how to read.

I have no idea of what any god is like...BUT WHEN I POST HERE IN THIS FORUM, WHEN I USE THE WORD "GOD" I MEAN "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST."

Everyone is best to ignore Hume in this conversation as it is flowing well without him. He is too agenda driven to engage in honest debate so he spends more time trying to attribute people arguments than engaging in what they actual say.

 

[Kafka]

Do you know how to read.

I have no idea of what any god is like...BUT WHEN I POST HERE IN THIS FORUM, WHEN I USE THE WORD "GOD" I MEAN "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST."

This is probably the "safest" definition of God. It avoids all the pitfalls of the gods we know about (Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, etc etc.) which carry with them very specific features which impinge on reality in such a way as to be "testable".

The "God-as-Creator" concept is great because before the universe existed (and "before" time itself) there is no way to know from whence it all came.

THIS I can accept as being "agnostic" about since there's no way to test or falsify or even comprehend what it means. Clearly the Universe appears to have a beginning in the big bang but what was there before the big bang? Some believe the universe could exist in a state of eternal bigbang-inflation-deflation-bigcrunch type cycles happening over and over again. Others believe that M-theory (Membrane Theory) has that these Membranes exist and when they intersect or touch a Big Bang is set off and a new universe pops into existence. Others believe there is a mind behind it all.

But, that being said, if "God" created the universe it does not tell you much about what God actually WANTS or NEEDS from his creation if anything at all. The religions of the world simply make up stories about what they THINK God wants and tell people it IS what God wants. If anything if you look at the Universe as God's handiwork you might infer that He is antithetical to life because the vast vast vast majority of the universe would not support life. Which kind of gums up the works when one translates that to a "personal God" concept.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm a cockeyed optimist, Q. I still want to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

(Is Hume male or female?)

 

[Kafka]

So if I read you correctly (and I may be wrong)...you are saying for you, the likelihood of at least one god existing is the same as the likelihood that there are no gods.

Yet you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor..."weak atheist", but "atheist."

Sounds strange to me. Not to you?

I believe I have been clear:

I fail to believe in ONE God. I fail to believe in MULTIPLE Gods. Per my estimation they are equivalent in likelihood and that likelihood (given my limited scope of information since I am a mere mortal) is zero.

 

[Kafka]

I'm a cockeyed optimist, Q. I still want to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

(Is Hume male or female?)

Hume, whom I believe was "BidenPresident" on the old site (posts very much the same style) is a troubled individual who, even when you agree with them, will still start insulting you and screaming at you or calling you a "troll".

BidenPresident used to tell people to "kill themselves" when they got really angry with someone.

If Hume = BidenPresident (and again the posting style is VERY much alike) they have some serious issues or they are playing some weird game. Usually I only engage with them when I feel up for having someone spew bile in my face and I'm willing to fight. Most of the time, though, it's best to avoid.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This is probably the "safest" definition of God. It avoids all the pitfalls of the gods we know about (Yahweh, Zeus, Odin, etc etc.) which carry with them very specific features which impinge on reality in such a way as to be "testable".

The "God-as-Creator" concept is great because before the universe existed (and "before" time itself) there is no way to know from whence it all came.

THIS I can accept as being "agnostic" about since there's no way to test or falsify or even comprehend what it means. Clearly the Universe appears to have a beginning in the big bang but what was there before the big bang? Some believe the universe could exist in a state of eternal bigbang-inflation-deflation-bigcrunch type cycles happening over and over again. Others believe that M-theory (Membrane Theory) has that these Membranes exist and when they intersect or touch a Big Bang is set off and a new universe pops into existence. Others believe there is a mind behind it all.

But, that being said, if "God" created the universe it does not tell you much about what God actually WANTS or NEEDS from his creation if anything at all. The religions of the world simply make up stories about what they THINK God wants and tell people it IS what God wants. If anything if you look at the Universe as God's handiwork you might infer that He is antithetical to life because the vast vast vast majority of the universe would not support life. Which kind of gums up the works when one translates that to a "personal God" concept.

Thank you for that response, O. The stuff about what pleases or offends any of these gods....seems to me to be nothing more than what you inferred...the deification of the wants and needs of the people who "discover" (or invent) them.

The early Hebrew people who are responsible for the "description" of the god of the Bible were a relatively unsophisticated superstitious people beset with many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies invented and worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented and worshiped an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god.

I suspect that same thing is true for all the gods ever worshiped on this planet. There may be a GOD or gods...but all the crap about what pleases or offends them seems like bullshit to me.