Al Gore and Atheists
- Thread starter klaatu
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
Nope, I came up with that before King started writing.
I don't care much for Kings works. not read any of them, tried a couple but folded them up. I did watch one movie of his though, where the pacman type of creatures were weting up time, airplanes and such.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you.
They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.
But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.
Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....
They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.
But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.
Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....
Last edited:
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
And their personal experience, had it happened to you, might have caused even you to believe, you may never know...
I am unlikely to attribute psychosomatic emotions to be the work of some transcendental entity on the basis of the emotions alone.
This would be what I call 'attribution syndrome' and is an ancient affliction amongst humanity.
Man has constantly attributed that that is complex or difficult to understand to the work of the transcendental. From the actions of the seas in ancient Greek times to the mechanisms of the mind and origins of life today.
Attribution is simpler than attempting to work out such complex things.
I am unlikely to attribute psychosomatic emotions to be the work of some transcendental entity on the basis of the emotions alone.
This would be what I call 'attribution syndrome' and is an ancient affliction amongst humanity.
Man has constantly attributed that that is complex or difficult to understand to the work of the transcendental. From the actions of the seas in ancient Greek times to the mechanisms of the mind and origins of life today.
Attribution is simpler than attempting to work out such complex things.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
If someday somebody proves your existence, I'll believe with a certainty that you exist.
How would anyone prove her existence?
Nothing is proved. Not even gravity. I could drop a ball a thousand times and its mass be attracted to the mass of the Earth and this would be pretty convincing but I will never know what happens the next time.
A million people could agree that she exists, but we never will know if they are lying or being decieved etc etc
At the base of all deductive reason is induction....
Hume did a lot of good work on this subject....
How would anyone prove her existence?
Nothing is proved. Not even gravity. I could drop a ball a thousand times and its mass be attracted to the mass of the Earth and this would be pretty convincing but I will never know what happens the next time.
A million people could agree that she exists, but we never will know if they are lying or being decieved etc etc
At the base of all deductive reason is induction....
Hume did a lot of good work on this subject....
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Yes, desh we all exist or at least think we do, which amounts to the same thing.
Cogito ergo sum again....
Very dodgy philosophising by Descartes. Works from the premise that that that thinks, exists.
Cogito ergo cogito is more realistic.
Not a massive fan of Descartes, his mind/body dualism still permeates modern thinking like a bad stench.....
Cogito ergo sum again....
Very dodgy philosophising by Descartes. Works from the premise that that that thinks, exists.
Cogito ergo cogito is more realistic.
Not a massive fan of Descartes, his mind/body dualism still permeates modern thinking like a bad stench.....
That was my point, AOI. She's been up talking about proving one thing or another...
Once again you set your limits on others. Their beliefs are enough for them. They are not enough for you. This doesn't mean that they are wrong and that you are right, especially in a realm where evidence is a rarity in either direction.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
#89 Today, 08:08 AM
Damocles
WTF??? Join Date: Jul 2006
Userid: 2
Location: Colorado
My location
Posts: 1,389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnyOldIron
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you.
They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.
But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.
Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....
Once again you set your limits on others. Their beliefs are enough for them. They are not enough for you. This doesn't mean that they are wrong and that you are right, especially in a realm where evidence is a rarity in either direction.
It is enough for them (though IMO that is a cop-out...intellectual laziness)
But if they wish to claim some element of reality in their assertions, if they enter in philosophical debate, simply giving an emotional feeling does suffice...
Damocles
WTF??? Join Date: Jul 2006
Userid: 2
Location: Colorado
My location
Posts: 1,389
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnyOldIron
LOL. Like I said, I laugh at the "Your personal experience isn't enough for YOU to believe!" argument. They decide what is enough for them, not you.
They can believe whatever they like, that the world is supported by turtles for all I care.
But when they insist that their beliefs are reality, or put them into the realm of philosophical debate, simply believing something is not enough.
Also beliefs aren't necessarily an experience. Psychosomatic symptoms attributed as 'actions of the supernatural'....
Once again you set your limits on others. Their beliefs are enough for them. They are not enough for you. This doesn't mean that they are wrong and that you are right, especially in a realm where evidence is a rarity in either direction.
It is enough for them (though IMO that is a cop-out...intellectual laziness)
But if they wish to claim some element of reality in their assertions, if they enter in philosophical debate, simply giving an emotional feeling does suffice...
And they would believe that not listening to your Pathos at all is a cop-out... They view the world differently than do you.
Does? Asserting personal experience in a statement of belief is a simple statement. The whole is it enough argument is baseless. It has already been shown that "enough" is subjective as well as ill defined. Pretending that Logos explains away such a creature is equally subjective and based in fallacy.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
And they would believe that not listening to your Pathos at all is a cop-out... They view the world differently than do you.
Stating that something is intellectual laziness isn't pathos, it bears no emotional content, nor does it appeal to the emotions.
Does? Asserting personal experience in a statement of belief is a simple statement. The whole is it enough argument is baseless. It has already been shown that "enough" is subjective as well as ill defined. Pretending that Logos explains away such a creature is equally subjective and based in fallacy.
'Enough'?
If someone enters a philosophical debate with an assertion, and then backs that up with little more than 'I feel it is so', then that is a considerably weaker argument than one backed up with deduction.
Logic isn't a physical or material construct, it deals with the metaphysical as well as it deals with the physical.
Simply stating 'I don't need to support my argument, I simply feel it is true!' doesn't suffice.
Even discussions on the transcendental (part of the metaphysical) can be tested by logic.
Stating that the transcendental is beyond our comprehension'is a cop-out, if it was beyond our comprehension how would it's advocates know about it?
Stating that something is intellectual laziness isn't pathos, it bears no emotional content, nor does it appeal to the emotions.
Does? Asserting personal experience in a statement of belief is a simple statement. The whole is it enough argument is baseless. It has already been shown that "enough" is subjective as well as ill defined. Pretending that Logos explains away such a creature is equally subjective and based in fallacy.
'Enough'?
If someone enters a philosophical debate with an assertion, and then backs that up with little more than 'I feel it is so', then that is a considerably weaker argument than one backed up with deduction.
Logic isn't a physical or material construct, it deals with the metaphysical as well as it deals with the physical.
Simply stating 'I don't need to support my argument, I simply feel it is true!' doesn't suffice.
Even discussions on the transcendental (part of the metaphysical) can be tested by logic.
Stating that the transcendental is beyond our comprehension'is a cop-out, if it was beyond our comprehension how would it's advocates know about it?
Last edited:
I didn't say that your statement was pathos, I said that they would think less of you for ignoring Pathos because they view the world differently than do you.
Unless specifically speaking on a particularly subjective subject such as a Supernatural being. Logos and Pathos have equal stance in such a discussion as you are speaking of the "magical" or that which is beyond Logic and Natural Law... It is ridiculous to deny that such a being could not fit within such strictures and attempt to take a stance that your view is "better" than another on such a subject. You give personal weight to one or the other, but to dismiss what they say as "less" than what you say is baseless and logical fallacy.
Except when the subject does not follow the rules of either... The subject is a Supernatural being that can do what they will without regard to the stricture of logic. It is simplistic to attempt to make them fit within your required framework.... That is the whole of it, each side of that coin is equally subjective and has an equal bearing on "proof" of a subject that specifically can never be proven or even substantiated other than on a personal level. One can choose to believe or not, for whatever reasons they have. Stating that one is "better" than the other because you are more comfortable with it doesn't make it so.
Nor does saying, "I can't support the existence of something, therefore it doesn't"....
Which is what we are doing here. Testing the "magical" though is singularly foolish. Is it logical a Supernatural being of unlimited power could hide from you and want you to believe in it on Faith alone? Of course it is. Stating that their belief isn't "enough" in a discussion where the being can be defines specifically by that belief is logical fallacy.
Stating that it could not be beyond our comprehension is a cop-out. It is a weakness in your argument. Attempting to say that it must fit within a framework you are comfortable with, that you can hold, is simply logical fallacy when the Being you discuss can actually be defined by the statements you wish to dismiss.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I didn't say that your statement was pathos, I said that they would think less of you for ignoring Pathos because they view the world differently than do you.
That they think less of me is irrelevant.
What is is that pathos and emotions have demonstrated themselves poor and misleading throughout the history of epistemology. It is also unverifiable.
Unless specifically speaking on a particularly subjective subject such as a Supernatural being. Logos and Pathos have equal stance in such a discussion as you are speaking of the "magical" or that which is beyond Logic and Natural Law... It is ridiculous to deny that such a being could not fit within such strictures and attempt to take a stance that your view is "better" than another on such a subject. You give personal weight to one or the other, but to dismiss what they say as "less" than what you say is baseless and logical fallacy.
Nothing is beyond logic, as I stated logic can deal with the metaphysical as well as it does the physical.
Logic and pathos don't have equal stances. If someone is claiming something is reality it isn't a valid argument to base that simply on an emotional feeling.
That isn't saying that the possibility isn't there or that it negates the existence, just that the argument they are using is unsubstantiated and weak.
My initial argument was that, with many who claim that the transcendental exists, when you Socratically boil their arguments down, they are based on nothing more substantial than an emotional feeling.
If someone said to you that they believed that characters on TV were actually little people inside the TV box, the first question you would ask is 'Why do you think that'. If they substantiate that claim, then it is strong. It doesn't mean they are absolutely right, but that their argument is strong. If they simply say that that is what they feel, then their argument is weak. This doesn't negate the possibility that it is true, but that their argument is weak.
Except when the subject does not follow the rules of either... The subject is a Supernatural being that can do what they will without regard to the stricture of logic. It is simplistic to attempt to make them fit within your required framework.... That is the whole of it, each side of that coin is equally subjective and has an equal bearing on "proof" of a subject that specifically can never be proven or even substantiated other than on a personal level. One can choose to believe or not, for whatever reasons they have. Stating that one is "better" than the other because you are more comfortable with it doesn't make it so.
This is a different argument. The argument that an entity (that we claim knowledge of) is beyond human comprehension is weak because it leads to the question 'If we claim to have knowledge of that that is unknowable...how do we have the knowledge?'
Stating that it could not be beyond our comprehension is a cop-out. It is a weakness in your argument. Attempting to say that it must fit within a framework you are comfortable with, that you can hold, is simply logical fallacy when the Being you discuss can actually be defined by the statements you wish to dismiss.
See my above....
That they think less of me is irrelevant.
What is is that pathos and emotions have demonstrated themselves poor and misleading throughout the history of epistemology. It is also unverifiable.
Unless specifically speaking on a particularly subjective subject such as a Supernatural being. Logos and Pathos have equal stance in such a discussion as you are speaking of the "magical" or that which is beyond Logic and Natural Law... It is ridiculous to deny that such a being could not fit within such strictures and attempt to take a stance that your view is "better" than another on such a subject. You give personal weight to one or the other, but to dismiss what they say as "less" than what you say is baseless and logical fallacy.
Nothing is beyond logic, as I stated logic can deal with the metaphysical as well as it does the physical.
Logic and pathos don't have equal stances. If someone is claiming something is reality it isn't a valid argument to base that simply on an emotional feeling.
That isn't saying that the possibility isn't there or that it negates the existence, just that the argument they are using is unsubstantiated and weak.
My initial argument was that, with many who claim that the transcendental exists, when you Socratically boil their arguments down, they are based on nothing more substantial than an emotional feeling.
If someone said to you that they believed that characters on TV were actually little people inside the TV box, the first question you would ask is 'Why do you think that'. If they substantiate that claim, then it is strong. It doesn't mean they are absolutely right, but that their argument is strong. If they simply say that that is what they feel, then their argument is weak. This doesn't negate the possibility that it is true, but that their argument is weak.
Except when the subject does not follow the rules of either... The subject is a Supernatural being that can do what they will without regard to the stricture of logic. It is simplistic to attempt to make them fit within your required framework.... That is the whole of it, each side of that coin is equally subjective and has an equal bearing on "proof" of a subject that specifically can never be proven or even substantiated other than on a personal level. One can choose to believe or not, for whatever reasons they have. Stating that one is "better" than the other because you are more comfortable with it doesn't make it so.
This is a different argument. The argument that an entity (that we claim knowledge of) is beyond human comprehension is weak because it leads to the question 'If we claim to have knowledge of that that is unknowable...how do we have the knowledge?'
Stating that it could not be beyond our comprehension is a cop-out. It is a weakness in your argument. Attempting to say that it must fit within a framework you are comfortable with, that you can hold, is simply logical fallacy when the Being you discuss can actually be defined by the statements you wish to dismiss.
See my above....
Last edited:
Not it isn't, it is the argument I have been making from the jump here...
First, we do not claim knowledge of this entity. The idea is presented, "Could this Entity exist? And if it did what are the limitations?"
There is no claim of knowledge, this is a discussion of possibility not of certainty.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
There is no claim of knowledge, this is a discussion of possibility not of certainty.
If there is discussion of possibility then we have some knowledge of the entity.
If the entity is unknowable, how did the notion come into human knowledge?
If there is discussion of possibility then we have some knowledge of the entity.
If the entity is unknowable, how did the notion come into human knowledge?
Rubbish. There is no "knowledge" when speaking of something on only the level of possibility.
We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.
The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.
Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...
Such as...
Such as:
1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?
Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.
1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?
Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.
The idea that because we can discuss the possibility of a thing means we have "knowledge" of it is not a logical assertion.
We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.
We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Rubbish. There is no "knowledge" when speaking of something on only the level of possibility.
Of course there is. There has to be points of reference.
People talk about deities being 'unknowable', yet we have knowledge of them...
We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.
But we must have points of reference. If a deity, for example, is outside the sphere of human understanding or perception....where did the knowledge of the diety come from?
In most cases, it is nothing more than anthropomorphic attribution of natural phenomenon......
The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.
But you must have points of reference to be curious of...
Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...
Such as...
1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?
Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.
Aprioiri metaphysics. We could sit and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, but that is irrelevant.
What we are discussing is.. If something that we claim to have knowledge of (god/angels etc) is unknowable by human capabilities the question still stands... how did we obtain that knowledge?
We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.
Our knowledge of these things holds that they are fictional, that they are creations reflecting the human imagination. The characters are reflections of ourselves...anthropomorphising...
Are you claiming that this transposes to the transcendental, that the transcendental is a figment of the human imagination, mere anthropomorphising? If so, I agree.
But to claim that something actually exists, to then claim that that entity is beyond all human reference, the question lies... what makes you think it exists. If it is beyond all human reference how does the believer know?
Of course there is. There has to be points of reference.
People talk about deities being 'unknowable', yet we have knowledge of them...
We ask questions, "Could it be possible if...?" then answer the question. "IF this Entity had this then..." None of that claims knowledge, all it ever claims is possibility.
But we must have points of reference. If a deity, for example, is outside the sphere of human understanding or perception....where did the knowledge of the diety come from?
In most cases, it is nothing more than anthropomorphic attribution of natural phenomenon......
The notion comes into human interest because of curiosity.
But you must have points of reference to be curious of...
Now, when speaking of specific ones, you still work inside the realm of possibility...
Such as...
1. If God were All Powerful (Omnipotent) and Omniscient as it states in this text here... Would it be possible for him to spend 7 days but make it seem like billions of years in the creation of this place?
Or other questions of such. The limit is imagination, not of knowledge.
Aprioiri metaphysics. We could sit and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, but that is irrelevant.
What we are discussing is.. If something that we claim to have knowledge of (god/angels etc) is unknowable by human capabilities the question still stands... how did we obtain that knowledge?
We may discuss such things as the Great Green Arkleseizure who created the Universe by a sneeze and whether we should fear the Coming of the Handkerchief... But that doesn't mean we have "knowledge" of such.
Our knowledge of these things holds that they are fictional, that they are creations reflecting the human imagination. The characters are reflections of ourselves...anthropomorphising...
Are you claiming that this transposes to the transcendental, that the transcendental is a figment of the human imagination, mere anthropomorphising? If so, I agree.
But to claim that something actually exists, to then claim that that entity is beyond all human reference, the question lies... what makes you think it exists. If it is beyond all human reference how does the believer know?
Last edited: