Apostates versus converts

[Margot]

This is a new exegesis. Kudos on coming up with that one.

A tiny part of a 48 year Epiphany !

 

[Kafka]

A tiny part of a 48 year Epiphany !

Imagination is a wonderful aspect of our amazing brains.

 

[Margot]

Imagination is a wonderful aspect of our amazing brains.

I wouldn't know,my brain was a victim of the 70's!

 

[Ross Dolan]

If you are having difficulty with this topic I suggest this as a starting point. It explains how hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis etc. are used in, for example, a court of law.

8. Hypothesis Testing 1

I am having no difficulty at all. I am merely responding to your almost constant demeaning of people who post responses to you. You give lectures on how people should respond...and do it in posts that drip of the things you are condemning. And your need to tell almost anyone who disagrees with you that they are lacking in the ability to understand your arguments is laughable.

You are acting like a jerk. Until I find some reason to suppose I am wrong, I am treating you as though you ARE a jerk.

Okay?

 

[Ross Dolan]

You lump all forms of atheism in here and make a mistake.

Atheists such as my self merely use the same logic as a court trial. No one would say a "not guilty verdict" is an "agnostic" position. The person will be set free. That's a decision.

But the route to that decision goes through "hypothesis testing" which is how science makes decisions. The key being that at all points it is recognized that the decision could be in error and the only thing one can possibly do is attempt to minimize that error. Usually people seek to minimize a "false positive" (ie Type I error).

This is a rational approach to atheism. It posits no perfect knowledge nor does it posit perfect certainty. That would be absurd. But, by the same token, it is not merely a "I don't know". Just as the jury verdict is not an agnostic position on the facts of the case as presented.

Then you ought to STATE your position with a degree of specificity rather than use a descriptor that is so muddled, no one with an ounce of intelligence would do so.

State your position in manifesto format...and be done with the "atheist" nonsense. If you think that using "atheist" makes you look especially intelligent or scientific or brave...THINK AGAIN, because it doesn't.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Hume]

Then you ought to STATE your position with a degree of specificity rather than use a descriptor that is so muddled, no one with an ounce of intelligence would do so.

State your position in manifesto format...and be done with the "atheist" nonsense. If you think that using "atheist" makes you look especially intelligent or scientific or brave...THINK AGAIN, because it doesn't.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Same for people calling themselves agnostic. They never define what they mean.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Actually my position is crystal clear. I even provided you with a link to how this approach is used in the justice system.

Surely you would agree that a "not guilty" verdict is NOT an agnostic position about the question of guilt, correct? Yet it is an imperfect decision since all human decisions on the merits of a case are based on imperfect knowledge.

We do the best we can.

But a not guilty verdict is NOT an agnostic position.


Just because I know more than you about a specific topic doesn't mean I'm "promoting myself" anymore than you promote yourself all the time on here.

I seem often to want to warn you not to damage your arm while patting yourself on the back as often as you do.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hume, right now I'm the ONLY person on this thread who is providing detailed, technical and philosophically robust support for my positions. You call that trolling but then all you ever do is scream insults at people.

Do better.

Like this, Obtenebrator.

Yo are not the ONLY person doing anything, much less the things for which you offer your considerable congratulations.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Same for people calling themselves agnostic. They never define what they mean.

Horse shit. I've offered a detailed definition of what I mean...and done it often.


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(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.)

 

[Margot]

Imagination is a wonderful aspect of our amazing brains.

That doesn't explain the paper trail! That's a problem with that spin!

 

[Hume]

Horse shit. I've offered a detailed definition of what I mean...and done it often.


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(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.)

87th time you posted that.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am fascinated that none of the agnostics on this forum can answer a simple question: is a "not guilty" verdict in a court of law an agnostic position with regards to the person's guilt or lack thereof?

It is for me.

Here is my position again:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(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.)

So allow me to adapt it:

I do not know if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

I see no reason to suspect that they have to be guilty

I see no reason to suspect that they cannot be guilty.

I am charged with assessing the evidence presented by the state to determine if the person is guilty to a sufficient, specified degree...in which case I must find them guilty. If my assessment is that the state did not do that, I must find them not-guilty.

I know goddam well that no matter what that asshole, Obtenebrator, says...I will not know with certainty. Therefore, attempting to do the duty with which I am charged should be sufficient, even though I clearly KNOW that I cannot KNOW for certain if the person did the deed with which they were charged or not.

 

[Kafka]

I am having no difficulty at all. I am merely responding to your almost constant demeaning of people who post responses to you. You give lectures on how people should respond...and do it in posts that drip of the things you are condemning. And your need to tell almost anyone who disagrees with you that they are lacking in the ability to understand your arguments is laughable.

You are acting like a jerk. Until I find some reason to suppose I am wrong, I am treating you as though you ARE a jerk.

Okay?

I am being a jerk because I'm trying to explain to you my position? That's a pretty low bar. But I can understand your anger. You are faced with an explanation you are unfamiliar with and you would much rather make this debate about me personally.

Try re-reading what I wrote and discuss the topic.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Let me ask you a simple question: do you think a "not guilty" verdict in a courtroom is an "agnostic" position in regards to the guilt of the defendant?

I think that a guilty verdict is different than a hung jury

 

[Kafka]

It is for me.

So if you were on a jury you would say the verdict you returned was one of pure ignorance of whether the person was guilty or not guilty?

Here is my position again:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;

Let's stick with the jury verdict for a change. I understand you are agnostic about God. I'm just trying to understand how you test ANY given claim presented to you in life.

So allow me to adapt it:

I do not know if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

I see no reason to suspect that they have to be guilty

I see no reason to suspect that they cannot be guilty.

OK, fair enough about YOU, personally. Have you tried this out in any given jury you have served on? "No vote".

But hopefully you understand the BROADER question. Most jurors are unlike you and will make a decision based on the evidence provided. That decision will be as hampered by imperfect knowledge for them as it is for you. But they will still make a verdict.

My point is: that verdict is an actual decision (eg "not guilty") which means the defendant WILL go free. Do you believe that that decision is "agnostic" in regards to the guilt of the defendant?

Because it is most assuredly NOT. It IS, as you have suggested, liable to being in error. The best ANY of us can do is to acknowledge that that error exists and hope to eliminate as much of that error as is humanly possible to avoid making an wrong decision.

That is my atheism. I have failed to reject the null of the proposed claim. "No God". I could be in error, just as the jury could be, but it would wrong to say my position is "agnostic". I am clearly making a decision. Albeit with full understanding that it could be wrong.

I know goddam well that no matter what that asshole, Obtenebrator, says...I will not know with certainty.

And obtenebrator has been consistently honest that none of these decisions is made with perfect knowledge. Please do not misrepresent what I have plainly said repeatedly.

Therefore, attempting to do the duty with which I am charged should be sufficient, even though I clearly KNOW that I cannot KNOW for certain if the person did the deed with which they were charged or not.

But you are unwilling to make any decisions about the claim of God's existence. You are perfectly balanced between belief and non-belief.

That's fair enough. I have always granted you are free to be agnostic as you please. I am merely trying to address your non-stop attacks on my position by explaining how. my position is one you already understand fully. You just hate me so much you can't discuss the point. Like Cypress you must discuss the person.

 

[Kafka]

I think that a guilty verdict is different than a hung jury

So you understand the difference between my atheism and agnosticism.

 

[Kafka]

I seem often to want to warn you not to damage your arm while patting yourself on the back as often as you do.

Just because I know a topic you do not yet know doesn't make me superior. You are able to learn. It will,however, require you to actually read what has been posted and not just jump on here to attack.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So you understand the difference between my atheism and agnosticism.

yes.....you're a hung jury who thinks he just sent Trump to prison.....

 

[Kafka]

Then you ought to STATE your position with a degree of specificity

I have, to a painful degree.

I have failed to reject the null hypothesis that there is no god. I can do no better. Neither can anyone.

rather than use a descriptor that is so muddled, no one with an ounce of intelligence would do so.

Except what I've done is actually explain the full rubric by which I test all claims consistently in my life (or at least endeavor to).

I honestly don't see why this upsets you so. You, on the other hand, have yet to tell me how you test claims in a general fashion.

State your position in manifesto format.

I don't need a manifesto. I have a simple, straightforward, fully-accepted means of assessing claims in my world. One that is robust and how science and jurisprudence is done.

..and be done with the "atheist" nonsense. If you think that using "atheist" makes you look especially intelligent or scientific or brave...THINK AGAIN, because it doesn't.

If you insist on not reading my posts or you are unable to understand them I suppose I can grasp what your point is here, but if you were to actually read what I wrote (feel free to ask any questions you don't understand) then you will understand my position in full.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Just because I know a topic you do not yet know doesn't make me superior. You are able to learn. It will,however, require you to actually read what has been posted and not just jump on here to attack.

more particularly, knowing LESS about a subject than the rest of us doesn't make you superior......