Apostates versus converts

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, again, no. The reason I asked the question as I did was to show that it is possible to use my "rubric" to arrive at a verdict that is predicated on imperfect knowledge with the acquiescence that there is possible error in the verdict, but still have a verdict.

but you failed.....you've managed to get three people who agree on absolutely nothing to agree you are being stupid......congratulations

 

[Kafka]

the links you provided are from other atheists who made the same mistake you did......two people making one mistake does not equal being correct......

Who defines atheists? Who defines Baptists. If you tell me you are a Baptist and you believe X, Y and Z do I get to say "No, the definition you gave was from Baptist morons and they made a mistake."?

Because that is what you are telling me.

 

[domer76]

That person claiming to be best friends with god is a symptom of bipolar people, in the manic phase.

There was some weird shit in his/her story, for sure.

 

[Kafka]

but you failed.....you've managed to get three people who agree on absolutely nothing to agree you are being stupid......congratulations

I didn't realize it was a popularity contest. Unlike you and Ross and Cypress I actually supported my position with outside references.

I guess if I had to pick between the supported position and the random screams I'd go with the supported position. But you do you.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's alarmingly circular, even for a religious person. SO only YOUR definition counts in regards to words?

it is society's definition......not mine........yours is the definition of a handful of atheists embarrassed by the fact everyone (including you) thinks they are irrational.......

 

[Ross Dolan]

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?




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.

Let's stick with the jury verdict...and you are trying to understand how I test ANY given claim presented to me in life???

C'mon!

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

I have never been selected for a jury. Half of my family are cops or detectives. When I reveal that, I am dismissed.

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.

We are talking about me, as an agnostic type. If I were selected for a jury...I would still make a verdict.

Read what I wrote.

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?

YES! Read what I actually wrote.

If you think "agnostic" means you are not able to come to a decision on everything...you are even less intelligent than I think...which is quite a feat.

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.

Absolutely...there we agree...and nothing I have said contradicts that.

Since almost half the people claim there is at least one god...and others who claim there are no gods...OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE GROUPS IS WRONG.

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.

Oh, horseshit. Your use of "atheist" is occasioned by a BELIEF you have...specifically you either believe...

...there are no gods...or...

...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

Both of those are nothing but guesses...BLIND GUESSES.

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.

You say many things. I do not misrepresent any of them. I consider some of the things you say to be pure bullshit.

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

No I am not. I simply DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS...

...AND I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GOD.

That is not a perfect balance between belief and non-belief. Read what I am writing rather than your misunderstanding of what I am writing.

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.

One...I do not hate you even slightly. I wish we could meet and have a drink (beer, wine, coffee, a soda) together. It would delight me.

You are suggesting that I "must discuss the person"...in a post where YOU are discussing the person.

You do that kind of thing often.

 

[Kafka]

it is society's definition

Please point me to "society's definition". I am genuinely curious what you are working off of.

......not mine........yours is the definition of a handful of atheists embarrassed by the fact everyone (including you) thinks they are irrational.......

How do you test the veracity of claims in your daily life? (Don't worry, I don't expect you to know, just curious if you had a system)

 

[Kafka]

I have never been selected for a jury. Half of my family are cops or detectives. When I reveal that, I am dismissed.

Lucky you. But hopefully you are familiar with how courts work.

We are talking about me, as an agnostic type. If I were selected for a jury...I would still make a verdict.

Then you understand my position. Unless you think your verdict is still an "agnostic" position in regards to their guilt.

If you think "agnostic" means you are not able to come to a decision on everything...you are even less intelligent than I think...which is quite a feat.

But one can be agnostic about any given truth claim. It IS possible per Huxley's original definition.

Oh, horseshit. Your use of "atheist" is occasioned by a BELIEF you have...specifically you either believe...

I "believe" in the same way the jury "believes" the defedant is not guilty. I have, hopefully, gathered sufficient evidence that my verdict will not be prone to being a Type I error.

Both of those are nothing but guesses...BLIND GUESSES.

Disagree. If God exists then there should be evidence for that God. I am told by various sects what that evidence should be and I look for that evidence. Upon failure to confirm that evidence I can make no other choice but to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

IF, however, one posits a God that is completely unfalsifiable then the argument changes dramatically. I see no value in a truth claim that does not have the ablity to be falsified if false.

I wish we could meet and have a drink (beer, wine, coffee, a soda) together. It would delight me.

I cannot say the same.

I find you tedious and not very bright.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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.



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).

Bullshit. I would put my manifesto-like position statement up against anything you have written so far to a university logic professor...and my position statement would blow yours out of the water.

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.

Most of the time I simply acknowledge that I do not know the stuff I do not know...and try not to dream up scenarios that sound like, "The Holy Spirit tells me so."

You ought to give that a try...because right now, that is exactly what you are doing.

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.

Do you KNOW if a GOD (as I have defined a god) exists?

Do you know if no gods (as I have defined a god) exist?

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.

Stop trying to make it sound as though your comments are of such quality that I am unable to understand them.

I am not willing to accept the "bunch of bullshit" that you inject in an effort to make "atheist" seem reasonable, mostly for the same reasons I will not accept the "The Holy Spirit revealed it to me" bullshit from the theists.

 

[Kafka]

Stop trying to make it sound as though your comments are of such quality that I am unable to understand them.

Given how you seem to miss the point by a mile every time I'm going to have to say my original hypothesis is still correct.

I am not willing to accept the "bunch of bullshit" that you inject in an effort to make "atheist" seem reasonable, mostly for the same reasons I will not accept the "The Holy Spirit revealed it to me" bullshit from the theists.

Then you don't understand what a "not guilty" verdict implies.

Do you not have any method to test truth claims in your life?

 

[domer76]

You are free to think that, but it would carry. more weight if you could express what is stupid about it. Perhaps we can figure out what you didn't understand.



Then you understand my position! Kudos.



And, again, you understand my position quite well. It is a verdict but with knowledge that it could be in error. The best that can be done is to make the best decision to eliminate the increased chance of making an erroneous choice.



It was clear you didn't understand the question if you went to "hung jury", that was NEVER part of the question.

You’re trying to converse with a moronic troll. Give it up.

No, a hung jury is not the same as agnostic. It merely means that there is no agreement among several people.

A not guilty means merely that the advocator did not meet their burden of proof. Neil DeGrasse Tyson expresses his belief that way. He keeps looking for evidence to meet his level for proof, but has yet to see it. I guess one could then say, “I’m not 100% sure, but it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.”

For me and the Christian god, there is no doubt. A deity with those attributes does not exist.

 

[Hume]

I would put my manifesto-like position statement up against anything you have written so far to a university logic professor...and my position statement would blow yours out of the water.

Your statement is something a college freshman might write.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Lucky you. But hopefully you are familiar with how courts work.

I am familiar with how courts work. I've won 3 small claims court suits...and I've watched Suits...so obviously I know how they work.

Then you understand my position. Unless you think your verdict is still an "agnostic" position in regards to their guilt.

Read what I fucking said. Then get back to me.

But one can be agnostic about any given truth claim. It IS possible per Huxley's original definition.


I "believe" in the same way the jury "believes" the defedant is not guilty. I have, hopefully, gathered sufficient evidence that my verdict will not be prone to being a Type I error.

I do not do "believing" when it comes to questions about the REALITY of existence.

I've already given you the reason why in my position statement.

Disagree. If God exists then there should be evidence for that God. I am told by various sects what that evidence should be and I look for that evidence. Upon failure to confirm that evidence I can make no other choice but to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

IF, however, one posits a God that is completely unfalsifiable then the argument changes dramatically. I see no value in a truth claim that does not have the ablity to be falsified if false.

You see no UNAMBIGUOUS evidence of the GOD, should one exist.'

IF such a GOD exists, though, every goddam thing you see, hear, feel, or smell...IS EVIDENCE OF THAT GOD.

We just do not know if such a God exists.

I cannot say the same.

I find you tedious and not very bright.

No problem.

 

[Kafka]

I do not do "believing" when it comes to questions about the REALITY of existence.

So there are no truth claims you have heard that you don't know with perfect certainty are true or false? That's amazing.

You cannot expect me to believe that.

 

[Hume]

Problem with agnostics is they confuse their preference with a rational argument. Like someone saying chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
At this level, saying, "I am agnostic," is like saying, "I like chocolate ice cream."

Agnostics never give reasons and merely state their belief like an opinion about ice cream.

 

[Kafka]

For me and the Christian god, there is no doubt. A deity with those attributes does not exist.

On the whole I generally agree with the statement, but my form of atheism is the same way I try to treat all truth claims IRL.

The "tests" I do to test against the "No God" null hypothesis are very much in line with your statement about "a diety with those attributes". I fail to find sufficient evidence. It could be, though, that I am incorrect or missing something quite key. Which is why I prefer the more logically robust position of weak atheism.

I fear that some on here like @Cypress or @Ross Dolan wish to debate the existence or lack of existence of some ineffible, perfectly unknowable being which is dangerously close to "unfalsifiable" for my tastes. As such it is easy for them to be perfectly agnostic as there is no value to the truth claim they are testing at that point.

Of course no one can know something that cannot be known. But if something can be known, even hypothetically, it is liable to be testable. And for most people their conception of God has very real aspects rather than being a fuzzy unfalsifiable meaningless concept.

 

[Kafka]

Problem with agnostics is they confuse their preference with a rational argument. Like someone saying chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
At this level, saying, "I am agnostic," is like saying, "I like chocolate ice cream."

Agnostics never give reasons and merely state their belief like an opinion about ice cream.

Disagree. Agnostics are taking a perfectly balanced approach between belief and lack of belief. They fail to have sufficient evidence to even make a decision. That's fine. It well and truly is. One can be agnostic on any truth claim if one feels there is no way to resolve it. It is admirable to have no opinion on something unless one can be absolutely certain. The only problem is that it isn't how anyone approaches real life other than in regards to the question of God. Which as been my point all along.

For atheists such as myself the truth claims CAN be tested, if imperfectly, and if found to be insufficient I can make my verdict exactly as the jury in a court case does. The evidentiary bar may be sui generis and somewhat arbitrary but I still make the verdict to fail to reject the null hypothesis with the end result being atheism.

Both positions are perfectly reasonable and perfectly rational.

 

[domer76]

Problem with agnostics is they confuse their preference with a rational argument. Like someone saying chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
At this level, saying, "I am agnostic," is like saying, "I like chocolate ice cream."

Agnostics never give reasons and merely state their belief like an opinion about ice cream.

Naw, an agnostic, like any true scientist, is not afraid to say “I don’t know.” That would be an absurd answer to the best flavor question.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Given how you seem to miss the point by a mile every time I'm going to have to say my original hypothesis is still correct.

It isn't, but I understand the need you have to consider others to be beneath you. I get a kick out of it, actually.

Then you don't understand what a "not guilty" verdict implies.

I understand what a not-guilty verdict implies. Not sure why you think I do not, but I suspect it has a lot to do with what I said up above.

Do you not have any method to test truth claims in your life?

If I somehow can determine the truth of a claim...I consider it true.

If I somehow can determine the not-true claim of a supposed truth...I consider it not-true.

If I cannot determine it either way, I simply acknowledge that I do not know.

 

[Hume]

Naw, an agnostic, like any true scientist, is not afraid to say “I don’t know.” That would be an absurd answer to the best flavor question.

That is just willed ignorance.