Atheism ( not a bad thing)
- Thread starter fahrenheit 451
- Start date
Pete said:
I just went to the crux of the matter.
To answer your question with a question, doesn't a theist or strong atheist find themselves in one of the scenarios you describe?
I am not currently in that position, but I have been. People have told me "you see, that's evidence of god". When they did I found myself presented with evidence of god right? As such, my argument is applicable. Rationally speaking, it's applicable to anyone. Thus:
Why don't the theists consider the possibility that god is aliens? Perhaps they do and reject it, which would take you back to lack of belief. Hehe.
More importantly, when it comes to matters of the supernatural, you can't be sure of what you saw... so it's irrational to make an non-tentative assertion about it. If it's tentative, it's agnostic.
That's not to say that "spiritual" experiences should be discounted, just that the contents can't be asserted as factual.
Last edited:
Not if their position is not based on evidence.
Sure.
But was God/supertechnology/Compromised perception the *only* possible explanation for that evidence?
If not, then your argument is not necessary. It seems rational to prefer a visible, testable explanation over an invisible and untestable one.
Pete said:
Like what? Do you think the evidence should hold the criteria "i can show you too" if it's to be allowed an inkling of credibility? If you can't present your evidence to someone else then it's not much good is it? I mean you can believe what you want to believe if you choose to, but the choice to do so is by the nature of the scenario irrational. How can you discern it from mental disease?
Not at all. The point is that you can't tell one from another. There are any number of explanations that you can't prove is more likely than any other.
The argument was necessary to establish the point that the solution is unknowable. It's because you can't tell one from another. God is aliens is the matrix is every other solution regarding a phenomenon you can't rationally confirm.
The concept of god is unknowable by its very definition. By defining itself in such majesty, it slips beyond the reach of confirmation.
Exactly. I thought that was what I demonstrated.
wesmorris said:
My whole point is that your argument is not aimed at that demonstration... your argument appears to be in support of agnosticism in the face of blatant miracles.
You said:
My understanding of your words:
If you perceive evidence which appears to be prima facie evidence of God, then you shouldn't necessarily believe it, because it might really be super-technology, or your senses might be deceiving you.
The problem is that it's based on the clause If you perceive evidence which appears to be prima facie evidence of God, which doesn't apply to most of us.
Pete said:
You said "If you perceive evidence which appears to be prima facie evidence of God". Wouldn't you have to perceive such evidence in order to make the justified claim...? Again, if you don't make the claim, then you lack belief and thus weak atheism. If you do make the claim, then you must have perceived prima facie evidence in order to support it (even to yourself).
"belief has no purpose"
Now I have to argue about that!
Belief has a number of practical applications. I do believe for instance that the key application of theism is tribal bonding. It's like a mental tattoo. You can tell the crips from the bloods, or the ostragoths from the doodalias by their allegiance to their "abstract colors" so to speak. There are a whole bunch of other trible benefits from such a believe system... best summarized in my opinion by "bonding". Powerful stuff.
Now I have to argue about that!
Belief has a number of practical applications. I do believe for instance that the key application of theism is tribal bonding. It's like a mental tattoo. You can tell the crips from the bloods, or the ostragoths from the doodalias by their allegiance to their "abstract colors" so to speak. There are a whole bunch of other trible benefits from such a believe system... best summarized in my opinion by "bonding". Powerful stuff.
You are, once again, comitting a fallacy......wesmorris said:
"Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. "
I'm sorry I'm not as perfect and wise as you are... :bugeye:
Well... at least I can admit that I don't know everything....
Well... for the sake of finding the truth, it would be very useful if you could answer this question:
"What does the essence of "technology" has in common with the essence of "God"?"
You said:
Since you don't want to make this clear, I'm going to assume that you actually meant what you wrote...wesmorris said:
Ok. If you can't distinguish a sufficiently advanced technology from a "god", then that imples that the essence of "god" is equal to the essence of "technology" (reminding that "essence" means the unique attribute of something). Or, at least, that their attributes are so similar that you cannot reach the essence. So the very thing that define god would also define technology. So you are implying that god=technology? Or you are implying that their attributes are so similar that you cannot distinguish them? You see... if that is actually true, then knowing the essence of "god" and the essence of "technology" would resolve the issue, because since the essence is unique, you would be able to distinguish "god" from "technology", don't you agree?
So... to resolve your first premise, that "you can't distinquish a sufficiently advanced technology from a "god", please tell me what do you think is the essence of "god" and the essence of "technology, so that we can resolve the issue.
A "simple" sentence like that can be very complex if analyzed in detail. If you can't distiguish "god" from "technology" that at least implies that they have similar attributes. All that you need to do to distinguish "god" from technology is to find what is unique on "god" and unique on "technology", what defines them as they are. This is far from a simple conversation.
TruthSeeker said:
Nor are you apparently interested or capable of rectifying that condition.
That's a first from you as far as I know. In fact, I think your admission is a lie. I think you do think you know everything... you may not be able to admit it to yourself but IMO, it's quite apparent in you behavior.
Regarding your "fallacy" statement, you have to be in engaged in a conversation for your logic to be applicable. Note that I was declining your proposition to engage you because I find you simply incapable of coherent thought.
Besides, attacking the person is quite fair is that person commits offenses that render the process of the debate non-functional from the beginning. I have seen enough of your posts and tried enough times to know that you're a moron. You have earned the label. Calling a spade a spade is not fallacious. That you would label it as such is to me, simply more evidence of the condition.
"essence"? What is "the essence of technology" T? Perhaps you could explain.
The fact is, you don't understand what I've attempted to communicate. I cannot communicate it any more clearly. As such and as I asserted clearly earlier - debating you is less than pointless. I hope you feel the same way about me so you'll stop responding to things I write.Oh, and I find it laughable that you claim to be doing anything for the sake of "finding truth". I'm unconvinced you're capable to recognize it when it's presented to you.
Wow. What a guy. Why would you not assume that from the beginning? I don't see any typos or particularly complicated ideas there. Thanks for giving me the benefit of eventually assuming I mean what I said.
Man you are annoying.No it doesn't. You can't distinguish the essence of something you don't know about. Thanks for playing.
?
No. I'm stating directly that if I had enough tech advancement over you, I could convince you I am god. I'm stating that you couldn't distinguish from the two. Did you read my comments to Pete?
No, I'm stating directly that I could convince you I'm a god if I had enough tech. advance over you.
How to you propose to accurately know the "essence" of something beyond your comprehension? You've in "essence" just said "but what if I know what I can't know?". Again, thanks for playing.
So... to resolve your first premise, that "you can't distinquish a sufficiently advanced technology from a "god", please tell me what do you think is the essence of "god" and the essence of "technology, so that we can resolve the issue.
That is nonsense. It's "a sufficiently advanced" technology. Your concern with "essence" is simply misguided.
- or by a fool.
Yes, they share the attribute that they could both stymie you regarding a rational explanation.
Well that clears it right up then!
I wonder if you see the folly of your claim? I doubt it.It's complicated to pointlessness by your inability to comprehend the issues being presented. That is not a fallacious accusation, it's a fact that you have demonstrated clearly.
I don't care about what others think about me anyways. That's not what I want to discuss.wesmorris said:
That's not the first time I said that. Besides, it is quite apparent in your behavior that you think that you are the greatest person in the world...
Oh! Guess what? We are engaged in a conversation! Do you feel enlightened already?
Or you are just rationalizing because you feel that I'm threatening your all-knowing self-concept. You have to use defense mechanisms to protect yourself........
Besides, it is not hard to find a coherent thought in my posts. Or do you think that was not coherent?
Which offenses? How is the debate non-functional? All that you want to do is to attack me, rather then my position. Wouldn't that be non-functional itself?
Not when you have a biased perspective. Aside from that, calling a spade a spade is different from calling something good or someone a moron. A spade can only be defined as a spade. It is not a quality. But "good" and "moron" cannot be discussed that way since there's no standard measure for those things.
Innovation. Better efficiency...
Doesn't really have anything to do with God...
It is not that I don't understand - it is that I can't believe you actually mean what you say.
Oh. So now you say I should accept what I'm told?
Maybe I don't assume it from the beginning because it is such a childish idea.
If you don't know about, then how you can discuss it? Wouldn't that be foolish? Ok. Say we don't know about god. But wouldn't we need to assume things in order to discuss?
You claim you don't know about God.
How can you have a discussion without knowing what you are talking about?
Exactly...
Great! That's the first step. You now clarified yourself. Now we can finally discuss your first premise!
Now I ask you, why would you be able to convince me? What is in your tech advancement that makes me think you are a god? give me an example or something...
Ok. How would you do that?
If it is beyond your comprehension, how can you discuss about it? Why are you trying to discuss about God if you, yourself, don't know about Him?
How do you know that you can't know? If you know you can't know why do you even bother to try to know? If you try to know, then you are obviously interesting in knowing something you can't know. Well. Maybe you can know it. Just because you haven't been able to understand it, doesn't mean you will never be able to.
My pleasure.
How should it be? If you are comparing “god” with “technology” they must have something in common. If they are not essentially common, then you premise is false – even if they have similar attributes. If they have the same essence then god=technology which doesn’t make much sense.
Depends who is the fool…
Yes, but similar attributes are not enough in this argument. You are stating that I wouldn’t be able to define “god” as “god” and “technology” as “technology”. They would be exactly the same thing, having the same essence. That’s the only way I couldn’t possibly distinguish between both. If they have two different essences, then they can be distinguished from one another. That’s the main wrong point in your premise.
Ok. So next time I see a pizza I will throw it thinking it’s a frisbee….
I don’t comprehend? Well, you have clearly shown that you have no idea what you are talking about! You said it yourself! You said you don’t understand god, and then you come and try to discuss about Him. Who doesn’t really understand?
It's because of your inability to understand information that is presented to you and utilize it in a coherent manner. To this date, and I've read a LOT of your writings, I have very, very little evidence to believe you have a coherent thought in your head. Your condition renders debate with you non-functional.
No, what I want you to do is understand what you're talking about and have some insightful input into the conversation. You can't always get what you want.
Ah, so my position, which you have shown clearly you do not remotely understand, is biased. Given your lacking comprehension, you are disqualified to assert bias.
True, but you brought it up through your lacking comprehension. The point had absolutely nothing to do with "the essence of technology", but you insisted.
It is because you don't understand it that you don't believe I mean it.
Did I say that? No. I meant what I said.
So it's childish to believe that I mean what I say? There must be a lot of childish people on sciforums. Sad for them that you've labeled them so.
Wow, you stumbled across my point! Amazing!
Hey that's been the point the whole time!!!!!! Sadly, I'm quite sure you still don't get it. Not that what I say is necessarily true, just that you don't get what I say. We can't have a rational discussion about something that you simply don't understand as long as you continue not to understand it. Present a rational criticism and I'll respond rationally.
Way ahead of you.
What things?
Right. I also claim you can't prove to me that you don't either. I claim that "god is unknowable" and have presented a solid argument as to why.
I know exactly what I'm talking about.How can you have a discussion without knowing what you are talking about?
Having skimmed this already, you're wrong because you still don't get it. I'll try one last time to clarify for you.
How about if I put create the matrix and put you in it? How about if I comprimise your perception?
That's still the point.
The concept as typically (or practically for that matter) defined is unknowable. I have demonstrated why. In doing so, I have shown that I don't know about god(s). I don't have to know about something to say it's unknowable. In fact if I could know about it, then I wouldn't claim I couldn't... hello?
Through the argument I've presented that you don't understand.
I don't. Why would you think I do? How in the universe can you possibly derive from an argument where a guy demonstrates "god is unknowable" that he is trying to know that which he just claimed he can't know? Perhaps you think your 'the greatest in the world'? LOL. Maybe it's a defense mechanism? Maybe you're biased?
There is little point in trying to know somethng that is by definition unknowable, unless you're just entertained by that sort of thing. Personally, I'm interesting in the concept of god because it's an interesting concept that many people such as yourself get all hung up on. I believe I've broken it down into a very compact, logical argument to demonstrate the nature of the concept. I believe my skill at doing so has improved over time and I find it generally interesting to hear feedback on my argument. I've found Pete's feedback to be particularly insightful for instance.
Then perhaps you can demostrate the flaw in my logic. First I'd appreciate if you take to time to try and understand it. Here it is in a nutshell:
If you can't tell god from technology capable of comprimising your senses, it's irrational to claim god.
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the definition the "it" in question. If the "it" is defined as "a being who is all-powerful and omniscient" then you just set up something that cannot be confirmed, because it can't be dilineated from any other thing capable of appearing that way.
Yes, you can't tell one from the other. That's what they have in common. Your perception is a boundary of sorts. As a visual excercise, imagine yourself inside a sphere. That sphere is your perception. You can't say what's outside it for sure because you're inside it. Rosa gave me the term "observational distance" to label this scenario.
Incorrect and irrelevant. You're off on a tangent you made up due to your lacking comprehension.
More of the same.
No it doesn't. Any fool is qualified but I did have you in mind.
The attribute "could provide evidence that it's god" is exactly enough because it demonstrates clearly that you can't discern between the two, which renders the argument valid.
I made no such statement.
You couldn't distinguish if one can appear as the other.
If they appear the same, how do you determine its essence? You don't even know what it is.
No it isn't. You just don't understand the premise.
As you wish. Maybe you'll be able to tell them apart because of their essences and all.Ok. So next time I see a pizza I will throw it thinking it’s a frisbee….
Exactly.
I'm discussing a concept and have irrefutably demonstrated the falseness of this claim above.
From your words on the matter, it's you.
TheMatrixIsReal said:
My point was that belief if in either case is practical to the function of the survival of the species, even though it's sometimes irrational. The odds of survival of the group (in cave-dweller terms) are increased significantly by irrational beliefs through which they bond - regardless of their reality. In fact, that god is unknowable and inconsequential to worldly matters alleviates the down side that might come along with believing for instance that bullets can't pierce skin when fired from a weapon. It's a pure abstract, so getting it wrong has no physical penalty except in terms of behavior, which is motivated to the ends of the dogma of the irrational claim. This is obviously a very successful strategy for tribal type interaction.
Of course there's the little problem that as tribes increase in size and weapons become deadlier, the line between abstract and real fades. Matters of abstract notion become imperative to the continued survival of the group. Irrational abstract assertions have a higher and higher potential down side. It would stand to reason that if the species is to continue to be successful, we may have to become more rational or revert to a smaller or less dense population. In other words, the stupid fucks will wise up or kill us all.
Godless said:
I do. This is T we're talking about here. I don't think that's the root of the problem, seems like more of a symptom to me.
Thanks for remembering, I really enjoyed that thread.
That's what I keep telling him but he doesn't believe me. The more I try to explain, the more he seems to get it wrong. It's fascinating like a train-wreck.
It seems to me that I can, but the orientation of his conceptual inter-relationships (as compared to my own) seems to preclude the possibilty of communication on an intellectual level.
The movie The Matrix was cool, but I don't relate the comcept to our reality. I mean I don't think that when I perish I will become unpluged. But I did postulate that to my mom, what if?..*grins!!
I think Neo the character as some sort of "jesus" but the 3rd movie ending has me a bit confused, for example. What role does the little girl play?. Child of two programmers, brought out to the matrix. Everything has a purpose, said her dad, she came with no purpose?. or will she be the next savior? I'm waiting for the story line to continue.
Godless.
I think Neo the character as some sort of "jesus" but the 3rd movie ending has me a bit confused, for example. What role does the little girl play?. Child of two programmers, brought out to the matrix. Everything has a purpose, said her dad, she came with no purpose?. or will she be the next savior? I'm waiting for the story line to continue.
Godless.