Vote.. on this atheistic position

[he_who_is_nobody]

I've reviewed your arguments and here are my conclusions. You are putting forth the standard atheist spectrum of beliefs.

Strong Theist - I know god exists
Theist - god probably exists
Weak Theist - I believe we can never know, but god probably exists
Weak Atheist - I believe we can never know, but god probably doesn't exist
Atheist - god probably doesn't exist
Strong Atheist - I know god doesn't exist

Clearly, there is no middle position. Notice how there are transitory stages for theist and atheist, yet, theist to atheist has no transition. You just wake up one day and *BANG*, "Hey guys, I'm atheist!"

Or does a conversion look more like a political spectrum? Which has a middle.

Strong Conservative
Conservative
Weak Conservative
Independent
Weak Liberal
Liberal
Strong Liberal

Are you trying to claim that independent is in-between conservatism and liberalism? Perhaps the political labels are different where you live, but independent is not a middle ground between conservatism and liberalism in the U.S.

 

[>< V ><]

Perhaps you need to work on your definition of clear, because I just did.

Ya know, I was willing to give you credit for making a good point, but you choose to negate that. Asking me questions is not you directly stating your argument. Asking me questions is your hoping I will somehow validate your argument in my head and I'm not going to play those games. You try to validate your arguments and I will try to validate mine.

Your definition of god both does not apply to the vast majority of entities described as gods

Irrevelant. Those Gods you will refer too are not given the property of creating the universe and we are discussing the creation of the universe.

As an atheist, you disbelieve all Gods exist, but that doesn't mean I'm forced to have to prove all Gods exist. I only have to prove 1.

While I'm not overall claiming I can prove God, the God I've been continually referring to is clearly, the category of "Gods" that have the property of creating the universe.

But clearly, this property alone is not what makes atheists, atheists. Few doubt a creation point, what's doubted is that the creation is of conscious design.

Theists believe in conscious creation and atheists disbelieve in conscious creation.

Is that wrong?

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me, "Your claim that atheists disbelieve in a conscious creation is false."

and could conceivably apply to humans (or creatures similar to humans.) If that doesn't strike you as a problem then I label you a sophist.

No, it doesn't strike me as a problem. Now, go right ahead and make your logical fallacy, hasty generalization. I dare ya.....smart guy.

And then you wonder where my disdain comes from? You just claimed you are going to label me in a negative way because of one example. You just threatened me through a logical fallacy and you consider that smart? I know I don't.

You seem to have missed the point. It is not merely that you have assumed something outside of the universe, rather it is that what you have proposed as being outside of the universe is something we know itself requires the universe.

Interesting. So you're a hardcore atheist that actually believes you can deny a consciousness can exist outside the universe?

Prove it. Prove consciousness requires the universe and that these requirements cannot be met outside the universe. It's your claim, defend it.

I contend that no fair-minded person would approach this conclusion from what I wrote.

You people and your logical fallacy, poisoning the well, is truly amazing. It's like everyones default position here. Nooooo, that can't be true, he's a liar. Noooo, that can't be true, he's a sophist. Noooo, that can't be true, he's not fair minded.

Do you actually have any non-fallacious arguments against what I said?

I'm more than willing to accept a conciousness created the universe if sufficient evidence for those assertion is present. However that you are calling said consciousness God, and then failing to define that god, is your own problem. I see no reason, if a consciousness did create the universe, to call that thing god. Could have been a lab experiment gone wrong. Doesn't make whoever pushed the button a deity.

Now we're finally getting somewhere.

If the universe is a lab experiment gone right, then why isn't the person who pushed the button a God?

You said, "Doesn't make whoever pushed the button a deity."

And I'm asking, why not?

What other property, besides being a consciousness that created the universe, must your disbelieved God have in order for you to disbelieve it?




Ha, that's funny.

This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."

Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above. This definition of a theist now encompasses those who claim to lack belief in a god but who are unwilling to claim that they believe no gods exist just as the definition of an atheist does.

This, to my mind, lends credence to there being a middle ground that should not belong to either atheism or theism.

Is there merit to this?

You are spouting the average atheist position that atheism is somehow, the lack of belief, which is nonsense. I am the one, the agnostic, that has formed no belief on whether God exists or not. You clearly chose atheist, because you have formed a belief that God doesn't exist.

And why can't atheists just be honest? Why is it that atheists have to redefine the terms, try to sell themselves as the skeptics, while trying to eliminate the agnostic position, instead of just admiting, "Hey, I don't believe God exists" ?

I'll tell you why. Because a belief with no rational basis is faith and atheists don't want to admit their position requires faith.

So atheists look for a rational basis. A large group of atheists find this basis in the Bible. Since the Bible spews a bunch of sillieness, so must the idea of God be silly. Some atheists truly believe this and these are the ones constantly making arguments against the Bible, because they believe denying the Bible, denies a conscious creation.

Another large group of atheists are the ones that recognize, denying the Bible is irrelevant. That the real question is whether the universe is a conscious creation or not. And as it stands today, no one knows the answer. No one even has convincing arguments one way or the other. And these atheists understand this, they understand they can't find a rational basis for denial, because no one knows the difference between a consciously created universe and a non-consciously created universe or if there is even a difference.

These are the atheists that find their rational basis in redefining terms.

And this approach to logic is exactly what creationsists do. Atheists have in mind what they want to believe, that no Gods exists. And to them, just like the creationist, it's just a matter of finding that rational basis for the belief. Instead of recognizing their struggle to find a rational basis, which leads to agnosticism, they are convinced there is a rational basis, they just need to find it.

And since they cannot, they resort to redefining terms.

Some atheists will even take it a step farther and define atheism as "the lack of belief that God exists", which then encompasses agnostics, since we neither believe or disbelieve, we lack a belief God exists. And I would argue this definition is too broad, because it makes no acknowledgement of the clear distinction between an atheist and an agnostic.

Theists argue for God
Agnostics argue for and against God or argue neither.
Atheists argue against God.

Is this not true?

What is God? What is conciousness? What is exists?

You can't define something using itself as the definition. That is circular logic. To say God is the creator of the universe you have to first establish the Universe was created. You can't simply say it was because you believe it...Oh wait, sure you can...but that's indefensible and not scientific at all. By the same logic I can support the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Now I'm not trying to throw you into a vacuous hole of philosophical BS, but to get you to see how your entire approach to this dichotomy is flawed. You're assuming that there can only be one of three answers .Either God exists or God does not exist to someone or they don't know.

Answering with "The irrigation ditch upside and horse pung" is every bit as legitimate an answer to the question "Do you believe God exists?"...

The question is utterly ridiculous.
There's no answer that is appropriate to the question.
Do you believe there will be cake?

Agnosticism is not an "I don't know" position.
Agnosticism is a "I can't know and neither can you" position.

I already responded to this sillieness in my response to DepricatedZero. I suggest you read it and respond to my points if you want to have an intelligent discussion. Simply ignoring everything I said, I don't see as a sign of intelligence, but of stupidity.

Are you trying to claim that independent is in-between conservatism and liberalism? Perhaps the political labels are different where you live, but independent is not a middle ground between conservatism and liberalism in the U.S.

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. Independents aren't the middle ground now? You're silly. But, whatever. The overall name you want to give the middle ground is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it exists.

 

[>< V ><]

yada yada yada atheism/theism is a false dichotomy there is also agnosticism

I'm not going to rehash something that I've bludgeoned to death. Here's my argument, if you care to review it.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5587

You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God., I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

-Charles Darwin



So according to the genius of DepricatedZero, Charles Darwin is a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.


How ironic that creationists think the same and I see this as no coincidence. Because you are both faith based fanatics.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

As an atheist, you disbelieve all Gods exist, but that doesn't mean I'm forced to have to prove all Gods exist. I only have to prove 1.
.

I disagree. How are we to differentiate the specific god that you mention against all of the others that are discussed? It seems to me that some religions specifically state that other GODS don't exist. If this is the case, how are you going to differentiate and logically "KNOW" that yours is the one that exists? Because you say so? What if some of the characteristics of the God that you define can be shown to be contradictory, and highly unlikely to exist, what do we do then? Gain knowledge that your God is highly unlikely?

I don't know of a better way than by defining your specific god. Once you do that, I think you will see how futile your position becomes.

It's kinda like stating to a person that has never experienced an apple that apples do/don't exist. How do we convince this person that apples exist? What is specific process that one should follow to explain to the other person that apples do in fact exist? Is it a granny smith? Is it a red delicious? Is it a honey crisp? How do we differentiate the apples? How do we differentiate the gods?

What makes the process for differentiating gods any different from the process for differentiating apples?

I would not advise doing this with specific human traits or specific human beings, some of them might not care for it.

NULL POSITION. What is the NULL position? I would say that a good place to start is to say that ALL gods don't exist until otherwise verified.

That is All, Carry on.

 

[>< V ><]

I disagree.

Then you are irrational, because this isn't about opinion, this isn't subjective.

Obviously, when you make a blanket belief that no Gods exists, in no way forces me to have to prove all Gods exist.

Clearly, without doubt, obviously, I only have to prove 1 God to show your belief is false. This is not open for debate, this is logic.

How are we to differentiate the specific god that you mention against all of the others that are discussed?

I already stated this, don't you friggn people read and understand? I'm talking about the Gods that have been given the property of creating our universe. Clearly, not all Gods have this property.

 

[australopithecus]

If the universe is a lab experiment gone right, then why isn't the person who pushed the button a God?

For the same reason I don't call my parents gods just because they created me.

You said, "Doesn't make whoever pushed the button a deity."

And I'm asking, why not?

See above, though I'll retort; why would it make them a deity.

What other property, besides being a consciousness that created the universe, must your disbelieved God have in order for you to disbelieve it?

Creating something isn't a definition, and even if it were the burden of proof still lies with you to evidence a creator God. Until then I remain unconvinced.

 

[australopithecus]

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God., I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

-Charles Darwin



So according to the genius of DepricatedZero, Charles Darwin is a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

Argument from authority.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I disagree.

Then you are irrational, because this isn't about opinion, this isn't subjective.

Obviously, when you make a blanket belief that no Gods exists, in no way forces me to have to prove all Gods exist.

Clearly, without doubt, obviously, I only have to prove 1 God to show your belief is false. This is not open for debate, this is logic.

God #1 has the following Characteristics : A,B,C,D,E,F,G

God #2 has the following Characteristics:A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,S,Z

Conditions:

Only one god can exist.



Hypothetically and logically speaking, which god exists? How do we differentiate between the two? With characteristics? What if I can show that characteristic A can't exist? What do we do then? Remove that characteristic and still claim that he exists? Your statement is purely logical, my statement incorporates logic and reason.

Carry on. Have a fantastic day.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Are you trying to claim that independent is in-between conservatism and liberalism? Perhaps the political labels are different where you live, but independent is not a middle ground between conservatism and liberalism in the U.S.

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. Independents aren't the middle ground now? You're silly. But, whatever. The overall name you want to give the middle ground is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it exists.

It is silly that I pointed out that independent does not mean in-between liberal and conservative? I believe the silly thing is that you actually did not know that before making your argument.

If there were a middle ground in (U.S.) politics, that middle ground would be apathy. One either is in favor of an issue or against it, if one holds no opinion on an issue than one is apathetic to that issue. They would not be called independent on the issue. So it would read like this:

Strong conservative
Conservative
Weak conservative
Apathetic
Weak liberal
Liberal
Strong Liberal

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'd just like to point out in preface to this diatribe that I have thus far never claimed to be an atheist, or implied that I am one, to >< V ><. Try to keep that in mind as you read his vitriolic little rants.

Perhaps you need to work on your definition of clear, because I just did.

Ya know, I was willing to give you credit for making a good point, but you choose to negate that. Asking me questions is not you directly stating your argument. Asking me questions is your hoping I will somehow validate your argument in my head and I'm not going to play those games. You try to validate your arguments and I will try to validate mine.

If you were clever you'd realize that I actually am arguing from a position, but you're to obsessed with your preconceived notions of what everyone on this forum must believe to bother thinking about that.

That said, I am not and have never been under any obligation to put forward a positive argument. If you put forward an argument then I am entitled to dismantle it regardless of whether or not I have anything to put in its place. This is basic Rhetorical and Scientific Theory, and it is alarming that I have to remind you of these things.

Your definition of god both does not apply to the vast majority of entities described as gods

Irrevelant. Those Gods you will refer too are not given the property of creating the universe and we are discussing the creation of the universe.

As an atheist, you disbelieve all Gods exist, but that doesn't mean I'm forced to have to prove all Gods exist. I only have to prove 1.

While I'm not overall claiming I can prove God, the God I've been continually referring to is clearly, the category of "Gods" that have the property of creating the universe.

But clearly, this property alone is not what makes atheists, atheists. Few doubt a creation point, what's doubted is that the creation is of conscious design.

Theists believe in conscious creation and atheists disbelieve in conscious creation.

Is that wrong?

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me, "Your claim that atheists disbelieve in a conscious creation is false."

Yes actually, that is wrong. It also misunderstands the point. The problem is that your 'god' lacks any of the typical characteristics of a god, and is far removed from what almost everyone means when they use the term. That's fine, of course, you are free to define your terms however you like, except for on one way which I'll again mention:

This means I could be a god; appropriately equipped, of course. It also means that it is entirely possible that the 'god' you speak of is not a god in any meaningful sense of the word but rather a little green man (or equivalent) with a fancy machine. It could even be a fancy machine.

I know of nothing in atheism which precludes the possibility that our universe was created by some form of intelligent life. For that matter, I know of nothing in theism which requires that the universe must have been created by a conscious process.

That is, of course, unless you define god as any sort of consciousness that might have created the universe. Then atheists are forced into that position, but sadly only in your mind. When atheists don't share your inane definition, you don't get to get mad at them, its your own fault for having defined god in such a silly way.

I might add that defining yourself into victory is an insipid strategy; there's no one I know who can't do it, and it is devoid of all interest in what is actually true or beautiful. This is the neurotic approach.

and could conceivably apply to humans (or creatures similar to humans.) If that doesn't strike you as a problem then I label you a sophist.

No, it doesn't strike me as a problem. Now, go right ahead and make your logical fallacy, hasty generalization. I dare ya.....smart guy.

And then you wonder where my disdain comes from? You just claimed you are going to label me in a negative way because of one example. You just threatened me through a logical fallacy and you consider that smart? I know I don't.

You don't see it as a problem that I could be a god? That this could be a god? Yeah, okay, I label you as a sophist.

In your zeal to argue in favor of a god you are willing to strip that term of what little meaningful content it had. It's like proving the existence of unicorns by redefining the word to mean this:

You seem to have missed the point. It is not merely that you have assumed something outside of the universe, rather it is that what you have proposed as being outside of the universe is something we know itself requires the universe.

Interesting. So you're a hardcore atheist that actually believes you can deny a consciousness can exist outside the universe?

Prove it. Prove consciousness requires the universe and that these requirements cannot be met outside the universe. It's your claim, defend it.

Observe how this works:
Everything we know about consciousness indicates it that requires conditions like time, energy, and matter. Conditions intrinsic to a universe which may be found no where else. You propose that there is some way that consciousness works which does not require these conditions. Rather than support this position with any sort of evidence you put it to me to prove that this is not possible. Again, it's disappointing to have to remind you about how science and rhetoric work, but for the record I'd be perfectly willing to accept that consciousness outside of the aforementioned conditions might be possible the moment you give me even an iota of reason to suggest that it is.

I contend that no fair-minded person would approach this conclusion from what I wrote.

You people and your logical fallacy, poisoning the well, is truly amazing. It's like everyones default position here. Nooooo, that can't be true, he's a liar. Noooo, that can't be true, he's a sophist. Noooo, that can't be true, he's not fair minded.

Do you actually have any non-fallacious arguments against what I said?

Let's just remind you of what was actually said, shall we?

Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?

No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.

So by your own admission, you give equal weight to the possibility that the universe was consciously and non-consciously created. 50% chance of conscious creation and 50% chance of non-conscious creation.

That is agnosticism.

Does it really sound to you like I "give equal weight to the possibility that the universe was consciously and non-consciously created. 50% chance of conscious creation and 50% chance of non-conscious creation?"

Do you believe I give 50/50 odds to the universe being created by an eggplant?

You accuse me of being fallacious. At this point I would be impressed if you could go a whole post without projecting.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I'm not going to rehash something that I've bludgeoned to death. Here's my argument, if you care to review it.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5587

You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

Of course I am. How original.

I've reviewed your arguments and here are my conclusions. You are putting forth the standard atheist spectrum of beliefs.

Strong Theist - I know god exists
Theist - god probably exists
Weak Theist - I believe we can never know, but god probably exists
Weak Atheist - I believe we can never know, but god probably doesn't exist
Atheist - god probably doesn't exist
Strong Atheist - I know god doesn't exist

Clearly, there is no middle position. Notice how there are transitory stages for theist and atheist, yet, theist to atheist has no transition. You just wake up one day and *BANG*, "Hey guys, I'm atheist!"

There is no middle position between Yes and No. Belief is boolean - either you have it or you don't. There is not, there cannot be, a middle ground. That is the point. It's not a false dichotomy, it is in fact a true dichotomy.

Lets take another of my favorite arguments. You see, I am an apteryx. That's right, I don't have wings. As depressing as this often is, I don't try to invent some middle ground in which I might try to claim that my particularly sharp shoulder blades might constitute wings. I also don't try to convince people not to blaspheme against our long-lost and never-revealed Kenku cousins. The state of my wings, exactly like my belief, is boolean. In this case, false for both.

I do not believe in a supernatural god. I do believe in a God as fits the OED definition, though most theists would say that I'm being silly and that Google isn't a god.

Or does a conversion look more like a political spectrum? Which has a middle.

Strong Conservative
Conservative
Weak Conservative
Independent
Weak Liberal
Liberal
Strong Liberal

Independent is far from the "middle ground" there. That covers everything from PETA to the Nazis.

When legislators vote, how many choices do they get?

Yes
Abstain
No

Notice how the only parallel you can draw here is politics? Why? This isn't a political matter - this is a philosophical one, if anything, academic. Agnosticism is very much the Abstain to vote. Which is fucking cowardly.

What can happen with jurors?

Guilty
Hung jury
Not guilty

See above

The reason these examples have a middle position is because logic does not discount the possibility of a 50-50 split, even though atheists do.

Legislation and Trial by Jury are not forms of logic, nor are they based on logic. In both instances it is considered good practice to include as many logical fallacies as possible to win your argument. It's about rhetoric, not logic.

We've all come across cases in life where we say, "Wow, I just don't know." And there are two cases of this. One could be that you have no information and simply cannot find a rational basis. OR you have information from both sides and still cannot find a rational basis.

My position on God is the latter. I have information from both sides. Sometimes I argue as an atheist (especially at theist forums) and sometimes I argue as a theist (especially at atheist forums).

Ok. But do you hold a god belief? It doesn't matter what you argue as, it doesn't matter that you don't feel there is sufficient knowledge to make a defensible claim one way or the other. What it boils down to is, what do you believe? Don't try to skirt the question, analyze it, roll it around in your head for a minute. Either you believe but don't feel there is enough justification to come out and make the claim, or you don't believe because you don't feel there is enough justification. Your feelings on the justification of the position are absolutely, one hundred percent, fucking irrelevant to the matter of whether you believe or not. You either do or you don't. I feel there's nothing wrong with someone being willing to question their belief or challenge their lack thereof - but there is everything wrong with someone unwilling to take a moment for self-reflection and understand where they sit on an issue. It is thought evasion in its simplest form.

But people like me, clearly, do not fit in your atheist spectrum. As I said with my road analogy, I'm sitting at the fork in the road, collecting as much information as I can, to see if I can find some rational basis for making a choice on which road of belief to go down. And since I see no hurry in having to make this choice, I choose not to hurry and continue to collect information.

You're misrepresenting the analogy. There is no fork in the road. The road either is or isn't.

1) Am I a weak atheist because I say things like, when there is no knowledge, there is only speculation? And when there is only speculation, there are infinite possibilities to speculate. Since we have no knowledge on how the universe came to be, means the chance of God being true is thus, 1 / infinity which has zero probability of being true. Like an ancient Egyptian trying to guess how to get to the moon, that guess will never be a rocket ship. Like a number line, where the truth lies at 100, but we can only speculate around 0 to 3. Our speculative ability is simply too feeble to even guess in a realm close to the truth. Thus, if you can speculate an origin to the universe, then it's not true. Only with knowledge can this change. What we don't know how to even speculate yet, is where the truth lies.

2) Because I say things like, science has shown again and again that Gods have been natural events and that there is good reason to believe the next God will be a natural event?

3) Or am I a weak theist because I say things like, there is good reason to believe the physical laws is evidence of conscious design? That there is an abstract logical framework to the univere that is a known result of consciousness, mathematical logic. Can the non-conscious create math? Can the non-conscious create the abstract logical framework of the universe?

4) Because I say things like, thee primary goal of life is survival and this could create Gods? That after billions of years of human evolution, when the human race faces the ultimate test of survival in a dying universe, where the only option for survival will seemingly be escaping the universe, what if we do it? How do you know the universe isn't an incubator of Gods, waiting for some intelligent life to crack the outer shell?

Am I some form of atheist that argues for God? Am I some form of theist that argues against God? Does a theist or atheist simultaneously believe in something like the above four statements I stated, like I do?

I can't decide for you. No one can. But I challenge you to analyze yourself and determine what you truly believe(or don't). Being atheist means nothing more than not believing in gods. Being theist means nothing more than believing in gods. The form those gods come in is irrelevant.

Do atheists and theists really believe in arguments that support and deny God? Or are their arguments both, one sided?

I don't think anyone believes in the argument, rather I suspect the argument is what reinforces the god-belief.

This is exactly what seperates people like me from theists and atheists. This is a agnostic position. Not that I have no knowledge, but that I have insufficient knowledge to form a rational basis for a belief.

If your conclusion is that you do not have a belief, then you are an atheist. The justification is irrelevant, remember, to the belief or lack thereof.

Believing as I do in the above four statements (as well as others) puts me in contradiction, which is why I cannot form a rational basis. And a belief with only an irrational basis is faith.

Thus, to say I'm a theist or an atheist is to force upon me, faith. Faith I don't have.

No, you're simply waffling and trying to dance in your golden middle ground so that you can try to claim some semblance of superiority over those who are willing to fully analyze their beliefs.

You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

And forcing faith upon others while eliminating their choice, is what fanatics do.

Your average atheist tactics are obvious. You can't handle that people like me represent the true skeptics, because almost the sole driving force in modern atheism is to redefine atheism as the skeptic position. Because in your simpleton mentality you actually think you can walk and talk the way you do and then redefine that as what a skeptic is. Someone that only argues the disbelief of God.

Your actions and beliefs define your position, not what words you choose to create a definition. And atheists walk and talk only the disbelief in God. It's that action that defines your atheism. And only arguing one side of a debate is not the skeptic position.

Ah, good old No True Scotsmen.

Even Fred Phelps has enough moral fiber to acknowledge what he believes, can't you go for that much?

 

[Prolescum]

Ah, good old No True Scotsmen.

Speaking of my brethren...

What can happen with jurors?

Guilty
Hung jury
Not guilty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

 

[>< V ><]

For the same reason I don't call my parents gods just because they created me.

False analogy. Having sex is not analagous to creating a universe.

Objection denied.

See above, though I'll retort; why would it make them a deity.

I haven't said it does. Creation is a property of the deity. If it fails, then so does the deitys existence.

Creating something isn't a definition....

Then a composer and a musician are the same. Even though the composer creates the music and the musician plays the music, you don't see creation as something that defines one of them as different.

Steve Jobs didn't create things. He was just another consumer. Creating things apparently has no role in defining Steve Jobs. Likewise, Bill Gates is apparently not known for creating things either. That is not something that defines him. He's just some rich dude.

Objection denied.

...and even if it were the burden of proof still lies with you to evidence a creator God. Until then I remain unconvinced.

Look, I asked the question to further the debate on what agnosticism is and how it differs from atheism. You choose to stop the debate before it even happens, because that is your strategy. If you want to get into a debate about God, how God is defined, then start the thread. But I've already argued for the general form of an existence claim, given many examples. God is but one example. You have never addressed any of the other examples or my general claim that the "object of interest" is irrelevant to the choices for answering the claim.

Again, it's disappointing to have to remind you about how science and rhetoric work, but for the record I'd be perfectly willing to accept that consciousness outside of the aforementioned conditions might be possible the moment you give me even an iota of reason to suggest that it is.

Deductively, its yes or no on whether something is possible. Inductively, one assigns probabilities to yes and no. I'm not arguing against inductive reasoning, I think it's the best we can do for this topic, I'm arguing that you knowingly or unknowingly, assign probabilities to what you believe and don't believe. This must be true, since you say you won't believe something is possible until there is a reason to suggest it. You assign 0% to true and 100% to false. If I give you some good reasons, maybe you'll change to 15% true, 85% false.

This philosophy that claims are 0% true and 100% false, until there is reason to suggest different, seems to be taken as some axiom. My question to you is, what justifies this? What justifies, that something isn't possible until there is reason to suggest it?

I'm agnostic. I argue the philosophy of 50% true, 50% false until there is reason to suggest different. And I argue why.

Notice the difference in these philosophies.

When someone claims to you Santa Claus exists, you say, that's 0% true until reason to suggest otherwise, thus you don't believe in Santa.

I say, that's 50% true, 50% false, but wait, reindeer can't fly, no one lives at the North Pole, no one can get around the World in one night, fat men can't get down chimneys, my parents told me they bought the presents. I can think of many reasons that take my initial agnostic position and reason it too, 0% true, 100% false.

When someone claims to you fairies exist, you say, that's 0% true until reason to suggest otherwise, thus you don't believe in fairies.

I say, that's 50% true, 50% false, but wait, I don't believe intelligence can exist on that scale, in the universe. I don't believe such an anatomy can exist on that scale, due to atomic structure and complexities, sizes required for such structures to function as claimed. I don't believe in the supernatural. I'm OK with saying 0% true, 100% false, due to these reasons and others.

My philosophy requires many, many more reasons, reasoning, to come to a position of 0% true, 100% false. Your philosophy, as far as I can tell, requires one assumption for that assignment and I'm challenging it. You want to know the difference between agnostic and atheist, why agnosticism is a valid position? Then tell me how you assign these probablities for a claim. Tell me that claims with no evidence or arguments that convince you means, there is no possibility of the claim. You will assign 0% true, 100% false until I give you reason to suggest otherwise.

Do I believe in some God? 50% yes, 50% no.
Do you believe in some God? 0% yes, 100% no.

Even if that is wrong within 49%, one needs reasons to shift towards yes and no. Anything other than a 50% - 50% split is a shift towards yes or no. I argue, such shifts need reasons. You argue one reason. That it's not possible until a reason suggests otherwise.

How do you defend your assumption that consciousness is not possible (0% true, 100% false) outside the universe until a reason suggests otherwise?

Argument from authority.

I never said agnosticism is valid because Charles Darwin considered himself agnostic. That's what argument from authority means, genius. I clearly made my own arguments that support agnosticism to DepricatedZero.

I believe it is clear that Darwin was used as an example of someone else DepricatedZero must believe is a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber, due to his own reasoning. Not as an argument supporting agnosticism.

I even purposefully made it, its own post.

Objection denied.

 

[>< V ><]

I'd just like to point out in preface to this diatribe that I have thus far never claimed to be an atheist, or implied that I am one, to >< V ><. Try to keep that in mind as you read his vitriolic little rants.

Cute. As if my arguments require your being an atheist.

If you were clever you'd realize that I actually am arguing from a position, but you're to obsessed with your preconceived notions of what everyone on this forum must believe to bother thinking about that.

If you were half as clever, you would realise, I don't care. As if my arguments require your being an atheist.

That said, I am not and have never been under any obligation to put forward a positive argument. If you put forward an argument then I am entitled to dismantle it regardless of whether or not I have anything to put in its place. This is basic Rhetorical and Scientific Theory, and it is alarming that I have to remind you of these things.

I never said you can't challenge the definition. I said, state your position, instead of asking me a paragraph of questions and forcing me to try and think like you and how you would answer the questions.

Why is clarity a problem? Questions are fine, but when you have a point, make the point. I'm not going to make the point for you from your questions. You do your own leg work.

Yes actually, that is wrong. It also misunderstands the point. The problem is that your 'god' lacks any of the typical characteristics of a god, and is far removed from what almost everyone means when they use the term. That's fine, of course, you are free to define your terms however you like, except for on one way which I'll again mention:

You've completely gone off the deep end. How many times have you argued against Intelligent Design, yet, now you're going to tell me "intelligence" doesn't imply "consciousness" and that "design" doesn't imply creation?

Without doubt, Christians, Jews and Muslims have at the center of their religions, a God that is conscious and creator of the universe. Without doubt, AT LEAST 65% of the World believes in a God that is conscious and creator of the universe, yet, you're actually going to tell me that I'm the one "far removed"?

Objection denied.

This means I could be a god; appropriately equipped, of course.

You are not equipped with the ability to create a universe.

Objection denied.

It also means that it is entirely possible that the 'god' you speak of is not a god in any meaningful sense of the word but rather a little green man (or equivalent) with a fancy machine.

God can't be a little green man (or equivalent) with a fancy machine, but he can be an old white man with fancy robes? A spaghetti monster with fancy sauce? You give no reason for your racism against green people and fancy machines.

Objection denied.

It could even be a fancy machine.

You have not argued a critical point, whether your fancy machine is conscious.

Objection denied.

That is, of course, unless you define god as any sort of consciousness that might have created the universe. Then atheists are forced into that position, but sadly only in your mind. When atheists don't share your inane definition, you don't get to get mad at them, its your own fault for having defined god in such a silly way.

I might add that defining yourself into victory is an insipid strategy; there's no one I know who can't do it, and it is devoid of all interest in what is actually true or beautiful. This is the neurotic approach.

For someone as inane, silly, insipid and neorotic as myself, I can see why it's difficult for you to understand me.

Do you recognize a differenece between these two statements?

1) God is a consciousness.

2) A consciousness is God

Do you understand the difference between these two statements? Because the current answer is no, you don't. Because your argument is based upon statement 2). That whatever is conscious is God. When I'm clearly saying statement 1), which means, consciousness is a property of God. God is a consciousness. God may be other things, but one thing he is, is a consciousness.

This is basic logic, an implication. If God, then consciousness. Not. If consciousness, then God.

If God, then consciousness....is false when consciousness is false. That is my point. Notice the statement is not false, when God is false, but consciousness is true. Hence,

Objection denied.

Yeah, okay, I label you as a sophist.

So because green people (or equivalent) with fancy machines can't be Gods, I'm a sophist. My reasoning is fallacious, don't believe anything I have to say on this topic, because you don't believe green people (or equivalent) with fancy machines can be Gods.

Let's just be clear on your reasoning here. Admittedly, fallacious. And seemingly, proud of it.

In your zeal to argue in favor of a god you are willing to strip that term of what little meaningful content it had. It's like proving the existence of unicorns by redefining the word to mean this:


FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=Image"

God is a consciousness.

If God, then consciousnes.

Objection denied.

Observe how this works:
Everything we know about consciousness indicates it that requires conditions like time, energy, and matter. Conditions intrinsic to a universe which may be found no where else. You propose that there is some way that consciousness works which does not require these conditions. Rather than support this position with any sort of evidence you put it to me to prove that this is not possible. Again, it's disappointing to have to remind you about how science and rhetoric work, but for the record I'd be perfectly willing to accept that consciousness outside of the aforementioned conditions might be possible the moment you give me even an iota of reason to suggest that it is.

For rookies, you haven't solved the mind-body problem. For you to even imply as such is how the determination of rookie is established. I think, therefore I am, requires time, energy and matter? Requires properties found only in a universe? I'm curious, how many universes and space inbetween (assuming the multiverse) have you sampled to come to this conclusion? Your position is, if there is one thing you can tell me about consciousness, is that it can only exist in a universe?

"Conditions intrinsic to a universe which may be found no where else."

Your statement is inconclusive, where you wanted true. To obtain true, the correct words for "may be" is "have been".

Objection denied.

Rather than support this position with any sort of evidence you put it to me to prove that this is not possible.

Yea, super smart intelligent genius guy, you made the claim, you defend it.

It is not merely that you have assumed something outside of the universe, rather it is that what you have proposed as being outside of the universe is something we know itself requires the universe.

We know consciousness requires the universe. You implied it, you defend it.

Don't you get it yet. I give consciousness 50% true, 50% false outside the universe. You give it 0% true, 100% false outside the universe.

Objection denied.

Prove to me 50% true is 0% true as you claim.

Does it really sound to you like I "give equal weight to the possibility that the universe was consciously and non-consciously created. 50% chance of conscious creation and 50% chance of non-conscious creation?"

Do you believe I give 50/50 odds to the universe being created by an eggplant?

You accuse me of being fallacious. At this point I would be impressed if you could go a whole post without projecting.

You chose eggplant because it's a non-conscious object. Either a consciousness created the universe or it didn't. Inductively speaking, T + F = 100%.

I asked if you believed the universe was created by a consciousness and you dodgingly implied, no more than a non-conscious creation. This states that T cannot be greater than F. At best, they equal, 50% - 50% split. But no atheist is willing to give conscious creation such a generous probability, thus agnostic. The correct dodging response for your position was "Less than an eggplant." Try to get it right next time. Of course, if you weren't afraid, you would have answered with, yes, no, or I don't know, instead of your dodging response.

 

[>< V ><]

There is no middle position between Yes and No. Belief is boolean - either you have it or you don't. There is not, there cannot be, a middle ground. That is the point. It's not a false dichotomy, it is in fact a true dichotomy.

Whether you have a belief or not is boolean. What belief you have concerning the origins of the universe should be obvious, even for someone like you, is not boolean.

Objection denied.

Lets take another of my favorite arguments. You see, I am an apteryx. That's right, I don't have wings. As depressing as this often is, I don't try to invent some middle ground in which I might try to claim that my particularly sharp shoulder blades might constitute wings. I also don't try to convince people not to blaspheme against our long-lost and never-revealed Kenku cousins. The state of my wings, exactly like my belief, is boolean. In this case, false for both.

Just because you have overwhelming evidence of how to assign the truth value, doesn't negate the choices that are available. Others may not have that evidence, in this case, some alien species. Analagously, you're saying, solely because you bought a Honda, Ford is now no longer a choice for anyone else.

Objection denied.

Notice how the only parallel you can draw here is politics? Why?

Your attention to detail is dismal. I have offered many examples, as well as my claim of the general form of the existence argument, which no one challenged. Including you.

Whatever you think you're implying with your question, denied.

Agnosticism is very much the Abstain to vote. Which is fucking cowardly.

After all your huffing and puffing you admit the middle position and then give an emotional reason for not liking it.

You're misrepresenting the analogy. There is no fork in the road. The road either is or isn't.

I'm misrepresenting my own analogy? It couldn't possibly be that you didn't understand my analogy, huh?

Objection denied.

If your conclusion is that you do not have a belief, then you are an atheist.

So you objected to my use of "independents", because it incorporated people that aren't considered "middle of the spectrum". But now it's OK to use a term that incorporates people that don't consider themselves atheists.

This is how you see things,

B are the people with a belief in God.
N are the people that do not have a belief in God.
T is the total number of people.
T = B + N.

And that's overly simplistic, but you want that, because that's your average atheist position. If you're not B, then you're N.

I've already stated that I believe in arguments for God. Thus, seemingly according to you, I'm theist. Even though I also believe in arguments that I believe, deny God. Accordingly, if I have 20 quintillion beliefs that deny God, but just one belief that supports God, then I'm a theist.

And that's obviously wrong that every statement supporting God has an infinite weighting factor.

A less generalized and more accurate analysis is,

B are the people that believe in God.
N are the people that don't believe in God.
A are the people that don't know what to believe.
U are the people uninformed of the claim.
T is the total number of people.
T = B + N + A + U.

Unlike your model, where babies are atheist, people unaware of the claim are atheist, people who don't know what to believe are atheist, my model represents them more accurately. I don't have to be an extremist and claim babies are atheist. Unlike your model, mine allows the baby to choose, once they become aware of the situation. Unlike yours that says the baby is and will always be atheist, because that's not a choice, only theism is. Atheism is just the natural order of things.

And I'm further arguing that the main reason you choose your model is not because you want to be accurate, but because you want to build an argument that justifies your position. You want to argue, N = T - B because that's how you justify being atheist, because you're not theist.

Yet, in my model, N = T - B - A - U, no longer means you're atheist because you're not theist. I make atheism a choice. You do not. Because you know, a choice, requires defending. This is why atheists like you argue your model. Because it's easier for you to defend your model, then it is to defend your choice.



I leave you with these final words from Bertrand Russell.

At 0:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw

"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgement."

 

[Laurens]

Theists argue for God
Agnostics argue for and against God or argue neither.
Atheists argue against God.

Is this not true?

Not true at all.

Firstly its nothing to do with arguments, you can believe in God and not argue for it, you can disbelieve in God and not argue against it. It's about belief, and you can believe things without arguing for them.

Now a theist is someone who believes that God(s) exist and an atheist is someone who disbelieves that proposition. Disbelieving that proposition does not necessarily mean believing the opposite, or arguing against it.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge rather than belief. A = without, gnosis = knowledge. Its not a position in its own right. It means that you believe knowledge isn't possible, so you can believe in God yet also believe that it isn't possible to know that God exists (agnostic theism) and you can disbelieve in God yet also believe that it isn't possible to know that God exists (agnostic atheism). Agnosticism on it's own tells you nothing.

Really if you don't believe its possible to know whether or not God exists, yet you don't actively believe in or worship a God then you're an agnostic atheist - unfortunately some people insist upon calling this position agnostic, however that isn't true, agnosticism is not a position in it's own right its a statement about knowledge rather than belief.

So when someone says I'm agnostic, you should always say 'yes, but are you a theist or an atheist?'... Because saying you're agnostic doesn't give any indication of belief.

 

[australopithecus]

I think >< V >< is labouring under the delusion that if he types "objection denied" often enough then it will start to mean something relevant. Whether you accept my objections or not is meaningless, so I suggest you return under the bridge you periodically emerge from.

 

[Dean]

I think >< V >< is labouring under the delusion that if he types "objection denied" often enough then it will start to mean something relevant. ["¦]

According to his post-records (using "Objection denied." as a search-term),there are no less than 14 instances in him saying just that, in three posts, all of which were made in this thread, all in one day.

*lol* At a cursory glance, my initial instincts tell me that it's designed to be distracting, to distract from his flawed arguments... it looks to be nothing more than a ploy, in a vain effort to encourage people to perceive his arguments to be more compelling, than they actually are.

 

[KittenKoder]

><V><
I have a question for you, can you prove your chosen religious texts are real?

Sadly this should be done in the chat but, I guess I can do it here if you are unwilling. I am sure everyone would allow us to debate uninterrupted is you are that certain of your beliefs. If not, we can keep it here.

 

[DepricatedZero]

First, let me welcome you back out from under the bridge.

It's interesting that you ignore the context of your own post to reply to mine. So I'll include context. I know it's been a while since you posted - that's a typical tactic, hide until you think we've forgotten.

There is no middle position between Yes and No. Belief is boolean - either you have it or you don't. There is not, there cannot be, a middle ground. That is the point. It's not a false dichotomy, it is in fact a true dichotomy.

Whether you have a belief or not is boolean. What belief you have concerning the origins of the universe should be obvious, even for someone like you, is not boolean.

Objection denied.

you had said:

Clearly, there is no middle position. Notice how there are transitory stages for theist and atheist, yet, theist to atheist has no transition. You just wake up one day and *BANG*, "Hey guys, I'm atheist!

Agnosticism, which is addressed in my video, deals with knowledge and not belief. Knowledge != Belief. You are conflating the two. I illustrated that one can claim that their belief is knowledge-based or not knowledge-based, but knowledge itself is irrelevant to the existence of belief. This is evidenced by the prevalence of religion - belief without knowledge.

So you are correct, there are no transitory strages between theist and atheist. You either buy into the bullshit when someone tries to sell it to you, in which case you are a theist, or you don't.

Overruled.

Lets take another of my favorite arguments. You see, I am an apteryx. That's right, I don't have wings. As depressing as this often is, I don't try to invent some middle ground in which I might try to claim that my particularly sharp shoulder blades might constitute wings. I also don't try to convince people not to blaspheme against our long-lost and never-revealed Kenku cousins. The state of my wings, exactly like my belief, is boolean. In this case, false for both.

Just because you have overwhelming evidence of how to assign the truth value, doesn't negate the choices that are available. Others may not have that evidence, in this case, some alien species. Analagously, you're saying, solely because you bought a Honda, Ford is now no longer a choice for anyone else.

Objection denied.

Not true. Again, a terrible analogy. I am saying that being an atheist is analogous to being an apteryx. Either you have wings or you don't - either you have a theistic belief or you don't. The nature and qualitative properties of the theistic belief are irrelevant to its existence.

I believe, for instance, that existence exists. Therefore the belief state is True in this regard. What I believe about existence is beside the point. If I believe the universe had a starting point, then I believe the universe had a starting point. What I believe about that starting point is irrelevant to the point that I have a belief about it.

Do you see yet?

I either believe in a god or I don't. If I do, then what I believe about that god is irrelevant to the fact that I have a belief in the god. If I believe there is a god or gods, then I am a theist. If not, an athiest. It's that simple. What belief I hold is irrelevant to the question of the existence of the belief.

Overruled.

Notice how the only parallel you can draw here is politics? Why?

Your attention to detail is dismal. I have offered many examples, as well as my claim of the general form of the existence argument, which no one challenged. Including you.

Whatever you think you're implying with your question, denied.

Citation needed. Overruled.

Agnosticism is very much the Abstain to vote. Which is fucking cowardly.

After all your huffing and puffing you admit the middle position and then give an emotional reason for not liking it.

Actually, I've explained numerous times how it is dishonest and cowardly without mixing in emotion. Perhaps you should watch the video again. The only emotion I feel for self-proclaimed agnostics is pity that they're lying to themselves. Fred Phelps is more honest than anyone who claims to be an agnostic in lieu of theist or atheist.

Overruled.

You're misrepresenting the analogy. There is no fork in the road. The road either is or isn't.

I'm misrepresenting my own analogy? It couldn't possibly be that you didn't understand my analogy, huh?

Objection denied.

I explained what was wrong with your analogy rather than simply saying "your analogy is bad" but if it would make you feel better:

Overruled.

If your conclusion is that you do not have a belief, then you are an atheist.

So you objected to my use of "independents", because it incorporated people that aren't considered "middle of the spectrum". But now it's OK to use a term that incorporates people that don't consider themselves atheists.

This is how you see things,

B are the people with a belief in God.
N are the people that do not have a belief in God.
T is the total number of people.
T = B + N.

And that's overly simplistic, but you want that, because that's your average atheist position. If you're not B, then you're N.

I wouldn't presume to dictate what one believes, if I were you. Since you're all up in arms about people dictating what you beleive, people in glass houses sink ships and all that. But yes, atheist is a simple descriptor - too simple. It doesn't describe anything except an absence of something. That's the point. It's you who is creating the issue by trying to assign more to it than what it is - a non-state.

In the political spectrum there are thousands of variants. Likewise in the theistic spectrum there are thousands of variants. However, atheism is not on the theistic spectrum. That's the point. Independent is on the political spectrum. Once more:

The only political parallel would be apolitical.

Overruled.

I've already stated that I believe in arguments for God. Thus, seemingly according to you, I'm theist. Even though I also believe in arguments that I believe, deny God. Accordingly, if I have 20 quintillion beliefs that deny God, but just one belief that supports God, then I'm a theist.

I believe in arguments for a god. They do exist. I don't deny that at all. Those arguments are out there. I believe in arguments that deny a god as well, for they also exist.

However, I do not believe in a god, nor do I accept the arguments for one.

Overruled.

And that's obviously wrong that every statement supporting God has an infinite weighting factor.

A less generalized and more accurate analysis is,

B are the people that believe in God.
N are the people that don't believe in God.
A are the people that don't know what to believe.
U are the people uninformed of the claim.
T is the total number of people.
T = B + N + A + U.

Unlike your model, where babies are atheist, people unaware of the claim are atheist, people who don't know what to believe are atheist, my model represents them more accurately. I don't have to be an extremist and claim babies are atheist. Unlike your model, mine allows the baby to choose, once they become aware of the situation. Unlike yours that says the baby is and will always be atheist, because that's not a choice, only theism is. Atheism is just the natural order of things.

In your example, N and U are atheist, while people listed in A can fall on either side. However, the people in Group A are not magically exempt. Not knowing what to believe is different from not believing.

And I'm further arguing that the main reason you choose your model is not because you want to be accurate, but because you want to build an argument that justifies your position. You want to argue, N = T - B because that's how you justify being atheist, because you're not theist.

Actually, the model you've assigned me isn't at all what I use. I'm a programmer, though, and I live and breathe logical constructs. Your model would crash at runtime.

Yet, in my model, N = T - B - A - U, no longer means you're atheist because you're not theist. I make atheism a choice. You do not. Because you know, a choice, requires defending. This is why atheists like you argue your model. Because it's easier for you to defend your model, then it is to defend your choice.

I don't feel a need to defend my 'choice.' There is no more choice in me being atheist than in some poor sap getting raped against their will. I would love for there to be some magic sky daddy I could run to to magic all my problems away. I would love to be able to close my eyes and wish my problems better. I would love to find some everlasting happiness with all my friends and family in some cloud-bound afterlife. That would be fucking awesome.

But that's irrelevant to the fact that I don't buy the snake oil. While I would love for it to be true, I don't believe it is. I can't magically choose to believe, and I can't magically choose not to believe. It's not a choice-based situation. Atheism is not a choice.

The reason I'm active -as- an atheist is because of people who want to legislate their beliefs around my lack of belief. See my earlier statements, which you've just ignored, such as "I also don't try to convince people not to blaspheme against our long-lost and never-revealed Kenku cousins." I'm active to fight against shit like anti-blasphemy laws and anti-science propaganda that the religious extremists push, backed with millions of (tax free) dollars. That's what I'm defensive about, I don't need to defend my lack of belief (I'm not the one making outrageous claims about Amaterasu and some mirror, after all).

Overruled.

I leave you with these final words from Bertrand Russell.

At 0:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw

"Either the thing is true or it isn't. If it is true, you should believe it and if it isn't, you shouldn't. And ah, if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't, you should suspend judgement."

Wise words. Too bad you haven't quite grasped his point.

Overruled.