The Wager

[Master of the Hellish Yard]

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

 

I'm going to have to wager against having a God. If God doesn't exist then I'm at status quo, didn't have to do anything.  If a God does exist and he does punish me due to my beliefs and only my beliefs and not my actions, then he's not worth worshiping to begin with. ._.

[Hyperqube]

> CUD. I'm not categorising agnostic into the group of atheist, I'm categorising them into the broader group of non-believer which is what agnostic is

From my point of view, as true agnost, an agnostic atheist says "as long as I don't know, I'm gonna pick Cola". This of course is your right, but it's to me, that's as incorrect as saying "as long as I don't know, I'm gonna pick Fanta".. On the scale of Dawins (1 being strong theist, 7 being strong atheist) - I'm the center - I'm 4.

Of course you can create some broader group, of "non-believer" - of people who are not theists. On Dawkins scale, that's grouping 1,2,3 & 4 on one side ... and 5,6 &7 at the other, but note

1. the opposite is equally true: one can group all non-atheists together (1,2,3  are at one side, 4,5,6 &7 are at the other). By nature of center, if the left can claim it, so can the right.
   I am as much a non-theist as I am a non-atheist
2. this categorisation of yours groups 4 & 1 together, but not 4 & 5 ....
   grouping agnostistcs with hard core gnostic atheists, but not with agnostic theists?

I hope you can see how, from my perspective, that's non-sense. You're not the first to try such categorisation - and in the past, I've always viewed it as an attempt to think we somehow believe i(or-nonbelieve) n the samething - opposite to the theist who believe in something else. But that's incorrect. For me, an atheist & theist are both equally wrong: and the amount that they are wrong is the amount they default to their position.

For me, you, as someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god". If you're a 3, then, if you want me in your group, you should allow 5 as well,as they too are only one step away from me - just like you

[Heated Bread]

 

Definition:

noun

the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.

 

agnostic

 

noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3.

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:

 

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

 

gnostic

 

adjective, Also, gnostical

1.

pertaining to knowledge.

2.

possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

3.

(initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

 

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

 

 

Your misapprehension may stem from the fact that there used to be an actual historical group of christians called the gnostics.  Since you chose not to give a link for your definition, that's just an educated guess on my part.  The alternative is that you're willfully misrepresenting the facts.  Since as a rule of thumb one ought never ascribe to malice what could be adequately explained by stupidity, or in this case, ignorance, I'll give you the benefit of doubt here.

 

But even given that historical context, the appending of the prefix "a" to the word "gnostic" indicates a lack of gnosticism.  This is not a belief, but a lack of belief.  Now I put the question to you: what part of a lack of belief implies there are beliefs, as your definition claims?  I'd really like to see your source, because that definition makes no sense at all.

 

All one has to do is ask the question "Does not believing something necessarily require a belief in something else?"  The answer is of course "no".  A lack of belief in one thing does not require a belief in another thing.  Take the question of god for example.  There are agnostics who do in fact believe that the answer is ultimately unknowable.  There are also agnostics who simply recognize that they have insufficient information available to them to make a judgement one way or the other.  Taking the extra step of saying that any such information is forever unobtainable is not itself a requirement to hold that position.  In summary, an agnostic could have beliefs related to their agnosticism, but that isn't at all required in order to take the agnostic position of saying "I don't know", which is of course a statement that deals with knowledge.

 

For me, you, as someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god". If you're a 3, then, if you want me in your group, you should allow 5 as well,as they too are only one step away from me - just like you

 

While it is true that one should reserve belief in the positive (there is a god X) or belief in the negative (there is no god X) until there is evidence either way, the two positions are definitely not equivalent.  To see this, all we need is one example.

 

Claim: there is a pink mannequin wearing a blue dress floating on the opposite side of the moon where it cannot be seen from earth.

 

You can

 

A ) Believe the claim is true

B ) Believe the claim is false

C ) Withhold belief until there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief

 

C ) seems to be the proper choice, does it not?  But let's take that out.  Suppose you have only two choices.  A, or B.  Which do you think is more reasonable?  Obviously it's B.  Why?  Because the claim is fucking absurd.  Note that I am not saying this necessarily means the claim is false.  That would be fallacious.

 

One might think "well let's just go out there and look!".  Suppose we do.  We send several manned and unmanned spacecraft to the dark side of the moon to check, and they find nothing.  The claim is then modified with an ad hoc assertion.  The mannequin is very tiny.  It's simply too small to detect against the ordinary background of stuff in the area.  Now what do we do?  Maybe we somehow collect all the orbiting matter and sort through it multiple times.  Again, nothing is found.  Another ad hoc assertion is made.  The mannequin is actually robotic, and programed to move to avoid detection.

 

This could likewise happen each time a new detection strategy is devised to deal with the previous ad hoc assertions.  Another ad hoc assertion is made to deal with the new detection strategy.

 

So yeah.  I agree that ultimately, judgement should be reserved in the absence of sufficient evidence either way.  But I totally understand someone just flat out believing the negative, especially when the claim itself is formulated so that it remains unfalsifiable, with continual ad hoc assertions as is the case with god, and I do not for one second think this position is equivalent to belief in the positive.

[Apo]

>Here is a question for you, theist or atheist:

>Suppose someone precious to you is dying and the doctor offers to try a new miracle drug that he couldnt guarantee works, but has a 50% chance of working. The medicine is very cheap. Is it reasonable to try it , even if it costs a little money?

 

By stating 50% you're implying that there's only 2 options. Your religion, and atheism. Where in reality, there's many other options.

 

>The logical thing to do is pay for the medicine and hope for the best right?

 

Sure, this doesn't prove anything though. Lets use a better example. There's 50,000 potions in a vault. Maybe one of them will give you a second life. There's no guarantee that any of them will though. You will need to spend your whole life devoted to getting one of the potions. Will you devote yourself to that? Fuck that, I'll live the 1 life I know that I have to enjoy. Now, for reasons I changed your example: Using "save your loved one for nothing at all" is a guilt trip, which would persuade people to say "well yeah I'd save my loved one." that's a shady way of doing things. Also, it's extremely inaccurate. Devoting your entire life to a religion is not as simple as tossing a nickel at a doctor to save everyone's life, it's devoting your entire life to one of many belief systems in the hope that you're right, to save yourself. Using your example implies that people who are on "your side" are heroes who are doing everything they can to save their loved ones, whereas people who are on the "atheist" side are evil and would not dare think of helping their loved ones. Your argument is a great example of a fallacy.

 

>Pascal has a theory called "The Wager". It's a pretty basic theory: you make a wager on whether or not God exists. If you wager that he IS real, you CAN win Eternal life. If you are wrong, you get nothing. If you wager that he IS NOT real, and you are wrong, you dont even have a chance at Eternal Life. lose everything. This is a low risk bet: you can get eternity if you give up a little, or give up nothing and risk not receiving anything in the Eternal.

 

This is utter shit. Most religions require you to actually BELIEVE in the god/religion, not just say that you believe in it. "Golly gee, I'll rot in hell iffin I don't believe in God? Well shucks, I guess that makes me believe that all the stories in the bible are fact now, don't need no evidence for that anymore. This threat has completely changed my mind." Scaring people into believing something doesn't work out well. It ends up with them lying to you, telling you that they believe what you want them to, when they really don't. It doesn't help anyone either way.

Most people, when gambling (or placing a wager) will bet on what they think will benefit them the most. This can mean different things for different people.

>Now, this is not a "high" ideal like faith, hope, love, or proof. It is a low "ideal": the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy.

 

Like I said before, if people are just doing it for self preservation, and don't believe it, they're fucked either way. Might as well say that they don't believe it instead of pretending they do.

 

>"Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. THe blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your wil, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally."

 

This argument here relies solely upon it's assertion that god is your only chance at happiness. Not gonna go in depth on this one, just look up "Circular reasoning fallacy." You can't prove an argument right by using that same argument as your proof.

"You need god to be happy!"

"but why?"

"Because you can't be happy without god!"

"but why?"

"Because you need god to be happy!"

etc...

 

>I know [God] exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't religions based upon faith? Claiming knowledge that you KNOW god exists kind of contradicts the whole faith aspect in my opinion.

 

Your arguments presented here were nothing but fallacies. But that doesn't mean that your viewpoint is invalid, or that you're wrong. If I were to claim that you were wrong because you used fallacies in your argument, I would be committing a fallacy myself. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right, but if you're serious about this, then you need to come up with an argument that isn't a giant fallacy.

 

(I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the arguments you've used to support your points are utter trash.)

[Apo]

I didn't say that he's an atheist. I said he is a non-believer.

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." (Atheism = non-belief)

-atheists.org

 

So you're saying "I didn't say he's an atheist. I said he is an atheist."

[CUD]

"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." (Atheism = non-belief)

-atheists.org

 

So you're saying "I didn't say he's an atheist. I said he is an atheist."

 

The difference is that he's taking the stance of "I don't know" and "I don't care" in which case he'd be more agnostic (or apatheistic as Heated Bread has suggested). Technically it's true that you could consider non-believers as atheists but that seems to include people that wouldn't really fit, while you can be 'agnostic atheist' (as I am) you can also just simply be agnostic. 

[A Cyan Stone in Mustard]

agnostic

 

noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3.

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:

 

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

 

gnostic

 

adjective, Also, gnostical

1.

pertaining to knowledge.

2.

possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

3.

(initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

 

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic

 

 

Your misapprehension may stem from the fact that there used to be an actual historical group of christians called the gnostics.  Since you chose not to give a link for your definition, that's just an educated guess on my part.  The alternative is that you're willfully misrepresenting the facts.  Since as a rule of thumb one ought never ascribe to malice what could be adequately explained by stupidity, or in this case, ignorance, I'll give you the benefit of doubt here.

 

But even given that historical context, the appending of the prefix "a" to the word "gnostic" indicates a lack of gnosticism.  This is not a belief, but a lack of belief.  Now I put the question to you: what part of a lack of belief implies there are beliefs, as your definition claims?  I'd really like to see your source, because that definition makes no sense at all.

 

All one has to do is ask the question "Does not believing something necessarily require a belief in something else?"  The answer is of course "no".  A lack of belief in one thing does not require a belief in another thing.  Take the question of god for example.  There are agnostics who do in fact believe that the answer is ultimately unknowable.  There are also agnostics who simply recognize that they have insufficient information available to them to make a judgement one way or the other.  Taking the extra step of saying that any such information is forever unobtainable is not itself a requirement to hold that position.  In summary, an agnostic could have beliefs related to their agnosticism, but that isn't at all required in order to take the agnostic position of saying "I don't know", which is of course a statement that deals with knowledge.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism

 

It has two definitions; I'm referring to the belief-related one. This whole knowledge shit is irrelevant to the topic, I'm not here to take an English lesson and discuss philosophy.

[Heated Bread]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism

 

It has two definitions; I'm referring to the belief-related one. This whole knowledge shit is irrelevant to the topic, I'm not here to take an English lesson and discuss philosophy.

 

You made the assertion that it deals specifically with belief and not knowledge, then asked me the question of how it does not.  I provided you with an incredibly thorough answer, and your only response is to reject it without giving a reason other than you'd prefer not to discuss it.

 

Okay.

 

Well, now you're going to get an english lesson whether you want it or not.  Appending "ism" to the end of a word means you're specifically talking about a completed or formalized process or system of thought or philosophy or way of behaving, etc.  So it's interesting that this was the definition you chose to go with rather than simply looking at "agnostic".  Being agnostic with respect to the god issue does not necessitate that one follow some related formalized system of thought (agnosticism), which is apparently what that definition is referencing.

 

So it looks like you're being very selective and deliberately attempting to avoid the root meaning of the word agnostic, which again deals specifically with knowledge, not belief.  Belief can be involved but it is not necessary as I have already explained very thoroughly.

 

Anecdotally speaking, I identify as an agnostic atheist and have never adopted, researched, or encountered any formal system of "agnosticism", nor have I ever been aware of one, not to say that it doesn't exist somewhere.  I'm honestly surprised that it even has an entry to begin with.

[A Cyan Stone in Mustard]

You made the assertion that it deals specifically with belief and not knowledge, then asked me the question of how it does not.  I provided you with an incredibly thorough answer, and your only response is to reject it without giving a reason other than you'd prefer not to discuss it.

 

Okay.

 

Well, now you're going to get an english lesson whether you want it or not.  Appending "ism" to the end of a word means you're specifically talking about a completed or formalized process or system of thought or philosophy or way of behaving, etc.  So it's interesting that this was the definition you chose to go with rather than simply looking at "agnostic".  Being agnostic with respect to the god issue does not necessitate that one follow some related formalized system of thought (agnosticism), which is apparently what that definition is referencing.

 

So it looks like you're being very selective and deliberately attempting to avoid the root meaning of the word agnostic, which again deals specifically with knowledge, not belief.  Belief can be involved but it is not necessary as I have already explained very thoroughly.

 

Anecdotally speaking, I identify as an agnostic atheist and have never adopted, researched, or encountered any formal system of "agnosticism", nor have I ever been aware of one, not to say that it doesn't exist somewhere.  I'm honestly surprised that it even has an entry to begin with.

What is the point of even discussing this

[Heated Bread]

What is the point of even discussing this

 

If you ask questions, you should be prepared for answers.  You wanted it, you got it.  No sense crying now.

[A Cyan Stone in Mustard]

If you ask questions, you should be prepared for answers.  You wanted it, you got it.  No sense crying now.

 

I Came Out to Have a Good Time and I'm Honestly Feeling So Attacked Right Now

[Heated Bread]

I Came Out to Have a Good Time and I'm Honestly Feeling So Attacked Right Now

 

ermahgerd

 

it's black dynamite

 

*shock and dismay*

[Hyperqube]

> Headed bread:

> While it is true that one should reserve belief in the positive (there is a god X) or belief in the negative (there is no god X)
> until there is evidence either way, the two positions are definitely not equivalent.  To see this, all we need is one example.

> Claim: there is a pink mannequin wearing a blue dress floating on the opposite side of the moon where it cannot be seen from earth.

> One might think "well let's just go out there and look!".  Suppose we do.  We send several manned and unmanned

> spacecraft to the dark side of the moon to check, and they find nothing.  The claim is then modified with an ad hoc assertion.

 

If I may note - I disagree:

- For one, AFAIK, there's no way of checking if a deist god exists. Your initial assumption ("Suppose we do") already moves you beyond the scope of the problem. (good luck finding an omnipotent entitiy that doesn't want to be found ... )

- Secondly, I never understood why modifying the claim would be wrong. It's like people are ignorant about the fact that changing a theory to suit the facts ... that's what science is. Hypothesis, create a test, check, see it doesn't fit, change hypothesis, repeat.

- Thirdly, for me, arguing that they are not equivalent really doesn't matter. If 99% people drink cola then and 1% drink fanta, then statistically, the chance is bigger that I drank cola, and not fanta.... but that doesn't chance reality. If I happen to be with the 1%, if I drank fanta, then I drank fanta.

Reality is what reality is - regardless of how we formulate the question, regardless of the statistics, ...


> (some people) what is agnosticism?

For me, I go back to the source. Huxley is the one who coined it to loabel his own believes - and we have letters of him explaining what his believes are:

 

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter ...

...

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

You want to coin that as belief or non-belief ... really that doesn't matter. But I'm not an atheist. Trying to group me together with atheists, only shows you do not understanding my (dis)beliefs.

[Heated Bread]

If I may note - I disagree:

- For one, AFAIK, there's no way of checking if a deist god exists. Your initial assumption ("Suppose we do") already moves you beyond the scope of the problem. (good luck finding an omnipotent entitiy that doesn't want to be found ... )

 

It's just to illustrate how new information about the universe has pushed out old ideas about god and how it has then been modified by ad hoc assertions to salvage the idea.  Gods used to be in holy caves that only holy men could enter, and in other places on earth.  Judaism even had a version of this called the Holy of Holies.  People (the uninitiated) eventually went in to look in these caves and various other places and found nothing there.  God was placed in the sky where nobody could reach him to check.  Telescopes were invented and he was not seen anywhere people looked.  So now we come to today when god has been placed outside of space and time itself where nobody can go.  I hope you can see how this parallels my example now.

 

- Secondly, I never understood why modifying the claim would be wrong. It's like people are ignorant about the fact that changing a theory to suit the facts ... that's what science is. Hypothesis, create a test, check, see it doesn't fit, change hypothesis, repeat.

 

One is an attempt to model reality as closely as possible based on the evidence (science), and the other is an attempt to protect the assertion of something which is not supported by the evidence (not science).  The example I gave with the mannequin would be the latter rather than the former.

 

- Thirdly, for me, arguing that they are not equivalent really doesn't matter. If 99% people drink cola then and 1% drink fanta, then statistically, the chance is bigger that I drank cola, and not fanta.... but that doesn't chance reality. If I happen to be with the 1%, if I drank fanta, then I drank fanta.

Reality is what reality is - regardless of how we formulate the question, regardless of the statistics, ...

 

I see no reason to disagree here, especially since I'm not making the argument that the estimated likelihood of something necessarily equals what it is in reality.  I'm just arguing that believing the negation of the claim is less retarded than believing in the positive, in the example I gave as well as with pretty much every formulation of god claims that I can ever recall seeing or hearing.

 

Good discussion.

[Hyperqube]

> It's just to illustrate how new information about the universe has pushed out old ideas about god

About a specific interpretation of a specific god, sure. But the god question that seperates atheism & theism isn't one specific god, it's any god.

 

 

If you want an illustration, you're basically saying : "well... we've proven apples aren't blue or purple, and bananas aren't pink, so there's no such thing a fruit"

Discrediting properties of an instance doesn't disprove existance. You've disproven blue applies, not oranges.

 

 

 

> I'm just arguing that believing the negation of the claim is less retarded than believing in the positive

And I'm arguing that that is irrelevant - reality doesn't care with what the "less retarded" option is.

[Heated Bread]

> It's just to illustrate how new information about the universe has pushed out old ideas about god

About a specific interpretation of a specific god, sure. But the god question that seperates atheism & theism isn't one specific god, it's any god.

 

I don't even see how this is an objection.  Was it intended to be one?

 

If you want an illustration, you're basically saying : "well... we've proven apples aren't blue or purple, and bananas aren't pink, so there's no such thing a fruit"

Discrediting properties of an instance doesn't disprove existance. You've disproven blue applies, not oranges.

 

No, I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying if no fruit has ever been observed, and if we have eliminated several possible fruits, it's less of a stretch to believe no fruit exists than to believe fruit does exist, since fruit has never been demonstrated as being anything beyond the product of imagination.  I've been really careful about this, so I'm wondering at this point if you're just missing it on purpose.

 

> I'm just arguing that believing the negation of the claim is less retarded than believing in the positive

 

And I'm arguing that that is irrelevant - reality doesn't care with what the "less retarded" option is.

 

See here we go.  Once again, I'm not arguing whether a god exists or not in actuality.  Aside from eliminating specific god concepts, it's impossible to do this definitively because one can continue to make ad hoc modifications to god indefinitely.  I've repeatedly made this clear.  If you are just saying "I don't care" without raising any valid objections, we're not really having a disagreement.  You're just telling me you don't like what I am saying.

 

So, okay then.  That's your preference and I acknowledge it, but it's not a valid objection to my argument.

[Hyperqube]

> I'm saying if no fruit has ever been observed

Am I incorrect in presuming that for things you don't have a physical explenation - you assume there is one, you just don't know it?

By a prioiry deciding no acts were of god, concluding that there were no acts of god is circular reasoning.

> Once again, I'm not arguing whether a god exists or not in actuality

> ... You're just telling me you don't like what I am saying

But, again, that is what I'm arguing. Do note that you are the one who responded to me. I'm not telling you that I don't like what you're saying - I'm telling you you're talking about the wrong thing.

To repeat what you responded to: For me [...] someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god".

You seem to give me your reasons why you presume the position you default to is more likely then the other ... That's cool and all, but I pointed already that your position doesn't alter mine. You have your reasons why you presume your position is more correct to default to, but guess what? A theist has his reasons too.

 

In the end, theist or atheist, all you bring are all pretty words & fallacies - because it all adresses the problem from the entirely wrong way. The absence of barking doesn't disprove a dog, while the presence of barking could be explained by a TV, opposite to a existance dog.
I'm not interested in the barking, nor the smell, nor the hair ... I'm interested in wether there's a dog or not.

like it or not - in the very end - even if you've disproven each and every divine claim ... you STILL only have a 50/50 odds between atheism & deism

[Hyperqube]

appendum, as you argue that a god would be "made up".

 

... do realise, that by it's very nature - a deist god IS made up. A deist god doesn't interact with the world, so he wouldn't have revealed himself, so ... well... people thought of that concept.

[Heated Bread]

> Once again, I'm not arguing whether a god exists or not in actuality

> ... You're just telling me you don't like what I am saying

 

But, again, that is what I'm arguing. Do note that you are the one who responded to me. I'm not telling you that I don't like what you're saying - I'm telling you you're talking about the wrong thing.

To repeat what you responded to: For me [...] someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god". 

 

Yes, what I responded to was this:

 

someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god"

 

You are asserting here that both positions are equivalent when they are not.  I have carefully argued why this is not the case; that belief in the negation is not as bad as belief in the positive.   You have still not raised any real objection to this.  You're now just complaining that I'm somehow arguing the wrong point.  You're saying that you're arguing the actual existence or nonexistence of god, so then YOU would be the one who has jumped outside the scope of conversation between us, not me.  Get your facts straight.  I've already told you multiple times that this is not the point of contention, but you stubbornly keep attempting to steer the conversation there anyway.

 

You can't wiggle out of this one by trying to derail the conversation.  Do you or do you not have any real objection to my point?  Now's your chance.  If you have no objection to raise other than "that's not what I want to talk about", that's perfectly fine.  But don't pretend I'm doing something wrong by directly responding to something you said.

[ForeverYourMonster]

My wager is, that stories change as they are passed down from generation to generation. Any of these "thousand year old books" are exactly that. We have no substantial evidence that everything in these religious books are true.

[Hyperqube]

> You are asserting here that both positions are equivalent when they are not.
> I have carefully argued why this is not the case;
> that belief in the negation is not as bad as belief in the positive.

carefully argued? perhaps. But also poorly.
You can argue the history of the debate on specific gods all you want - it doesn't matter, because, in the end of the day - that's fallicious.

You can argue that the others can move the goalpost ... and again, that doesn't matter, because it is fallicious.

 

Look at your argument: all you have done is given a single example, and hoped it was convincing.

Why have you not refered to logical theorems & such?
I can tell you why: because logic doesn't care if something is formulated as a positive or if something is formulated as a negative.

You can dance around it all you want, but postive or negative claim, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. And guess what?

• evidence of claim A: none
• evidence of claim -A: none

That is the bottom line - that is what makes them equivalent.

 

 

again, the quote : For me [...] someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god".

Because that person leans toward a stance they have no evidence of - they only believe is so.

 

 

 

>   Do you or do you not have any real objection to my point?

What is your point? That defaulting to "no god" makes more sense then then defaulting to "god"? Yes, I object to that.

stop with the fallacies & pretty words, but give one smidgen of real evidence on which you base your decision
 

[CUD]

You can dance around it all you want, but postive or negative claim, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. And guess what?

• evidence of claim A: none
• evidence of claim -A: none

That is the bottom line - that is what makes them equivalent.

 

 

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, that does not make sense.

"God" is the claim, "no God" is not a claim but a denial of that original claim. The onus of proof still lies with those claiming "God".

Otherwise, I could say that an invisible man is following you around everywhere, you tell me that's not true so I say "you can't disprove it". Of course you can't disprove a claim that lacks evidence, it's a baseless claim to begin with.

 

Again, unless I'm misinterpreting your post, how are "God" and "no God" equal?

[Hyperqube]

> "God" is the claim, "no God" is not a claim but a denial of that original claim.

Actually, your confusion is because of the shorthand: "God" is a word, not a claim.   "I say god exists" is a claim - "I don't believe your claim is true, please prove it" is the denial of that claim.

but likewise "I say god doesn't exist" is also claim.

 

Dawkins scale represents the following:

1. I know god exists
2. I assume god exists
3. I don't know, but 'm prone to assuming god exists
4. I don't know, and I'm not prone on assuming either way
5. I don't know, but I'm prone to assuming god doesn't exists
6. I assume god doesn't exist
7. I know god doesn't exist

> Otherwise, I could say that an invisible man is following you around everywhere, you tell me that's not

> true so I say "you can't disprove it". Of course you can't disprove a claim that lacks evidence,

> it's a baseless claim to begin with.

 

Well, yes ... but that's because you take an example of something you a priori decided to be ridiculous. But, allow me to take your example, and look at history: lets look to the time people didn't know about bacteria - unobservable creaturess all around us with real effects.

So, CUD, if you told me that an invisible man there are unobservable creatures. and I told you there not - I would be wrong here

if you told me that there are unobservable creatures. and I told you: hey CUD, I don't believe you, prove it ... then I'm not wrong - I'm mearly critical.

 

If I can point out one VERY important thing people seem to forget:

 

something is false ---> it's impossible to prove right
something impossible to prove right --/--> it is false
 

It's actaully the same flaw that the wager has: conveniently forgetting that there things that are true but that can't be proven.

[CUD]

> "God" is the claim, "no God" is not a claim but a denial of that original claim.

 

Actually, your confusion is because of the shorthand: "God" is a word, not a claim.   "I say god exists" is a claim - "I don't believe your claim is true, please prove it" is the denial of that claim.

but likewise "I say god doesn't exist" is also claim.

 

What confusion? "God" was short for "God exists" and "no God" was short for "God does not exist" or what ever variation you want of those statements.

 

That doesn't really make sense. "I say God doesn't exist" is a claim in response to the other claim, it's claiming that the initial claim is false. Calling this claim anything other than a denial of the initial claim seems odd since you couldn't make the claim that God doesn't exist had the claim that God does exist not been made first.

 

Dawkins scale represents the following:

1. I know god exists
2. I assume god exists
3. I don't know, but 'm prone to assuming god exists
4. I don't know, and I'm not prone on assuming either way
5. I don't know, but I'm prone to assuming god doesn't exists
6. I assume god doesn't exist
7. I know god doesn't exist

> Otherwise, I could say that an invisible man is following you around everywhere, you tell me that's not

> true so I say "you can't disprove it". Of course you can't disprove a claim that lacks evidence,

> it's a baseless claim to begin with.

 

Well, yes ... but that's because you take an example of something you a priori decided to be ridiculous. But, allow me to take your example, and look at history: lets look to the time people didn't know about bacteria - unobservable creaturess all around us with real effects.

 

So, CUD, if you told me that an invisible man there are unobservable creatures. and I told you there not - I would be wrong here

if you told me that there are unobservable creatures. and I told you: hey CUD, I don't believe you, prove it ... then I'm not wrong - I'm mearly critical.

 

If I can point out one VERY important thing people seem to forget:

 

something is false ---> it's impossible to prove right

something impossible to prove right --/--> it is false

 

It's actaully the same flaw that the wager has: conveniently forgetting that there things that are true but that can't be proven.

 

Regarding the bacteria example, I'm not so sure that it is really different to my example. Unless the person claiming that there are tiny organisms that we cannot see with our eyes alone has some evidence to support their claim it would seem as absurd as the claim of God is today, or my invisible man example. Their claim being absurd or baseless because it lacked any evidence to support it does not mean it's necessarily wrong it just means that it's really not likely to be true with our current understanding, when new evidence comes along and it proves their claim right or wrong then we can judge it (even then new evidence can change the way we think about that same thing in the future). Point is, a baseless claim does not hold as much value as the denial of that claim because it's baseless, there is nothing to support it.

 

Why would someone make the claim that there are microorganisms that we cannot see with our eyes alone without evidence to support it? As long as that claim had nothing to support it then it would be much more logical to deny such a claim.

 

This isn't about the ability to prove it right, as we learn more about the universe we'll adjust our knowledge with new evidence. What this is about is whether or not a claim has any evidence or any real basis in reality, or if it's just something that can conveniently be believed to be beyond our understanding. It's not about the future of the claim but the claim itself.

[Heated Bread]

< snip >

 

nope

 

I wrote a lengthy post here but realized I was just rehashing what's already been said and that there was no point anyway.