Do you believe in a god?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: jonks
The poll makes me feel nice and warm inside.

me too... a little cold though.. The Yes results disturb me still.

Why?

Because many people interpret the texts in religion to mean things such as gay people equal bad people. It doesn't mean that agnostics or atheists won't do the same, but it is just far less likely IMO. Also atheists/agnostics tend to be more scientifically inclined, at least from what I see.

You incorrectly assume that everyone who posted yes follows a religion, or if they do, follows it fundamentally.

You are irrationally confusing hatefull fundamentalists with all believers. You are falling into the us vs them mentality.

I understand that you are young and gay. But please don't let the irrational hate of others make you hate indiscriminately too. That makes you no better than them.

85+% of people believe in a god in the US. But most of them have no problem with gays and lesbians. Remember that when you judge believers based on a subsection who irrationally hate gays.

You are reacting instead of acting. You are being a puppet.

BTW, the majority of scientists AND gays have some form of belief in a god or gods.

You incorrectly assumed I assumed that. I never said that did I?

I said many, not all. Did I not?

I'm not, actually. :-/ (Not gay)

Yet Prop 8 still passed...

Uh, how would I act?

I would love to see where you get that # for scientists. What fields of study?

Don't make false claims in threads then.

Condemning all for the deeds of many, especially a minority, is bigotry. Why are you so resistant to accepting your own bigotry?

Prop 8 passed not because of hatred of gays, but because of tradition. When polled, the majority of prop 8 supporters support a legal equivalent of "civil union." They just have a thing about the word "marriage." Silly? Yes, but that's the reality of it.

Google is your friend. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true.

I shouldn't have to validate your numbers, you should be linking me!

No, you should be learning instead of making false assumtions and attempting to post them as fact.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge. However, with everthing I can use to detect such a thing in my room, I will have to say I detect nothing. But your claim says they are undetectable. so...

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused
No, you should be learning instead of making false assumtions and attempting to post them as fact.

You're supposed to validate these claims. I don't want to go searching for shit.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused
No, you should be learning instead of making false assumtions and attempting to post them as fact.

You're supposed to validate these claims. I don't want to go searching for shit.

http://www.google.com/search?h...entists+believe+in+god

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

Okay, so, would you discount any claim as "practically" proven false if there was a mountain of research no evidence found?

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused
No, you should be learning instead of making false assumtions and attempting to post them as fact.

You're supposed to validate these claims. I don't want to go searching for shit.

http://www.google.com/search?h...entists+believe+in+god

Not good enough. I refuse to go looking through craptastic religion websites.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

Okay, so, would you discount any claim as "practically" proven false if there was a mountain of research no evidence found?

You're not going to get a good answer.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused
No, you should be learning instead of making false assumtions and attempting to post them as fact.

You're supposed to validate these claims. I don't want to go searching for shit.

http://www.google.com/search?h...entists+believe+in+god

Not good enough. I refuse to go looking through craptastic religion websites.

The first two hits are not religious.

Grow up. Seriously.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

You're getting closer. A claim to the negative may be unprovable -- but would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible? We we may not be able to prove that they aren't there. What if we look at it from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever? Then, for all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

If you make a claim that, by it's very nature is not disprovable, than it cannot be disproved.

Again, you're reaching. Why not try a practical example? All you are doing is creating more claims that are identical to the god claim. You are just making them more silly sounding in an attempt to make me back down.

I choose neutrality in that I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in a god. There is no evidence either way therefore no reason to consider it.

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

Okay, so, would you discount any claim as "practically" proven false if there was a mountain of research no evidence found?

You have made a claim of something that is, by it's very nature, undetectable. So for me to say my failure to detect it disproves your claim would be fallacious.

However, you have also made it location specific (in my room). Therefore making it less plausable because I can detect everything within my room, but not everything everywhere in the universe.

Now, had you made a claim of something I could detect within a location, I could prove or disprove that. Like claiming there is an elephant in my fridge. But if you make a claim of an omnipotent being in the universe, I cannot detect everything within the universe so I cannot disprove the claim. I can only say I have no evidence to support such a claim. But I CANNOT say such a thing does not exist.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused
You have made a claim of something that is, by it's very nature, undetectable. So for me to say my failure to detect it disproves your claim would be fallacious.

However, you have also made it location specific (in my room). Therefore making it less plausable because I can detect everything within my room, but not everything everywhere in the universe.

Now, had you made a claim of something I could detect within a location, I could prove or disprove that. Like claiming there is an elephant in my fridge. But if you make a claim of an omnipotent being in the universe, I cannot detect everything within the universe so I cannot disprove the claim. I can only say I have no evidence to support such a claim. But I CANNOT say such a thing does not exist.

So, do you or do you not consider a claim which cannot categorically be disproved but has been investigated thoroughly and has no evidence for the positive to be disproven for all practical intents and purposes? Yes or no?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Mmm? I've played d2 before, and been on d2jsp a lot. Check TridenT_Boy3555 as one of the usernames there.

So you admit you're one of those 12 year olds, then cement the claim with a post like this?

Btw, nice job getting it in before new years'. I'd hate to have to wait another 12 months to see if you got ownage of the year.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
You have made a claim of something that is, by it's very nature, undetectable. So for me to say my failure to detect it disproves your claim would be fallacious.

However, you have also made it location specific (in my room). Therefore making it less plausable because I can detect everything within my room, but not everything everywhere in the universe.

Now, had you made a claim of something I could detect within a location, I could prove or disprove that. Like claiming there is an elephant in my fridge. But if you make a claim of an omnipotent being in the universe, I cannot detect everything within the universe so I cannot disprove the claim. I can only say I have no evidence to support such a claim. But I CANNOT say such a thing does not exist.

So, do you or do you not consider a claim which cannot categorically be disproved but has been investigated thoroughly and has no evidence for the positive to be disproven for all practical intents and purposes? Yes or no?

In a specific location? Unplausable but if claimed undetectable I cannot make any claim either way. Universally? No.

Again, if the claim is that it is undetectable, then it cannot be disproven.

Can you make the claim that no particle smaller than a quark exists? Anywhere in the universe?

Now I can claim there is, and you cannot disprove it because: first, you cannot detect it, and second you cannot be everywhere in the universe.

The existence of a god or gods is unknowable. Period. Any claim either way is intellectually dishonest.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Mmm? I've played d2 before, and been on d2jsp a lot. Check TridenT_Boy3555 as one of the usernames there.

So you admit you're one of those 12 year olds, then cement the claim with a post like this?

Btw, nice job getting it in before new years'. I'd hate to have to wait another 12 months to see if you got ownage of the year.

I am not one of them. I am just frustrated with my situation. It has not cleared up for the past few months, and it was supposed to be picking up now. (Broken promises)

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

I think the proper attitude in this situation is healthy skepticism. To maintain a workable sense of open mindedness, it is not necessary to stick hard and fast to the "I don't know for sure and therefore I will not comment" attitude. You can establish a threshold of plausibility beyond which you can safely come to an operable conclusion. The purpose of the increasingly ridiculous analogies to the god question is to make you realize that despite the ultimately irresolvable nature of the claim, you don't have to always choose a position in the dead center and indeed you already do not when it comes to other things.

I have, in the back of my mind, the knowledge that I do NOT have the answer to the question at hand. It lies in the same place with all the other unanswerable questions that I have encountered in my life. I am continually narrowing them down to "most likely answer" and as I do this my own opinion on the subject shifts farther away from the center in one direction or another. Some of these questions I would now feel comfortable betting on if I had to, although I have not arrived at a concrete conclusion.

I hate to quote Dawkins in any discussion, but something he wrote in "The God Delusion" seems to apply rather well here:

"The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability."

The bolded part is what I consider to be important to the discussion. After all we make quite a few decision in our daily lives based on (not faith) quick 'n dirty probability assessments. The strictly agnostic viewpoint, when applied to things besides religion, would bring you to the conclusion that you don't really know ANYTHING "for certain", but I doubt that's how you live your life. No, most of your activities consist of narrowing things down to "most likely" answers and then acting on your results. The difference is that in day to day life you get reinforcement afterward by seeing if what you did worked out, where you can be reasonably sure that the answer to the god question will never be forthcoming in your lifetime.

Tell me. Why should you treat this one question as though it's different from all those others in terms of your ability to make an educated guess based on what you know right now?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
You have made a claim of something that is, by it's very nature, undetectable. So for me to say my failure to detect it disproves your claim would be fallacious.

However, you have also made it location specific (in my room). Therefore making it less plausable because I can detect everything within my room, but not everything everywhere in the universe.

Now, had you made a claim of something I could detect within a location, I could prove or disprove that. Like claiming there is an elephant in my fridge. But if you make a claim of an omnipotent being in the universe, I cannot detect everything within the universe so I cannot disprove the claim. I can only say I have no evidence to support such a claim. But I CANNOT say such a thing does not exist.

So, do you or do you not consider a claim which cannot categorically be disproved but has been investigated thoroughly and has no evidence for the positive to be disproven for all practical intents and purposes? Yes or no?

In a specific location? Unplausable but if claimed undetectable I cannot make any claim either way. Universally? No.

Again, if the claim is that it is undetectable, then it cannot be disproven.

Can you make the claim that no particle smaller than a quark exists? Anywhere in the universe?

Now I can claim there is, and you cannot disprove it because: first, you cannot detect it, and second you cannot be everywhere in the universe.

The existence of a god or gods is unknowable. Period. Any claim either way is logically dishonest.

So, No. You consider it intellectually dishonest to say that any claim that cannot be proven to be false to a logical point to be untrue. It does not matter how much investigation is done, nor how ludicrous said claim is, you feel that any such claim cannot be discounted. Am I correctly stating your position?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

I think the proper attitude in this situation is healthy skepticism. To maintain a workable sense of open mindedness, it is not necessary to stick hard and fast to the "I don't know for sure and therefore I will not comment" attitude. You can establish a threshold of plausibility beyond which you can safely come to an operable conclusion. The purpose of the increasingly ridiculous analogies to the god question is to make you realize that despite the ultimately irresolvable nature of the claim, you don't have to always choose a position in the dead center and indeed you already do not when it comes to other things.

I have, in the back of my mind, the knowledge that I do NOT have the answer to the question at hand. It lies in the same place with all the other unanswerable questions that I have encountered in my life. I am continually narrowing them down to "most likely answer" and as I do this my own opinion on the subject shifts farther away from the center in one direction or another. Some of these questions I would now feel comfortable betting on if I had to, although I have not arrived at a concrete conclusion.

I hate to quote Dawkins in any discussion, but something he wrote in "The God Delusion" seems to apply rather well here:

"The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability."

The bolded part is what I consider to be important to the discussion. After all we make quite a few decision in our daily lives based on (not faith) quick 'n dirty probability assessments. The strictly agnostic viewpoint, when applied to things besides religion, would bring you to the conclusion that you don't really know ANYTHING "for certain", but I doubt that's how you live your life. No, most of your activities consist of narrowing things down to "most likely" answers and then acting on your results. The difference is that in day to day life you get reinforcement afterward by seeing if what you did worked out, where you can be reasonably sure that the answer to the god question will never be forthcoming in your lifetime.

Tell me. Why should you treat this one question as though it's different from all those others in terms of your ability to make an educated guess based on what you know right now?

Because quite simply, it IS intellectually dishonest to make the claim that no god exists. Why? Because you cannot prove that.

You can say you doubt it all you want. But you cannot make a definitive claim either way.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused
You have made a claim of something that is, by it's very nature, undetectable. So for me to say my failure to detect it disproves your claim would be fallacious.

However, you have also made it location specific (in my room). Therefore making it less plausable because I can detect everything within my room, but not everything everywhere in the universe.

Now, had you made a claim of something I could detect within a location, I could prove or disprove that. Like claiming there is an elephant in my fridge. But if you make a claim of an omnipotent being in the universe, I cannot detect everything within the universe so I cannot disprove the claim. I can only say I have no evidence to support such a claim. But I CANNOT say such a thing does not exist.

So, do you or do you not consider a claim which cannot categorically be disproved but has been investigated thoroughly and has no evidence for the positive to be disproven for all practical intents and purposes? Yes or no?

In a specific location? Unplausable but if claimed undetectable I cannot make any claim either way. Universally? No.

Again, if the claim is that it is undetectable, then it cannot be disproven.

Can you make the claim that no particle smaller than a quark exists? Anywhere in the universe?

Now I can claim there is, and you cannot disprove it because: first, you cannot detect it, and second you cannot be everywhere in the universe.

The existence of a god or gods is unknowable. Period. Any claim either way is logically dishonest.

So, No. You consider it intellectually dishonest to say that any claim that cannot be proven to be false to a logical point to be untrue. It does not matter how much investigation is done, nor how ludicrous said claim is, you feel that any such claim cannot be discounted. Am I correctly stating your position?

You can only make a claim as to how unlikely you think it is. Yes.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

I think the proper attitude in this situation is healthy skepticism. To maintain a workable sense of open mindedness, it is not necessary to stick hard and fast to the "I don't know for sure and therefore I will not comment" attitude. You can establish a threshold of plausibility beyond which you can safely come to an operable conclusion. The purpose of the increasingly ridiculous analogies to the god question is to make you realize that despite the ultimately irresolvable nature of the claim, you don't have to always choose a position in the dead center and indeed you already do not when it comes to other things.

I have, in the back of my mind, the knowledge that I do NOT have the answer to the question at hand. It lies in the same place with all the other unanswerable questions that I have encountered in my life. I am continually narrowing them down to "most likely answer" and as I do this my own opinion on the subject shifts farther away from the center in one direction or another. Some of these questions I would now feel comfortable betting on if I had to, although I have not arrived at a concrete conclusion.

I hate to quote Dawkins in any discussion, but something he wrote in "The God Delusion" seems to apply rather well here:

"The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability."

The bolded part is what I consider to be important to the discussion. After all we make quite a few decision in our daily lives based on (not faith) quick 'n dirty probability assessments. The strictly agnostic viewpoint, when applied to things besides religion, would bring you to the conclusion that you don't really know ANYTHING "for certain", but I doubt that's how you live your life. No, most of your activities consist of narrowing things down to "most likely" answers and then acting on your results. The difference is that in day to day life you get reinforcement afterward by seeing if what you did worked out, where you can be reasonably sure that the answer to the god question will never be forthcoming in your lifetime.

Tell me. Why should you treat this one question as though it's different from all those others in terms of your ability to make an educated guess based on what you know right now?

Because quite simply, it IS intellectually dishonest to make the claim that no god exists. Why? Because you cannot prove that.

You can say you doubt it all you want. But you cannot make a definitive claim either way.

Did you grow up saying, "I don't know" your entire life?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So
So, No. You consider it intellectually dishonest to say that any claim that cannot be proven to be false to a logical point to be untrue. It does not matter how much investigation is done, nor how ludicrous said claim is, you feel that any such claim cannot be discounted. Am I correctly stating your position?

You can only make a claim as to how unlikely you think it is. Yes.

Okay, we've made another step. Now, do you think there is a point where something is so extremely unlikely that it is reasonable to behave as if it's false?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So
So, No. You consider it intellectually dishonest to say that any claim that cannot be proven to be false to a logical point to be untrue. It does not matter how much investigation is done, nor how ludicrous said claim is, you feel that any such claim cannot be discounted. Am I correctly stating your position?

You can only make a claim as to how unlikely you think it is. Yes.

Okay, we've made another step. Now, do you think there is a point where something is so extremely unlikely that it is reasonable to behave as if it's false?

Yes. But not to logically claim that it is false.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: So

Please address my question directly. My example is fine. If you wanted, I could pick "prove saddam didn't have WMDs" but you get the point already.

So, answer the following:
1. would you consider my claim about invisible capybaras to be plausible?

Now, assume that we look for evidence from all sides, poke around where we think there should be evidence, and find none whatsoever.
2. For all practical purposes, can we say that the claim is untrue?

I have to see where you stand on 1 & 2 before we wander to more complicated or less abstract discussions. I don't mean to stifle you from making a point, but if we want to get somewhere in this discussion, we can't bounce from topic to topic.

The WMDs question is also unknowable, since he had months to move them out of the country.

Question 1. Plausable? No. But then, I am limited by the depth of my knowledge.

Question 2. No. I cannot say the claim is untrue because I cannot disprove it. Give me a way to measure it and I'll let you know, but your claim made that impossible.

I think the proper attitude in this situation is healthy skepticism. To maintain a workable sense of open mindedness, it is not necessary to stick hard and fast to the "I don't know for sure and therefore I will not comment" attitude. You can establish a threshold of plausibility beyond which you can safely come to an operable conclusion. The purpose of the increasingly ridiculous analogies to the god question is to make you realize that despite the ultimately irresolvable nature of the claim, you don't have to always choose a position in the dead center and indeed you already do not when it comes to other things.

I have, in the back of my mind, the knowledge that I do NOT have the answer to the question at hand. It lies in the same place with all the other unanswerable questions that I have encountered in my life. I am continually narrowing them down to "most likely answer" and as I do this my own opinion on the subject shifts farther away from the center in one direction or another. Some of these questions I would now feel comfortable betting on if I had to, although I have not arrived at a concrete conclusion.

I hate to quote Dawkins in any discussion, but something he wrote in "The God Delusion" seems to apply rather well here:

"The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability."

The bolded part is what I consider to be important to the discussion. After all we make quite a few decision in our daily lives based on (not faith) quick 'n dirty probability assessments. The strictly agnostic viewpoint, when applied to things besides religion, would bring you to the conclusion that you don't really know ANYTHING "for certain", but I doubt that's how you live your life. No, most of your activities consist of narrowing things down to "most likely" answers and then acting on your results. The difference is that in day to day life you get reinforcement afterward by seeing if what you did worked out, where you can be reasonably sure that the answer to the god question will never be forthcoming in your lifetime.

Tell me. Why should you treat this one question as though it's different from all those others in terms of your ability to make an educated guess based on what you know right now?

Because quite simply, it IS intellectually dishonest to make the claim that no god exists. Why? Because you cannot prove that.

You can say you doubt it all you want. But you cannot make a definitive claim either way.

Did you grow up saying, "I don't know" your entire life?

Nope. I was once just like you.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Amused
Because quite simply, it IS intellectually dishonest to make the claim that no god exists. Why? Because you cannot prove that.

You can say you doubt it all you want. But you cannot make a definitive claim either way.

I remember Vic making this claim nearly five years ago, before he grew up a little. It's surprising seeing you say it though. Reason being it's discriminatory toward atheists. They are the polar opposite of the religious, yet they're wrong for making their claim while there's nothing wrong with the religious making their own? How does that work? Because there are more religious people to argue with you if you claim they're equally wrong?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Amused
Because quite simply, it IS intellectually dishonest to make the claim that no god exists. Why? Because you cannot prove that.

You can say you doubt it all you want. But you cannot make a definitive claim either way.

I remember Vic making this claim nearly five years ago, before he grew up a little. It's surprising seeing you say it though. Reason being it's discriminatory toward atheists. They are the polar opposite of the religious, yet they're wrong for making their claim while there's nothing wrong with the religious making their own? How does that work? Because there are more religious people to argue with you if you claim they're equally wrong?

Why would you assume I said the theists were right?

I am only making the point that the positive atheists are no more correct than the theists.

Both stances are faith based.

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Amused
Because quite simply, it IS intellectually dishonest to make the claim that no god exists. Why? Because you cannot prove that.

You can say you doubt it all you want. But you cannot make a definitive claim either way.

I remember Vic making this claim nearly five years ago, before he grew up a little. It's surprising seeing you say it though. Reason being it's discriminatory toward atheists. They are the polar opposite of the religious, yet they're wrong for making their claim while there's nothing wrong with the religious making their own? How does that work? Because there are more religious people to argue with you if you claim they're equally wrong?

Why would you assume I said the theists were right?

I am only making the point that the positive atheists are no more correct than the theists.

Both stances are faith based.

:-/ Not exactly. Ugh, I have to get out stupid dawkins book. (Which I did not like)

6.
"Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'"

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: Amused
BTW, the majority of scientists AND gays have some form of belief in a god or gods.

No, they don't. The correlation between level of training in science (as recognized by NIST) and belief in God is a negative one - the more training you have in science, the less likely you are to believe in God.

It's a basic tenet of critical thinking that something is assumed false until it is proven or demonstrated with evidence or reason otherwise. The opposite would be insane - we would believe everything until it was proven false. So since there's no evidence for God, and there is evidence against God, why would anyone believe at all?