Atheist vs. Agnostic

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not think he making a fool of himself, his point is that the keys
are not there to be seen, therefore an absence of evidence. I think
your belittling him for his point is small thinking on your part.
Kelly

I think the original point was that sometimes (i.e., under certain conditions) absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence.

Unless I’m missing something (which seems to be quite possible today!), I think this discussion has ranged beyond that original point.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think the original point was that sometimes (i.e., under certain conditions) absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence.

Unless I’m missing something (which seems to be quite possible today!), I think this discussion has ranged beyond that original point.

Either way he said nothing that deserved that.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
Starr: I just put this together; I’m not as adept as you, but what do you think?

________________________________________

Proposition: G or ~G, or Undecided (U).

(1) In order to rationally decide G or ~G, one must have a coherent understanding of G.

(2) In order to rationally decide G or ~G, one must have sufficient information in order to m ...[text shortened]... t accords with ~G (or, alternatively, G).

(8) P is being either dishonest or self-deceptive.

I think 1 and 2 are the same thing for me, having coherent understanding infers one has the necessary information to make a choice and visa versa. I'm not sure what having 1 without 2 would mean. Also, I'm not sure U is of the same type as G or ¬G, it seems to me that U is the addition of time stages into the argument, presuming either that one will eventually come to G or ¬G at some time t', or that one is perhaps not addressing the question currently (I suppose we could come to a term something like 'apatheist' (🙂) for such a person), or that there is no condition 1 or 2 such that we could come to know G or ¬G by it.

Originally posted by Starrman
I think 1 and 2 are the same thing for me, having coherent understanding infers one has the necessary information to make a choice and visa versa. I'm not sure what having 1 without 2 would mean. Also, I'm not sure U is of the same type as G or ¬G, it seems to me that U is the addition of time stages into the argument, presuming either that one will event ...[text shortened]... erson), or that there is no condition 1 or 2 such that we could come to know G or ¬G by it.

I agree that (1) can be subsumed under (2).

However, Palynka’s and ToO’s position seems to be that U is a clear alternative, of the same standing as G or ~G. (Hence, my (3), (6) and (7).) And if one claims U as necessary (i.e., there cannot be sufficient information to decide G or ~G—strong agnosticism), then the time element doesn’t matter. (I was not specific on that, however, and I see the distinction.)

I thought of the possibility of apatheism as a possibility in the context of ToO’s “I neither affirm nor deny.”

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What utter rubbish. The fact that something once existed doesn't prove that it exists now.

My keys could have been melted down. They could even have been shot into the sun, and the component atoms well on their way to becoming Uranium. Who knows?

As for your argument, well, I have no physical evidence of my keys existence, except their past exi ...[text shortened]... re?

Seriously man, where did you learn how to argue a point? You're not very good at it.

I'm self-learned. Apparently, that's more than enough for your childish rants.

Absence of evidence. If they existed once then there is evidence that they may exist now. You're confusing proof with evidence. There is no absence of evidence.

There is indeed evidence for the existence of dinosaurs at one point but there's also continuous and ongoing evidence for their disappearance as living species. Accordingly, in terms of belief probability, the overwhelming evidence for their disappearance dominates. Your static view of evidence is confusing you.

I'll spell out your main mistakes so you can correct them:
1) Proof is different from evidence
2) Evidence and beliefs are not static

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think your belittling him for his point is small thinking on your part.
Kelly

I belittled him not because of his point but because of his arrogant and derogatory post. For someone that is so often the victim of that type of attitudes I'm surprised you criticize me for responding aggressively. Perhaps you're right, now that I think of it maybe I shouldn't play that game.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am taking 4) broadly to entail a conclusion by the agnostic that there is no valid basis on which to form any belief whatsoever about the proposition “G or ~G.” Is that correct?

Yes, that is my idea here... But it is a broader point than saying god is intrinsically unknowable, although it includes them as well.

Originally posted by Palynka
I belittled him not because of his point but because of his arrogant and derogatory post. For someone that is so often the victim of that type of attitudes I'm surprised you criticize me for responding aggressively. Perhaps you're right, now that I think of it maybe I shouldn't play that game.

You may be right too, I'm finding I'm getting more thin skin here than
I liked to be. I try not to respond in kind, but I guess I it is getting to
me too; sorry, I'll let you two play together however you desire without
me sticking my 2 cents in it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Starrman
Implicit atheism as I am using it refers to the notion that one s without god as a normative state and only chooses to explcitise (is that even a word?) for or against at a later point.

I don't see how we can really get to 4). If the probability distribution is unknown (I presume you mean not just that we have no exact figure, but that we simply have no other thing tomorrow, I'm not very well tonight and I haven't had the brain power.

Implicit atheism as I am using it refers to the notion that one s without god as a normative state and only chooses to explcitise (is that even a word?) for or against at a later point.

I think our different views stem from this point. One is without god as a normative state.. Does this, as vistesd's posts seem to indicate, that one acts as if an atheist? If yes, this is precisely where I disagree. The choice is not binary (G, ~G), but continuous and multidimensional.

For example, if we simplify that choice into the plane (behaviour(x), motivation(y) (atheism, theism in all its forms), we can see that each behaviour there can be a continuum of motivations. Ok, we can safely assume that not all of those choices are internally coherent as many conceptions of god restrict behaviour. Even if we restrict ourselves to the subset of coherent choices, we know that there will be behaviours that can be motivated by both atheism and theism (vertical line segments or points along a vertical line). My point is that for your argument to be true, for each behaviour there can only possibly be one motivation (basically, a function). I think this is a very restrictive assumption.

I was trying to see how far that analogy would take me, but not that far, I guess. 🙂 Please break down what you mean exactly by the quoted sentence above as it's likely that I've misinterpreted it.

Edit - I just saw where my analogy is flawed. Let's see if it's where you disagree.

Originally posted by Starrman
The point there is that those terms are lay-terms for general everyday use, they simply do not meet the requirements of the kind of debates we have here. For example if you lump all atheists into one group you come up against problems, consider the following scenarios:

[b]One

A: Worship God!
B: God doesn't exist
A: Prove it
B: I don't have to, e ratification of terms and to claim that such a simple terms are adequate for our purposes.[/b]

Your scenarios were addressed in my post. Perhaps you missed the following:
You can also pretty easily sub-categorize the three groups in terms of reasons for their beliefs.
If you initially separate the reasons for the conclusions from what is concluded the problem is relatively easy to reduce.

There is a difference between clarifying the definitions of terms and completely changing the definitions. You should clarify your terms first and then develop the conceptual model. You seem to be doing it the other way around. Changing the definitions to fit your conceptual model is folly. Of course you'll eventually be able to 'logically prove' your assertions if you change them enough. You should consider that the reason you find it necessary to completely change the definitions is because you've developed a conceptual model that is flawed and needlessly complex. To then rationalize it by blaming it on the 'inadequacy' of the original terms is foolishness.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your scenarios were addressed in my post. Perhaps you missed the following:
[b]You can also pretty easily sub-categorize the three groups in terms of reasons for their beliefs.
If you initially separate the reasons for the conclusions from what is concluded the problem is relatively easy to reduce.

There is a difference between clarifying the de ...[text shortened]... hen rationalize it by blaming it on the 'inadequacy' of the original terms is foolishness.[/b]

Since when were conceptual models built solely from pre-agreed terms? If that were the case, language would never have evolved from simple subject predicate types formed from direct observation, you're just plain wrong about this. It is obvious that the terms are not sufficient to explain the detail of even the first glance model, let alone the depth of a model such as we are discussing here. That you are desperately clinging to such ineffectual categories I think betrays your worry over what accurate terms might imply, otherwise why would you object to such an investigation?

Originally posted by Starrman
Since when were conceptual models built solely from pre-agreed terms? If that were the case, language would never have evolved from simple subject predicate types formed from direct observation, you're just plain wrong about this. It is obvious that the terms are not sufficient to explain the detail of even the first glance model, let alone the depth of a ...[text shortened]... over what accurate terms might imply, otherwise why would you object to such an investigation?

I don't object to the investigation. I object to the way you arrogantly go about presenting your half-baked ideas. Just because you've recently found some power in the idea of redefining terms doesn't mean that you have the wisdom to know when it's appropriate and when it isn't. To then belittle others just because they don't agree with your indiscriminately redefining terms is at the height of arrogance. Face it, if you really understood the subject matter, you wouldn't be struggling as much as you are. If your model truly had depth, you wouldn't be mired in the overly complex quagmire that you've created. Currently, you're clueless. The reason you find the currently accepted categories to be 'ineffectual' is only because you're clueless.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The first one is binary in nature, so is a different animal.

My argument has been that, from a pragmatic point of view, so is G or ~G.

It is a bit like the man who says he loves his wife, even while he is beating her up. He may well be convinced in his own mind that he does; he may have feelings that tell him he does; perhaps if he descr eople would have "known" what I was talking about: we simply would've been wrong.[/b]

You think we are all being overly pedantic.
Believe me, that's definitely not the case. I work in software development. It's a discipline that requires extreme precision and attention to detail. I don't have a problem with making definitions more precise, but when definitions are radically and indiscriminately changed, well, that's problem. Especially when he hasn't even come close to developing a valid conceptual model. He seems to think he's producing something of depth, but from what I've seen, he's barely got his head around enough to form more than a rudimentary understanding. He has absolutely no business trying to present his view as authoritative. This is true of Palynka as well. To top it off, they're so damned arrogant about it as well.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't object to the investigation. I object to the way you arrogantly go about presenting your half-baked ideas. Just because you've recently found some power in the idea of redefining terms doesn't mean that you have the wisdom to know when it's appropriate and when it isn't. To then belittle others just because they don't agree with your indiscriminat ...[text shortened]... currently accepted categories to be 'ineffectual' is only because you're clueless.

Oh please, I haven't belittled anyone, if you don't want to take part, don't. If you're just going to keep saying people are arrogant for discussing a subject you've yet to throw anything worthwhile at, just leave. I'm really happy you can operate in life with only the dictionary definitions of things, I prefer not to be so foolish as to presume that the people that put dictionaries together are authorities on the subject of every definition therein.

Originally posted by Starrman
I prefer not to be so foolish as to presume that the people that put dictionaries together are authorities on the subject of every definition therein.

Especially since those people explicitly deny themselves any such status (cf. the guide to the Oxford English Dictionary).