User Tag List

First 20282930313240 Last

Results 291 to 300 of 444

  1. #291
    Senior Member wildflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Atheists demand proof and logical clarity before they will accept something to be truth (insofar as we can really think of something as true). However, this needn't be applied to the belief that something doesn't exist, because essentially it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
    exactly my point, but why is it that i, as one who believes God exists, have to prove something and you don't when making a claim? that is a double standard and we are both making truth claims whether you couch it in the negative or not. sorry but you don't get a hall pass if i don't. it is at that point that you change the rules because you admit it can't be done. that is what i'm trying to point out. it's this humungous pink elephant in your argument but you try to change the rules and brush it off as if it's a miniscule fly. it's that insofar as we can really think of something as true that is the pink elephant i am trying to expose. you can't just change the rules at that point and brush it off. well, you can but then the emperor has no clothes.

    So, when atheists say they don't believe in God, they aren't so much saying that they believe that God does not exist, but that they don't believe that he does.
    if you would like to be an agnostic at least that is a bit more tenable.

    If I told you that I believed a giant anus is flying through the galaxy heading for earth, would you really need faith to not believe in such a thing?
    just because it sounds preposterous doesn't mean we still don't employ the same process. it is just much easier and faster.

  2. #292
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildflower View Post
    lol, good try but no. if you can't prove something absolutely then your arguments are ultimately based on faith whether you incorporate said faith into your argument or not. i'll give you points for creativity though.
    Have you heard of Bayesian epidemiology? The assigned probability can never be equal to 1 or 0, and yet it manages to be viable for decision making despite the fact that nothing is ever considered to be absolutely true or false.

    Faith is for those who don't appreciate the concept of uncertainty.

  3. #293
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildflower View Post
    exactly my point, but why is it that i, as one who believes God exists, have to prove something and you don't when making a claim? that is a double standard and we are both making truth claims whether you couch it in the negative or not. sorry but you don't get a hall pass if i don't. it is at that point that you change the rules because you admit it can't be done. that is what i'm trying to point out. it's this humungous pink elephant in your argument but you try to change the rules and brush it off as if it's a miniscule fly. it's that insofar as we can really think of something as true that is the pink elephant i am trying to expose. you can't just change the rules at that point and brush it off. well, you can but then the emperor has no clothes.
    You're missing the point I think. There is a substantive difference between requiring evidence to believe in something vs. requiring evidence to not believe in something.

    Let us consider the former. Imagine a person as an empty box, a box which is to be filled with knowledge. The only criteria for admittance into the box is a sufficient amount of evidence or proof supporting the truth of that thing. Now, there are infinitely many things which might at any point in time exist outside of the box (think of this as the totality of human knowledge / belief), but they will not be granted admittance into the box unless they meet the aforementioned criteria.

    Let us consider the latter. Imagine a person as a box which, upon contact with anything (knowledge) outside of the box, the box immediately sucks it in. The box will continue to suck in everything with which it comes in contact, and the only way anything will ever exit the box is if there is a sufficient amount of evidence or proof supporting the falsity of that thing.

    The former is the position of the atheist. He is unwilling to put anything in his box unless there is sufficient proof. You seem to suggest that this is equivalent to the latter position, but I am inclined to disagree. This is not a question of faith, but a question of some of those things not meeting the necessary criteria for admittance into his box; he needn't have faith. I do not assume that a God does not exist, because I cannot know this nor can I prove it, but I do not believe in a God because I have not seen a sufficient amount of evidence.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #294
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Both of the above systems lead to a trap - the demarcation problem...
    Where did epistemologists turn to after the logical positivist project failed? (at least those that didn't turn to post-modernism)

  5. #295
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Yes, we cannot completely prove or disprove anything, and the variance in what is 'sufficient proof' from person to person is what we would consider faith; but I do not believe that this takes away from my position that the atheist, on average, relies substantially less on faith than the believer.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #296
    Senior Member The Outsider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    2,424

    Default

    Proof is something that can be applied in mathematics, for example, it's not really something that can be achieved in the empiric world. Theism is a matter of belief in a deity, and lacking that belief is what you call atheism, which is a perfectly valid and natural way to look at something until you have a reason not to.
    I can assert that I have the ability to shoot lasers from my eyes, which you probably wouldn't believe, since you haven't seen me, or any person for that matter, do such a thing, and really have no reason not to think that I am just making this up.
    Same thing with atheists and God.

  7. #297
    The Eighth Colour Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    Aeon
    Enneagram
    10w so
    Socionics
    LOL
    Posts
    1,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Yes, we cannot completely prove or disprove anything, and the variance in what is 'sufficient proof' from person to person is what we would consider faith; but I do not believe that this takes away from my position that the atheist, on average, relies substantially less on faith than the believer.
    What is the major qualitative difference between the two then?

  8. #298
    Senior Member wildflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Faith is for those who don't appreciate the concept of uncertainty.
    nah, uncertainty is the name of the game. i am a postmodern follower of jesus.

  9. #299
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwn86 View Post
    Just a short clip which gives a practical, scientific example of how faith works.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQe0o..._order&list=UL
    The program was fun to watch, but it's full of half-truths and arbitrary spiritual assertions which have no empirical backing.

    Just because the scientific method does not have all the answers yet does not mean that it makes sense to discard it in favor of vastly more dubious methodologies such as religion and mysticism.

  10. #300
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildflower View Post
    exactly my point, but why is it that i, as one who believes God exists, have to prove something and you don't when making a claim? that is a double standard and we are both making truth claims whether you couch it in the negative or not. sorry but you don't get a hall pass if i don't.
    Because your belief deviates greatly from what is well supported by everyday experience. If I claim that you are a murderer, the onus is on me to prove that you are and not on you to prove that you are not.

Similar Threads

  1. To which level of hell are you going?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 07-09-2017, 10:13 AM
  2. Is having a tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt associated with F?
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-04-2015, 10:23 PM
  3. Do you need to sympathize with characters to enjoy them?
    By Ivy in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:28 AM
  4. [ENFJ] NT with Announcement to Share about ENFJ Friend :)
    By Usehername in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-24-2007, 03:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO