Debunking the thiest/athiest dichotomy

[LEGERdeMAIN]

I really don't think that you understand others' viewpoints at all, which completely spoils your attempts at logic up there

Besides the spoilage, I kind of like this thread because it's a good example of why dichotomies are really "just for looks". They're nice models of people and ideas for compartmentalization of extremes(theism/atheism), but they are almost never accurate. Dichotomies ignore the gray area that permeates spaces between extremes. A Mormon and a pantheist are very different, yet this dichotomy places them in the same category. Oversimplification is no way to make realistic, useful distinctions.

Another good point that's made in the OP's posts is that assumptions and imaginatin are prerequisites for belief. So brave.

The morals of the thread
-dichotomies are only somewhat useful and largely inaccurate models,

-beliefs should be kept to a minimum

-we should move past our 2D mindplanes and focus a bit more on developing trichotomies and tetrachotomies, etc, etc ad infinitum.

 

[Orangey]

WTF is this? Nothing in this thread makes any sense at all, least of all the OP.

 

[Totenkindly]

This phrase sums up the majority of the many proponents of this supposed dichotemy: "because I have no overt evidence of God, it's a matter of personal belief which determines whether or not God exists, some believe God does, some don't, and I sit on the fence as an agnostic because I believe there's no evidence either way."

However, saying this is akin to saying, because I do not have direct evidence of a murder taking place, there is no such thing as murder itself.

...I don't think so.

In other words, the comfort zone that agnostics and athiests lodge themselves is non-existent because it only exists when you muddy the waters between God and evidence of God in the universe (this is assuming one already denies the very existence of the universe as evidence). You can find the same denial of the nature of truth in every agnostic, athiestic, and dead religion "world view" delusion.

...Great way to start a "rational" argument... by slamming the character/intelligence of those who hold a different view.

Even the concept of separate truths and world views and opinions denies the very nature of truth. We've slid deeply into a mess of legalistic quantification where "truth" is defined by a mass of blind persons, none of which has the least shred of real honesty to admit that quantifying anything by their individual, subjective experiences would be quite a bit of assumption mixed with a tiny bit of emotional interpretation. Even if you combine a mass of this it still would not give you substantial evidence to determine truth by subjective means.

So far, the bolded seems to define your post as well.

Now I know! I know this is a matter of survival, of having no greater means of truth to function by (to you) so calm down. All I'm getting at is this: which is harder to believe: that God exists, or that the desperate denial of the nature of truth by atheists and agnostics will somehow alter the nature of it? If one honestly considers the comparative likeliness then you'll see that the thiest\athiestic dichotemy is nothing but imaginary.

I'm not sure what the theist/atheist "dichotomy" has to do with any of your preceeding arguments.

It also sounds like you already have determined what you believe to be true, so there's not much of a discussion to invest ourselves in here. Feel free to pursue whatever beliefs you want.

Do you have parents? Yes, I'd assume. Let's for the sake of an accurate comparison, there is no birth record or way to locate them physically.

Since you have no proof they exist, in the same delusion the thiest/athiest dichotomy is formed, I could make a dichotomy of personal opinion on whether or not they exist, then tell everyone it's up to them to decide for themselves what they believe because we have no proof.

So really, it is this behavior of delusion that steps away illogically.

Your analogy doesn't hold any real weight.

We can observe how human reproduction works. We observe parents having children. We have knowledge of the mechanism. So even if we cannot find a specific someone's parents, it seems a "reasonable" assumption to make that they were born like literally every other human being on the face of the planet.

The "god" question is different. We don't have any real observable mechanisms of some supernatural force creating adult human beings -- it has never been witnessed, we have no realiable instances of "god" making other things appear. We actually have more evidence of natural selection working in the world in the last ten years, from computer modeling, from the evolution of viruses, etc., than we have of the supernatural creating life. So now which seems more "reasonable"? You can still choose to believe whichever you want, that's your prerogative; if you want to believe in God, go for it; but please don't assume that there is more evidence of "god" than any natural process at work here; the loaded decks you are arguing with seem to make no sense at all.

Edit: my conscience became bothered that I made this thread, since it will probably only lead to strife. Considering that I have to bow out of this topic. I apologize for making it and if this leaves anyone feeling slighted in the least. Delete this if we can, please.

Way to take ownership of your mistakes. You should have better considered your points before putting them out there, especially if you planned to use such a disparaging tone. Which means, you should at least go "down with the ship" ... or let the follies of this thread serve as a warning to others, instead of trying to dodge responsibility when you get backed into a logical corner.

 

[A window to the soul]

In other words, the comfort zone that agnostics and athiests lodge themselves is non-existent because it only exists when you muddy the waters between God and evidence of God in the universe (this is assuming one already denies the very existence of the universe as evidence). You can find the same denial of the nature of truth in every agnostic, athiestic, and dead religion "world view" delusion.

So true.

 

[Orangey]

WARNING: THREAD MAY CAUSE HEADACHES AND POSSIBLE NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE.

 

[Red Herring]

WARNING: THREAD MAY CAUSE HEADACHES AND POSSIBLE NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE.

Word.

 

[Mad Hatter]

Seriously people -

what is it with silly threads like this one cropping up so recently over the past couple of weeks?

I'm really getting annoyed with all these half-baked pseudo-philosophy threads.

Oh, I almost forgot: Just because I don't see that this thread makes any sense doesn't mean that it doesn't. So it has to make sense, right?
I just left my comfort zone.

Edit -
Addendum:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[FunnyDigestion]

Theist = yes God, 1 in binary religion, 1 = True on question "Is there God"
Atheist = no God, God - God, 0 saying God is absent in this word

Also, "a-" is negation prefix, atheist negation of theist, someone who isnt theist

That's a dichotomy you blonde bombshell

 

[Orangey]

That's a dichotomy you blonde bombshell

I like that as an insult. I think I'll steal it from you.

 

[FunnyDigestion]

I like that as an insult. I think I'll steal it from you.

Try stealing it from google images, it's even more fun, though less insulting.

Hint, the word blonde is dominant.

 

[reason]

Now I know! I know this is a matter of survival, of having no greater means of truth to function by (to you) so calm down. All I'm getting at is this: which is harder to believe: that God exists, or that the desperate denial of the nature of truth by atheists and agnostics will somehow alter the nature of it? If one honestly considers the comparative likeliness then you'll see that the thiest\athiestic dichotemy is nothing but imaginary.

Bizarre as it may seem, I understand what you're getting at. I'll attempt to clarify. Take the following two types of question:

A. Does x exist?
B. Do I know that x exists?​

We can complete these questions by exchanging the variable x for a meaningful word, e.g. God, Russell's teapot, a highest prime number, or whatever. A-type questions are ontological, while the B-type questions are epistemological. That is, A-type questions concern what exists, and the B-type questions concern what we know to exist. This is a subtle but important distinction. Atheism and theism address an A-type question, while agnosticism addresses B-type questions.

While it's fairly uncontroversial what it would mean for something to exist, almost everyone has different standards regarding what it means to know that something exists. Most self-described agnostics harbour a rather naive empiricist epistemology: seeing is believing. They know that something exists when there is evidence verifying, confirming, or otherwise supporting the claim that it exists; the 'naive' part of their epistemology is that they rarely recognise or appreciate the theory-ladenness of such evidence. Further, most agnostics qualify their knowing in probabilistic terms, so rather than saying 'I know that x exists', they say 'I know that x probably exists'.

The problem, then, is that agnostics have a tendency to muddy the waters concerning the ontological question of whether something exists, because they tacitly substitute the epistemological question of whether they know that thing exists. This, I think, is largely a consequence of an implicit theory of rationality that demands that they should not take a position on an A-type question unless they can take a position on the corresponding B-type question. In practice, this can lead to some rather Orwellian conflicts between words and action; they refuse to answer A-type questions about whether a particular god exists, but still behave just as though that god doesn't exist.

Agnostics are mostly non-confrontational. They're usually atheists, at least judging by demonstrated behaviour, but want to avoid connotations of intolerance and certainty that go with terms like knowing. To resolve the Orwellian tangle they've gotten themselves into, and to try and diffuse arguments on a controversial issue, they usually end up trying to undermine the notion of truth itself. Sometimes truth is redefined into more pragmatic terms (truth is what is useful), and other times truth is thrown out all together (usually by confusing the existence of truth itself for knowledge of the truth).

The attitude seems to be that if truth itself can be undermined, then everyone can just stop arguing and get along. In my opinion, this is a rather counter-productive strategy. A common feature of most violent and totalitarian ideologies is that rational argument is futile. When people cannot address their differences through rational argument and a common goal of discovering the truth, then they tend to use swords instead.

 

[Mal12345]

Theist - Atheist.