Theism vs. Atheism

Are you quoting me or Sieben?

 

Eric080:

Sieben:

I am hoping people get the notion of taking leaps of faith.  Belief in social absolutes and ideal action are flaws of statist thinking.

 

I find this to be an absolutely amazing statement.  Statism/religion are one in the same.  They are each top-down moral authorities that give individual human beings the right to act in their name.  How could it be otherwise?  Maybe you're a deist or something because I haven't been around long enough, but religion is all about social absolutes and ideal action.  States are like the manifestation of secular religion.

 

I've discovered (or created?) a new philosophy - I have christened it "Selective Skepticism"(TM).

It goes like this : if people you like make a false claim, you side with them anyway and say something like : "You can't prove that X is not true because that would entail proving a negative. It is always possible for X  to exist, even if that X is an absurd entity like a benevolent and omnipotent god."

On the other hand, when you need to argue against people you don't like, you ignore anything they say and invoke "skepticism". Basically, you choose to use skepticism only when it suits you.

This way, the claims made by critics of organized religion are always met with full skepticism while the claims of religious fraudsters are always possible "in theory" and are taken to be true until proven false.

Thus, a key feature of "Selective Skepticism"(TM) is to invert the burden of proof. (It's quite handy! Try it!) (If you are interested in licensing the use of SS call my wage slaves at 1-800-IGNORANCE-IS-STRENGTH)

------

@Aquila : The Molyneux-Johnson talk was interesting. I don't think Johnson was that outmatched?

 

WillBlake:

I've discovered (or created?) a new philosophy - I have christened it "Selective Skepticism"(TM).

It goes like this : if people you like make a false claim, you side with them anyway and say something like : "You can't prove that X is not true because that would entail proving a negative. It is always possible for X  to exist, even if that X is an absurd entity like a benevolent and omnipotent god."

On the other hand, when you need to argue against people you don't like, you ignore anything they say and invoke "skepticism". Basically, you choose to use skepticism only when it suits you.

But your mistake is in confusing me (as a supposed selective skeptic) as someone who has a dog in the "there is a god", "there is no god" race.  I really don't care if there is or isn't.  It's simply not important to me or how I go about my day each day.  If God exists, great.  If God doesn't exist, great.  I still have plans for the weekend either way.

When the best you can do in debate is create a strawman, then you're really on shaky ground.  You would be better served if you formulated an argument that doesn't involve mis-characterizing the person you are arguing with.  It's easy to make claims about the preferences and character of me, or anyone else.  But that still doesn't prove a single thing you have asserted.

WillBlake:

Thus, a key feature of "Selective Skepticism"(TM) is to invert the burden of proof. (It's quite handy! Try it!) (If you are interested in licensing the use of SS call my wage slaves at 1-800-IGNORANCE-IS-STRENGTH)

This is correct.  You have inverted the burden of proof.

Are we all so afraid of logical positivism (because it has the word "positivism") in it that no one has just called BS on the whole theistic question? In order for a proposition to have truth content, an agent has to know how to verify it. All the symbols have got to make cognitive sense. Well...I don't know what "creation" is. I don't know what "omnipotent" or "power over the universe" is. And to me as a human, the word "exist" means "has shown up", so for something to even be able to exist it has to be capable of showing up, which god isn't. If I ever saw a man in a white robe, It could just be the matrix. Induction fail.

Are we all so afraid of logical positivism (because it has the word "positivism") in it that no one has just called BS on the whole theistic question? In order for a proposition to have truth content, an agent has to know how to verify it. All the symbols have got to make cognitive sense.

Theological noncognitivism.

And to me as a human, the word "exist" means "has shown up", so for something to even be able to exist it has to be capable of showing up, which god isn't.

Doesn't that contradict the above? How did you figure out that god cannot just show up?

Angurse:

Theological noncognitivism.

Just the definitions part... which I think is perfectly legitimate. If we consider the actual propositions considered by thiests/agnosts/athiests: "God exists" or "The Universe was created" it becaomes pretty obvious that these aren't a priori because the definitions aren't equivalent.

2+2=4. Murder is wrongful killing. Human action is purposeful. Potatoes are carrots. All examples of falsifiable a priori statements, who's thruth content depends on the sense of their definitions.

Angurse:

Doesn't that contradict the above?

I don't see how it does. I'm just nagging on the "exist" term, maintaining that "god" is nonsensical. I do however know that "god" is at least supposed to be a noun, so :P

Angurse:

How did you figure out that god cannot just show up?

If he can, then he's just a dude floating on a cloud with a nice outdoor voice. Their thesis would be in principle falsifiable if they adopted this approach, though he no longer has any metaphysical properties. So its a non-metaphysical god. Most people would find that a contradiction in terms.

"God exists" or "The Universe was created" it becaomes pretty obvious that these aren't a priori because the definitions aren't equivalent.

Aren't equivalent to what?

2+2=4. Murder is wrongful killing. Human action is purposeful. Potatoes are carrots. All examples of falsifiable a priori statements, who's thruth content depends on the sense of their definitions.

Falsify "wrong."

I do however know that "god" is at least supposed to be a noun, so :P

God isn't a thing?

If he can, then he's just a dude floating on a cloud with a nice outdoor voice. Their thesis would be in principle falsifiable if they adopted this approach, though he no longer has any metaphysical properties. So its a non-metaphysical god. Most people would find that a contradiction in terms.

Why? I don't see why God is limited to to abstract form, confining God to a box, any box, seems like a contradiction.

Angurse:

Aren't equivalent to what?

Eachother.

Angurse:

Falsify "wrong."

I don't understand. You mean, "falsify" just the statement "wrong"? It has no truth content. It is not capable of being true or false.

Angurse:

God isn't a thing?

Thing = generic noun. Isnt that what I'm saying?

Angurse:

Why? I don't see why God is limited to to abstract form, confining God to a box, any box, seems like a contradiction.

Hey don't ask me. If christians really believed that god flew around zapping things then that's gravy. But they usually claim god has metaphysical properties, which can't be discovered empirically, so I'm blocking this interpretation.

Eachother.

I see, in that case I didn't know that God exists was ever meant to be the equivalent of the universe was created.

 don't understand. You mean, "falsify" just the statement "wrong"? It has no truth content. It is not capable of being true or false.

Then what does this mean? "2+2=4. Murder is wrongful killing. Human action is purposeful. Potatoes are carrots. All examples of falsifiable a priori statements, who's thruth content depends on the sense of their definitions."

Can "wrong" be falsified or not?

Thing = generic noun. Isnt that what I'm saying?

I'm not sure, I don't see how god isn't (or cannot be considered) a thing.

Hey don't ask me. If christians really believed that god flew around zapping things then that's gravy. But they usually claim god has metaphysical properties, which can't be discovered empirically, so I'm blocking this interpretation.

That seems like a fair approach, I don't see anything inherently contradictory about said view though.

Angurse:

I see, in that case I didn't know that God exists was ever meant to be the equivalent of the universe was created.

No I meant "intrinsically equivalent".

God:A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.

exist: to be; have existence; have being or reality
 

Well, its obtuse and absurd, but the definitions of these two words do not imply one another. Don't think its that simple? It is with all other analytic propositions. Murder IS wrongful killing. Potatoes aren't carrots.

Angurse:

I'm not sure, I don't see how god isn't (or cannot be considered) a thing.

I don't think we disagree. "God" is a noun. A "thing" is an unspecified noun.

Angurse:

That seems like a fair approach, I don't see anything inherently contradictory about said view though.

Yeah its all going to depend on whatever they're pitching... I think most people consider god metaphysical and you can use this tactic though.

No I meant "intrinsically equivalent".

God:A supernatural, typically immortal being with superior powers.

exist: to be; have existence; have being or reality

I don't really see the contention, your view (and my own) of reality could simply be limited (which it probably is).

Well, its obtuse and absurd, but the definitions of these two words do not imply one another. Don't think its that simple? It is with all other analytic propositions. Murder IS wrongful killing. Potatoes aren't carrots.

liberty student : But your mistake is in confusing me (as a supposed selective skeptic) as someone who has a dog in the "there is a god", "there is no god" race.  I really don't care if there is or isn't.  It's simply not important to me or how I go about my day each day.

Same thing here. It's too bad that you keep mischaracterizing my position.

I think I already mentioned that I wasn't directly discussing the existence/non-existence of god.

Rather, I was discussing the political and epistemological character of organized religion.
 

WillBlake:

Same thing here. It's too bad that you keep mischaracterizing my position.

Where did I mischaracterize your position?

Angurse:

I don't really see the contention, your view (and my own) of reality could simply be limited (which it probably is).

You're missing it because its so simple. The definitions for "God" and "Exist" have nothing to do with eachother. It couldn't be analytically true.

Anguse:

Using the term wrongful in the definition implies objective meaning does it not?

Err I misunderstood how you wanted me to handle "wrongful" then? Can you put it in a proposition? The basic stance of logical positivists on morality is basically that its metaphysical garbage. Ethical propositions aren't capable of being true or false. I actually heard Roderick Long talk about this but wasn't at all satisfied. He seemed to deny it on the grounds that it destroys ethical truths... but this is exactly what its proponents purport it to do!

You're missing it because its so simple. The definitions for "God" and "Exist" have nothing to do with eachother. It couldn't be analytically true.

You're right, I'm overlooking the analytical emphasis you've been making. "God exists" is as analytically true as "ladybugs exist" or at least can be depending on what definition you use.

Err I misunderstood how you wanted me to handle "wrongful" then? Can you put it in a proposition? The basic stance of logical positivists on morality is basically that its metaphysical garbage. Ethical propositions aren't capable of being true or false. I actually heard Roderick Long talk about this but wasn't at all satisfied. He seemed to deny it on the grounds that it destroys ethical truths... but this is exactly what its proponents purport it to do!

You placed "murder is wrongful killing" beside "potatoes are carrots", and other falsifiable statements. However, since I agree with non-cognitivism, however since "wrongful" isn't truth-apt, like the statement isn't really falsifiable. It cannot be proven or disproven that you were murdered and not just stabbed in the neck. The definition is, at best, unfinished.

Angurse:

The definition is, at best, unfinished.

Right i'm saying that, by definition murder is wrongful killing. I didn't realize you were picking up on that. By saying that murder is wrongful killing, you aren't endorsing whatever ethics, you're just playing their nonsensical little linguistic game.

The same way that Fordlesnap can be defined as Toodlesnoosh.

Fordlesnap is Toodlesnoosh. Hey I've got an idea for a new philosophy!

No i border in between atheism and anti-theism.   I concur with many though that religion has at times in history been a liberating forcing of good in the world.  And yes many cultural creations come from religion.  But it has outlived its beauty and individualist tones and has now become a bane upon civilization instead of a good thing.  Now a days religion is just used as a crutch to hurt others and oneself.  It has been disproved with science and philosophy.  It has no place b/c modern day religion is harmful to everyone involved.  Now i have no problem with people who have faith my only thing is that it shouldn't limit you for who you are nor allow you to commit atrocities. 

Anarch: "But it (religion) has outlived its beauty and individualist tones and has now become a bane upon civilization instead of a good thing. "

We are certainly entitled to our opinons, and assertions.  It's just that I can say the opposite and be just as correct, or incorrect, as you are, yes?

"It (religion) has no place b/c modern day religion is harmful to everyone involved."

Hmm...is this a true statement?  Religion is harmful to everyone involved?  Really?  What do you mean it has no place?  What ought to be done if religion has no place? 

Anarch: "Now i have no problem with people who have faith..."

How kind of you. 

"...my only thing is that it (religion) shouldn't limit you for who you are nor allow you to commit atrocities."

Agreed.  I just don't think your point applies only to religion.

I’ve watched this thread now for a week:  179 posts at last count. 

Odd when you think about it.  Bizarre on down the scale.

We professing libertarians and anarchists can certainly be emotional and “intellectual” creatures when trying to defend where we stand.  Is that because we feel so Outside-The-Box? 

It occurs to me that I might have the proclivity to in fact worship my own ideologies.  Is that not exactly the inclination of which I accuse statists?

Why is it necessary for us to be so assiduous in our defense of our Beliefs when in fact our agreed-upon position is to commit no aggression (physical OR intellectual?) upon our neighbors?  Is it worthwhile to attack one another over tidbits while Rome is under conflagration?

On anarchist and libertarian forums it seems to me that “religion” and “atheism” and all that lies between become the paper tigers that consume real issues.  I submit that might be because if your case turns out to be anything like mine you feel so intellectually distanced from 98% or more of your family, friends and neighbors.   

liberty student : Where did I mischaracterize your position?

Well, maybe >mischaracterize< wasn't the most accurate word. What you did was answer X when I was actually talking about Y. It's true that you didn't explicitly ascribe X to me, but you behaved as if I was talking about X, though I wasn't. I was talking about Y. You did misunderstand me on purpose so as to avoid commenting on my topic : the fraud committed by the humans who lie about their "relation" to higher powers (for gain).

Anyway, this is boring now. You can have the last word (last fallacy in your case).

Anarch : I concur with many though that religion has at times in history been a liberating forcing of good in the world.  And yes many cultural creations come from religion.

And why should religion be credited with that kind of thing? If, for instance, catholicism hadn't existed people would have used their resources to build beautiful "secular" buildings instead of cathedrals.

I do like mythology and fairy tales. They can be very beautiful. But to sell fairy tales as if they were real is fraud.

WillBlake:

You did misunderstand me on purpose so as to avoid commenting on my topic

Well, you can't know what I did on purpose, because it is impossible to prove intent.  I would be happy to comment on your topic.  I thought I had, but if I have not, I would be happy to debate it if I disagree with it.

WillBlake:

the fraud committed by the humans who lie about their "relation" to higher powers (for gain).

I did comment on this.  Numerous times.  Would you like me to repost our discussion?