Don't atheists need to have absolute knowledge in order to be atheists?

[Arius]

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

I haven't made any claims about anything existing.  I will make one though.  Conceptual objects which contain contradictory properties cannot represent existent phenomena.  There are no square circles because an object cannot both have exactly four sides and be the locus of all points a given distance from some point.  I know that much.

[Metric]

 

Moncaloono, other than bashing Christians, you post says absolutely nothing. This thread wasn't about any particular religion at all.

From what I can tell, both theists and atheists are believers. It's a matter of faith for both groups. That's what makes them similar and this is what makes them both unscientific even though they have opposite beliefs. IMHO.

 

Being an atheist doesn't require belief of any kind.  Someone who has never heard of the idea of "god" is an atheist -- specifically an "implicit atheist" (google it).  So being an atheist certainly doesn't require a rejection of scientific thinking.

[Metal Chef]

I think theres a difference between science attempting to prove a hypothesis and a theist making a positive claim that god exists.

A hypothesis is tested. if it doesn't work, science (at least good science) does not go on claiming the hypothesis is correct. The caveat in any hypothesis is that it might not even be correct. 

Show me a theist trying to prove god exists and I'll show you someone jabbering mainly for their own benefit about why they think god exists rather than any proof that god actually exists.

Hundreds of thousands of years haven't brought humanity closer to any god, but a couple hundred years of science has inexorably altered the course of history on a level unprecedented in our blood-soaked, god fearing history.

Also science has indeed proven that the Earth, disregarding topography, is such a perfect sphere that the highest caliber artist could not draw one as round as the dirtball that we live on.

 

I think it is a bit disrespectful to the hard work of the scientific community to compare the hypothetical claims of physicists to the self-serving pontificating of religious lunatics as if they are the same thing when they are clearly, CLEARLY, not.

[Rick Horton]

 

Moncaloono, other than bashing Christians, you post says absolutely nothing. This thread wasn't about any particular religion at all.

From what I can tell, both theists and atheists are believers. It's a matter of faith for both groups. That's what makes them similar and this is what makes them both unscientific even though they have opposite beliefs. IMHO.

 

Maybe you want me to debate the merits, logic, and morals of being a Christian but since no 3 of those prerequisites exist in Christianity there is nothing to debate. However, I can and did make a statement. It's not a debatable statement because the bar is too high to challenge. So, I know this thread is about God in general but since there is no God in general (that's like debating an unknowable entity of some shape,size, color, that doesn't need a requirement to discuss, which is nonsense) I'll refer to merely one example of God which is the one that has the biggest impact on my life. If God exists (Jesus ), it only exists as an idea, a story, a fiction, a distraction, a fairy tale, and a mechanism for power over other people. The invisible bully in your corner, or the boogie man under your bed depending on which scenario you need him for. Other than that, there is no logical discussion, and no possible debate. The only possible debate is to which "degree" God has done good as opposed to damage, as this real idea, yet fictional reality. And that isn't a necessary debate outside of the atheist community. Inside the Atheist community, especially here in a volunteeryist community where we all understand that enforcing "moral concepts" through unchallengable force is tyrannical, sick, abusive, destructive, and monsterous, there isn't a debate possible here (with each other) about God, either.  If God is (like I said) an idea that can conform to any idea or concept than God isn't worth debating because it's too vague a concept to be defined, and you can't define a word without a meaning, definition, shape, form, motive, relationship, or any other possible concrete identity. Let the person first define God, then after THEY/YOU define it, maybe we can have a discussion. Until then it's pretty much pointless unless you are talking about a God that people have a definition for. Christianity is one of those, and I work with that definition for efficiency of conversation. 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

I'm not the one arguing that square circles might exist.

 

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

 

So maybe your statement is both true and not true at the same time...

[STer]

 

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

I haven't made any claims about anything existing.  I will make one though.  Conceptual objects which contain contradictory properties cannot represent existent phenomena.  There are no square circles because an object cannot both have exactly four sides and be the locus of all points a given distance from some point.  I know that much.

 

I fully understand what you're saying and why you're saying it. And I would say there is a massive probability that you're correct. But I simply can't get past the awareness that if dogs could speak, they'd say certain things are impossible that we'd find humorous because we know they are possible and we also would see just why the dog wouldn't realize that. Similarly, a much wiser being than a human might see easily how something is possible that to us seems impossible. I simply don't have as much respect for human reason as you do. I think we are an evolved being with the ability to conceive of a certain range of things and there are limits. I think we've already overachieved and will continue to do so, but there are limits. Perhaps in the future creatures will evolve that can perceive the universe in such a qualitatively different way than us that things which seem impossible to us are everyday realities to them.

I understand that there is likely no way to come to an agreement on this. It's deeply unsettling for some people to accept the implications of the limits of humanity's capabilities. That desire for the comfort of knowing something - anything - 100% [or 0%] is incredibly strong. And this "conceptual" issue, where you define two things by nature of their incompatibility, thus rendering it, by definition, impossible for them to be the same thing, is a clever way of trying to find something that you can rely on completely that way. But I still can never get over that tiny possibility that even something like that, in a way we are incapable of ever perceiving, falls into that category of things that a wiser being than us would laugh at us for not realizing is actually possible.

Imagine a couple of five years olds debating why something is impossible that, as adults, we know is. Similar analogy. How do you know that we aren't just like those five year olds, completely missing something because of our limits as humans? Even something as hard to fathom as how two things defined as incompatible can nonetheless somehow be compatible?

The sad thing is we overwhelmingly agree. But the fact that I allow room for that tiny possibility leads to endless, probably irresolvable, debates. That's why I rarely get involved in the agnostic/atheist debate anymore, especially when it ends up just being a semantic debate on those labels rather than the actual beliefs. But for some reason I felt like indulging in this aspect of it today for a bit.

[STer]

 

 

Moncaloono, other than bashing Christians, you post says absolutely nothing. This thread wasn't about any particular religion at all.

From what I can tell, both theists and atheists are believers. It's a matter of faith for both groups. That's what makes them similar and this is what makes them both unscientific even though they have opposite beliefs. IMHO.

 

Being an atheist doesn't require belief of any kind.  Someone who has never heard of the idea of "god" is an atheist -- specifically an "implicit atheist" (google it).  So being an atheist certainly doesn't require a rejection of scientific thinking.

 

Once again, if we stop using the labels and go to %'s this conversation would be much more useful.

[STer]

 

 

 

I'm not the one arguing that square circles might exist.

 

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

 

So maybe your statement is both true and not true at the same time...

 

I agree. There is that possibility.

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

 

I'm not the one arguing that square circles might exist.

 

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

 

So maybe your statement is both true and not true at the same time...

 

I agree. There is that possibility.

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not the one arguing that square circles might exist.

 

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered?

 

So maybe your statement is both true and not true at the same time...

 

I agree. There is that possibility.

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

 

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience.

If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case.

[Kawlinz]

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

 

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience.

If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case.

 

All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh?

[STer]

 

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

 

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience.

If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case.

 

All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh?

 

Correct. I assume you're posting this stuff to try to make the fact that humanity lacks certainty sound absurd because it could have implications that also sound absurd. But the world can be absurd. In fact, many have found that it seems to be quite absurd.

Or maybe you're just being playful. If so, enjoy.

[Rick Horton]

Hear, hear. Reality is very absurd!

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

 

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience.

If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case.

 

All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh?

 

Correct. I assume you're posting this stuff to try to make the fact that humanity lacks certainty sound absurd because it could have implications that also sound absurd. But the world can be absurd. In fact, many have found that it seems to be quite absurd.

Or maybe you're just being playful. If so, enjoy.

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

[Rick Horton]

Not a chance. You are posting.

 

[STer]

 

 

 

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

 

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience.

If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case.

 

All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh?

 

Correct. I assume you're posting this stuff to try to make the fact that humanity lacks certainty sound absurd because it could have implications that also sound absurd. But the world can be absurd. In fact, many have found that it seems to be quite absurd.

Or maybe you're just being playful. If so, enjoy.

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

 

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

 

... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language.

 

So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

 

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience.

If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case.

 

All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh?

 

Correct. I assume you're posting this stuff to try to make the fact that humanity lacks certainty sound absurd because it could have implications that also sound absurd. But the world can be absurd. In fact, many have found that it seems to be quite absurd.

Or maybe you're just being playful. If so, enjoy.

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

 

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief.

 

No he/she, ( not sure which sex ) is posting. No doubt about that.

[DoubtingThomas]

If one defines something as impossible, then it is impossible. Therefore god, defined as in defiance of all detection ever, is impossible.

If we can detect something like god, it not longer fits that definition. Therefor there can be no "god."

Of course, one can change the definitions for god(s) in order to fit just outside the current realm of empiricism and not in the realm of contradiction, but then the conversation is pointless.

[STer]

 

If one defines something as impossible, then it is impossible. Therefore god, defined as in defiance of all detection ever, is impossible.

If we can detect something like god, it not longer fits that definition. Therefor there can be no "god."

Of course, one can change the definitions for god(s) in order to fit just outside the current realm of empiricism and not in the realm of contradiction, but then the conversation is pointless.

 

Which is why I keep repeating that it would be more effective to simply ask what % probability someone believes there is that something exists, and then define that thing precisely. Any other way of talking about this issue is almost willfully misleading and probably just an attempt to create drama.

[Rick Horton]

The existence of some things aren't necessary to prove. Like you, water, the sun, clouds, et...

[STer]

 

The existence of some things aren't necessary to prove. Like you, water, the sun, clouds, et...

 

You're entitled to that opinion, but it reflects a certain epistemology. I don't share that epistemology. I don't believe we can take the existence or appearance of anything for granted if we're philosophers inquiring into the ultimate nature of reality. So we simply disagree on epistemology.

Obviously in the course of everyday life we have to use shortcuts and our best educated guesses. But when it comes to philosophy and truly trying to understand the universe, I think nothing can be taken for granted.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

The existence of some things aren't necessary to prove. Like you, water, the sun, clouds, et...

 

You're entitled to that opinion, but it reflects a certain epistemology. I don't share that epistemology. I don't believe we can take the existence or appearance of anything for granted if we're philosophers inquiring into the ultimate nature of reality. So we simply disagree on epistemology.

Obviously in the course of everyday life we have to use shortcuts and our best educated guesses. But when it comes to philosophy and truly trying to understand the universe, I think nothing can be taken for granted.

 

It's really going to be tough for you to make that argument. Feel free to, but it's going to be frustrating. You see, I don't have to prove that you are posting. You are posting. I know this.

[Rick Horton]

On my way to work now, so I'll continue this when I get home, if you want to argue that point.

[Kawlinz]

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

 

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief.

 

You don't talk like you think. If we can't discount the possiblity of square-circles, then we can't discount any contradictions. If we can't discount contradictions (like true = false) then any discussion is pointless. it seems like you want to have a conversation while ignoring these possibilities. Your language also indicates this. See if you were to type something like:

"Correct or not correct. May or maybe not. What percentage or not percent goes into or not into that may or maybe not is another discussion. Or it may be the same discussion, or it may not be a discussion at all. Anyways, I'll leave you to your repeated posting of seeming absurdites. Well, maybe it's just a single posting, of an actual absurdity, or maybe there was no posting at all with no hint of absurdity...."

then I'd be more inclined to think you actually believed what you were writing, that contradictions may be valid. If you state that I'm repeatedly posting absudrities, you must leave open the possibilty that I dind't post anything, because we can't discount contradictions. Conversation is pointless.

[Alan C.]

...in the course of everyday life we have to use shortcuts and our best educated guesses.

Based upon what?

[STer]

 

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

 

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief.

 

You don't talk like you think. If we can't discount the possiblity of square-circles, then we can't discount any contradictions. If we can't discount contradictions (like true = false) then any discussion is pointless. it seems like you want to have a conversation while ignoring these possibilities. Your language also indicates this. See if you were to type something like:

"Correct or not correct. May or maybe not. What percentage or not percent goes into or not into that may or maybe not is another discussion. Or it may be the same discussion, or it may not be a discussion at all. Anyways, I'll leave you to your repeated posting of seeming absurdites. Well, maybe it's just a single posting, of an actual absurdity, or maybe there was no posting at all with no hint of absurdity...."

then I'd be more inclined to think you actually believed what you were writing, that contradictions may be valid. If you state that I'm repeatedly posting absudrities, you must leave open the possibilty that I dind't post anything, because we can't discount contradictions. Conversation is pointless.

 

You seem to think knowledge is a 0% or 100% proposition. I don't believe we can discount anything completely. But I also don't believe we need to. We live based on probabilities. If we can come to a decision that something is 80% or 90% likely, that is good enough for human life on most issues. For more important issues, maybe we need 95% or even 99%. But I don't believe we can come to 100% or 0% and that's alright with me.

The only thing necessary for it to be useful to choose to have a conversation is a belief that it's at least 50/50 that the conversation is taking place. Or even that it's unlikely but there isn't much to lose so why not go along with it if it feels enjoyable. It does not require a 100% belief to make something worthwhile.

[STer]

 

...in the course of everyday life we have to use shortcuts and our best educated guesses.

Based upon what?

 

Based upon our perceptions and analysis of them, ultimately - including our perception and analysis of the accumulated views of others if we are wise enough to try to incorporate that.

You do realize we're just rehashing the oldest of debates on epistemology right? Volumes have been written debating this stuff for centuries with wise people on various sides of it.

In the end, these, too, are matters of belief - maybe even just preference. I don't think anyone is coming along to definitively tell us which epistemological view is absolutely true. So even that is simply our best guess.

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

 

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief.

 

You don't talk like you think. If we can't discount the possiblity of square-circles, then we can't discount any contradictions. If we can't discount contradictions (like true = false) then any discussion is pointless. it seems like you want to have a conversation while ignoring these possibilities. Your language also indicates this. See if you were to type something like:

"Correct or not correct. May or maybe not. What percentage or not percent goes into or not into that may or maybe not is another discussion. Or it may be the same discussion, or it may not be a discussion at all. Anyways, I'll leave you to your repeated posting of seeming absurdites. Well, maybe it's just a single posting, of an actual absurdity, or maybe there was no posting at all with no hint of absurdity...."

then I'd be more inclined to think you actually believed what you were writing, that contradictions may be valid. If you state that I'm repeatedly posting absudrities, you must leave open the possibilty that I dind't post anything, because we can't discount contradictions. Conversation is pointless.

 

You seem to think knowledge is a 0% or 100% proposition. I don't believe we can discount anything completely. But I also don't believe we need to. We live based on probabilities. If we can come to a decision that something is 80% or 90% likely, that is good enough for human life on most issues. For more important issues, maybe we need 95% or even 99%. But I don't believe we can come to 100% or 0% and that's alright with me.

The only thing necessary for it to be useful to choose to have a conversation is a belief that it's at least 50/50 that the conversation is taking place. Or even that it's unlikely but there isn't much to lose so why not go along with it if it feels enjoyable. It does not require a 100% belief to make something worthwhile.

 

... But what if we did need a 100% belief to make this specific conversation worthwhile? See..., it's pointless... right?

[STer]

 

 

 

 

Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

 

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief.

 

You don't talk like you think. If we can't discount the possiblity of square-circles, then we can't discount any contradictions. If we can't discount contradictions (like true = false) then any discussion is pointless. it seems like you want to have a conversation while ignoring these possibilities. Your language also indicates this. See if you were to type something like:

"Correct or not correct. May or maybe not. What percentage or not percent goes into or not into that may or maybe not is another discussion. Or it may be the same discussion, or it may not be a discussion at all. Anyways, I'll leave you to your repeated posting of seeming absurdites. Well, maybe it's just a single posting, of an actual absurdity, or maybe there was no posting at all with no hint of absurdity...."

then I'd be more inclined to think you actually believed what you were writing, that contradictions may be valid. If you state that I'm repeatedly posting absudrities, you must leave open the possibilty that I dind't post anything, because we can't discount contradictions. Conversation is pointless.

 

You seem to think knowledge is a 0% or 100% proposition. I don't believe we can discount anything completely. But I also don't believe we need to. We live based on probabilities. If we can come to a decision that something is 80% or 90% likely, that is good enough for human life on most issues. For more important issues, maybe we need 95% or even 99%. But I don't believe we can come to 100% or 0% and that's alright with me.

The only thing necessary for it to be useful to choose to have a conversation is a belief that it's at least 50/50 that the conversation is taking place. Or even that it's unlikely but there isn't much to lose so why not go along with it if it feels enjoyable. It does not require a 100% belief to make something worthwhile.

 

... But what if we did need a 100% belief to make this specific conversation worthwhile? See..., it's pointless... right?

 

I'm really not sure why you keep trying to make a point that has clearly already been understood and responded to. Yes, there is a cycle of infinite regress here that appears to humans highly paradoxical. But there is no law of nature saying the universe can't have apparent infinite regress and paradox in it. Nor is there one saying it must.

Pointing out over and over that anything we say could, paradoxically, be the opposite doesn't really prove anything other than that - yes, things could be infinitely paradoxical...including this statement.

[Formelyknown]

How the frack you guys still waking up in the morning? Must be hard to choose between toast and cereal. How about breathing? Should I do it today? [blahblah]

If a Theist can say a god exist without proving it and I can't say he is a nutjob. I have no problem to say with a positive claim that he doesn't exist.

[STer]

 

How the frack you guys still waking up in the morning? Must be hard to choose between toast and cereal. How about breathing? Should I do it today? /emoticons/BlahBlah_Anim.gif

If a Theist can say a god exist without proving it and I can't say he is a nutjob. I have no problem to say with a positive claim that he doesn't exist.

 

Again, missing the point about probabilities. Someone can be a nutjob for believing that something is 100% probable when it's apparently only about 1% probable or less. There is no need for certainty in order to make basic decisions in life or to make reasonable judgments to the best of our ability.

[Brook Warren]

I've seen 0 evidence that a god exists.

The descriptions of the gods of modern religions are contradictory, and thus describe something that can't exist.

As far as being certain that something that is contradictory exists, I'm 100%.  If something turned out to exist, then I would have to go back and determine where I was wrong in thinking it was contradictory.

Then there is the emotional argument to believe in a god, which I don't entertain because I don't see the positive side to believing in a god.  All of the claims of a positive side that I've examined turned out to be negative instead.

So why should I even be entertaining the concept that a god exist?

No one has offered any reason to pursue this concept really other than saying believe this.  That isn't how you get people to believe in things.  You show them testable phenomena and/or use logic. Neither are available or have been offered, ever.  If I can immediately see flaws in someones logic about entertaining the existence of gods, then it wasn't really a logical argument.

So what it really comes down to is, how certain am I that entertaining the concept that a god exists is pointless? And how certain am I that I'm able to make logical conclusions?

The answer to that is:

potato

[STer]

 

 

I've seen 0 evidence that a god exists.

And for millenia people had no evidence that bacteria existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The descriptions of the gods of modern religions are contradictory, and thus describe something that can't exist.

Only if you can be 100% certain that contradictions can't exist in our universe. I don't believe I can be 100% sure of that. I'm confident enough that I place my bet on it as best I can in my everyday life. But if someday I found out that there's some entirely other metaphysical thing going on and it does involve contradictions existing, would it really be any more shocking than what an ant would feel if it suddenly had the ability to comprehend even a fraction of what humans take as obvious?

I guess I just have a healthy dose of humility about humanity's ability to comprehend reality.

So why should I even be entertaining the concept that a god exist?

Depends what you mean by entertaining it. If you mean spending a lot of time concerning yourself about it, even if you granted a small chance it existed, that still might not merit spending much time on it. If you mean simply conceding it's possible when the conversation comes up and then going about your life, I think you should entertain it because it's more intellectually honest in my view.

potato

 

Yum!

[NotDarkYet]

 What is/are god(s)?

[TheRobin]

STer: Your behaviour and epistemology kind of begs the question: What are you doing here then?If you have an epistemology that is obivoulsy so different from what is used here to debate, then your behaviour is about the same as if you would be a baseballplayer going onto a football field full of people playing football and then complaining that no one knew the rules of baseball or used them to play football and on top of it all calling the player irrational for playing football instead of baseball.So far I hardly ever saw a post of any value to the debates you were in, and your behaviour is often in contradiction to the claims you're making, so really, what are you doing debating here? What possible motivation could you have for doing that?