FSTDT Forums

Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on October 02, 2015, 09:29:25 am

Title: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 02, 2015, 09:29:25 am
To continue from where Art and I left off.

Nothing was said about God's existence until you brought it up.  A negative claim is still a claim.
I said there's no evidence for god's existence, and therefore believing in it is nonsense. That's how it works. When it comes to assessing whether or not something exists, you don't need negative proof, you just need a lack of positive proof. It's why we don't take the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, or invisible pink unicorns running around seriously. The fact that god somehow deserves special privilege in your book in that in this one specific case, it's suddenly up to nonbelievers to prove that it's irrational and not the other way around is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mentioned in my earlier post.

Really now, by your logic, I could claim that I am King of the Space Fairies, a race of wizard goblins who live on Mars, and as long as you bring up how fucking stupid that is first, then suddenly magical space wizards is the default and it's now up to you to disprove it, rather than on me to prove it.

The difference is that I have actual evidence that you are not, in fact, King of the Space Fairies.

Oh? Who is, then? You?

No.

Quote from: Paladin Guy
Fact is, plenty of rational people are theists, and plenty of irrational people are atheists.  Neither side can seriously claim superiority when it comes to rationality.

Furthermore, not everybody is an atheist for rational reasons.  There are many, many people who become atheists because of emotional reasons, because of some ideology, or just because religion doesn't speak to them.
I said atheism, as in the idea itself, is more rational than theism, not that an individual being atheist is necessarily proof that they're a rational person. Of course, whether individual atheists are overall rational people is irrelevant to that point, and to say otherwise is a textbook ad hom. It's on the same level as people who say "vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian".

That said, though, theism is, at the very least, strong evidence that someone is not rational. In much the same way as your example of an atheist who believes in ghosts or a non-theistic religion.

Okay, so you're a bigot.  You might as well claim that bisexuality is strong evidence that somebody's a pervert.  Moreover, dismissing literally billions of people as "irrational" simply because of their faith is itself irrational.

Furthermore, it's not ad hominem to question whether atheism is inherently more rational.  I thought atheists were supposed to be skeptics.

He never said atheists were more rational. Merely that, atheism, as a concept, is more rational than theism. There is a difference.

Yes, and I'm questioning whether his premise is actually true.  I'll get more into that later.

Quote from: Tyr
Yet again, we see you making a claim without any evidence to back it up.  Like it or not, saying religion is nonsense is a claim.  You're the one making the claims here, so you're the one who has to back them up.
Nope. "God exists" is not the default. Who mentions it first is irrelevant.

No, it isn't.  You made a claim, you need to back it up.  Simple as that.  If you were merely doubting the existence of God, I wouldn't be pointing it out.  But since you're making actual claims, I'm asking you to stand behind them, rather than retreating to your "I don't need to prove anything" motte.

Your constant claims that "atheists don't need to prove anything" when you keep making all these bold claims are a prime example of the same type of double standard you accuse theists of having.  Just like how you keep talking about ad hominem while simultaneously implying I'm mentally defective.  It seems to me that you're being hypocritical.  Or are you just afraid of having to back up your claims?

Er, you (generally) can't prove negatives, UP. 'S why burden of proof is on positive claims. If I were to claim there aren't invisible, intangible elephants hiding in my closet, would I need to prove it, or would it be accepted at face value? What if I claimed there were? Do you see the difference in the two situations? (I swear I'm not trying to be snide or facetious, I honestly want to know. Also, sorry for the non-linky quote-bits, I just inserted ends and beginnings manually. Vita posting, and I didn't wanna type that whole line out twice. As fkr me screwing with your name, well, I'm bored, lazy, and its 1:30 in the fuckin morning here. Sorry.)

That's okay.

But anyway, the problem with your analogy is that it's based on circular reasoning.  See, you presume that it's not the case, so you're presuming what you set out to prove.

Go on then, let's hear it.

We've sent rovers and the like to Mars, and have thus far found zero evidence that the Martian environment can support any life above the microscopic level.

What Svata said. I was talking about the idea itself. Blind faith in a magical sky fairy based on a loose anthology of bronze age myths is inherently less rational than not having blind faith in a magical sky fairy based on a loose anthology of bronze age myths. Other beliefs and behaviour of people who believe in either is irrelevant.

Is it really so irrational?  There are some reasons to believe there's actual evidence in favor of God's existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)
Quote from: Wikipedia
When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.
Quote from: Wikipedia
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmed claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. There are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem.

A negative claim may exist as a counter point to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfil the burden of proof for a negative claim.
I strongly recommend you read up on how burden of proof works. Arguing about things you clearly don't understand isn't exactly the best way to help your case. Come back when you understand why burden of proof is on the positive claim, rather than who brought it up first.

Also, if you're offended with me pointing out that something you believe in is irrational, again, that's your problem. Christians acting like they're entitled to validation from everyone else is exactly the kind of bullshit I was talking about.

*Smiles evilly*  You just painted a giant target on your back, and you probably don't even realize it.  To quote your own source:

Quote from: Wikipedia
An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

You're assuming God doesn't exist simply because nobody's proven He exists.  Your own citation is undermining your point, arguing at cross purposes with you.

And as for your other one:

Quote from: Wikipedia
A negative claim may exist as a counter point to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfil the burden of proof for a negative claim.

You have yet to use either of these methods.  Instead, you're taking absence of evidence to be the same as evidence of absence, which is a massive fallacy.  Maybe you should have read these sources more thoroughly before using them to back you up.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 02, 2015, 09:55:16 am
in the finest tradition of tl;dr, there's no common ground to be established between theists and anti-theists, except respecting the other's positions. i'm an atheist leaning towards anti-theism (when it goes into hardcore proselytizing), but that doesn't mean i cannot talk with theists. i respect their position even if i'm convinced they're in the wrong. if they don't spew their religion on me, i won't try and bash their faith. simple as that. in other words, live and let live. you'd be getting nowhere fast doing so.

and just like there's asshole fundies, there's asshole atheists and antitheists. common signs include wearing a fedora, hanging out on the internet, and being called ironchew, among others.

just because a few assholes ruin the image does not mean we're all the same. that would be boring. and depressing. and aggravating. and nerve-wracking.and you're still reading this, aren't you?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Svata on October 02, 2015, 10:05:48 am
Not anti-theist (mostly). Was just questioning your arguments. Also, I presume nothing. I merely asked if one had a burden to prove there weren't elephants, and if one had a burden to prove of there were. In a situation where neither is possible, I would assume there weren't, true. Starting point of skepticism, and all.


Also, you say that there is evidence of god. Would you care to eludicate it, or are you just going to say there is, and leave it at that? I am a fairly open-minded guy, if you can give me some hard proof, I'll believe you.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 02, 2015, 10:15:41 am
Quote
You have yet to use either of these methods.  Instead, you're taking absence of evidence to be the same as evidence of absence, which is a massive fallacy.  Maybe you should have read these sources more thoroughly before using them to back you up.
(my bolds)
You clearly never had proper classroom education about classical, formal logic, or as it applies to formal debate, which is typical for most Americans nowadays, unfortunately. The words I bolded in the quote are verbatim slogans, or "talking points" used by creationists and are found in some home school curricula. Memes like that have a nice ring to them, and sound good to an audience that wants to be told what they want to hear. However, this leaves you at an educational disadvantage as much as if you were never taught any maths. It makes it difficult to have a meaningful discourse with you on certain subjects.

I'm going to try to make an illustrative metaphor. Imagine a large block of limestone, just delivered to a sculptor's studio. Someone there tells the sculptor that the form of a pyramid is in the stone block, they need only see it in their heart and mind, and find it with their chisels. A person can view the world, and perceive patterns or have feelings evoked by what they see in the world. They might attribute those patterns or feelings to a creator entity, especially if they were taught all their life that there Is a deliberate pattern. Or, they might not. A stone, just as the world, exists as it is in space time. Potential change in form can occur over eons of time to that stone, or a sculptor can come along and shape that stone quickly into most anything they want it to look like. The shape the sculptor's work arrives at was always "within", or potential, inside the original block of stone. But it was never more likely than any other shape the sculptor may have chosen. Patterns can be perceived, as well as patterns can be applied. It is human nature to mentally apply patterns and meaning onto the environment, as it is an ancient survival instinct for avoiding danger and finding sustenance.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 02, 2015, 10:28:13 am
You have yet to use either of these methods.  Instead, you're taking absence of evidence to be the same as evidence of absence, which is a massive fallacy.  Maybe you should have read these sources more thoroughly before using them to back you up.

You bias is showing.

We have evidence of absence. Lots of it. That's what makes concluding that God does not exist a rational conclusion and makes its corollary that believing in God irrational.

We have a very well rounded and extensive evolutionary theory that is tested down to a microscopic level with a number of scientific disciplines. That disputes the existence your God.

We have multiple accurate ways of determining the age of the planet as well as animate and inanimate objects found on it. Even at multiple orders of magnitude off, it still disputes the existence of your God.

We can trace the co-opting and absorption of other myths and religions by Christianity, point out provable factual errors, and show where scripture has been re-written very early on for political motivations. These things all demonstrate malleability of the supposedly inflexible which disputes the existence of your God. 

Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 02, 2015, 11:40:57 am
Man alive are you so thin skinned that someone, on an internet message board, posts or says something about God not existing and you just go ballistic?  How sad.

Ironbite-very sad.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 02, 2015, 12:15:41 pm
Am I right in guessing that we're specifically talking about the God of the YEC? Because that's the one I can think of right off the bat that is disproven by all that stuff.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 02, 2015, 01:46:47 pm
Nice to see Dynamic Dragon starting another anti-theist-bashing thread. Ahh, it's like the old days...

To start off, as an atheist, I'm only rejecting the claim by theists that any god exists. It's the null hypothesis; no further demonstration or proof of a negative is necessary. As an anti-theist, I'm asserting a claim that gods *do not* exist. The claim is positive, but it's not as big a sticking point as DD likes to think it is.

in the finest tradition of tl;dr, there's no common ground to be established between theists and anti-theists

Seriously? It's only one claim and its opposite in a dichotomy. People can have all sorts of other beliefs in common; it's not necessarily an issue as long as either one doesn't push the god concept on the other.

i'm an atheist leaning towards anti-theism (when it goes into hardcore proselytizing), but that doesn't mean i cannot talk with theists. i respect their position even if i'm convinced they're in the wrong. if they don't spew their religion on me, i won't try and bash their faith. simple as that. in other words, live and let live. you'd be getting nowhere fast doing so.and just like there's asshole fundies, there's asshole atheists and antitheists. common signs include wearing a fedora, hanging out on the internet, and being called ironchew, among others.

just because a few assholes ruin the image does not mean we're all the same. that would be boring. and depressing. and aggravating. and nerve-wracking.and you're still reading this, aren't you?

Well, since you brought me up...

I'm interested in which part of "live and let live" involves losing your shit and chasing JWs off with pitchforks.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Random Gal on October 02, 2015, 02:02:45 pm
To continue from where Art and I left off.

I said there's no evidence for god's existence, and therefore believing in it is nonsense. That's how it works. When it comes to assessing whether or not something exists, you don't need negative proof, you just need a lack of positive proof. It's why we don't take the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, or invisible pink unicorns running around seriously. The fact that god somehow deserves special privilege in your book in that in this one specific case, it's suddenly up to nonbelievers to prove that it's irrational and not the other way around is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mentioned in my earlier post.

Really now, by your logic, I could claim that I am King of the Space Fairies, a race of wizard goblins who live on Mars, and as long as you bring up how fucking stupid that is first, then suddenly magical space wizards is the default and it's now up to you to disprove it, rather than on me to prove it.

The difference is that I have actual evidence that you are not, in fact, King of the Space Fairies.

Oh? Who is, then? You?

No.

Actually, I'm the King of the Space Fairies.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 02, 2015, 02:06:58 pm
You have yet to use either of these methods.  Instead, you're taking absence of evidence to be the same as evidence of absence, which is a massive fallacy.  Maybe you should have read these sources more thoroughly before using them to back you up.

You bias is showing.

We have evidence of absence. Lots of it. That's what makes concluding that God does not exist a rational conclusion and makes its corollary that believing in God irrational.

We have a very well rounded and extensive evolutionary theory that is tested down to a microscopic level with a number of scientific disciplines. That disputes the existence your God.

We have multiple accurate ways of determining the age of the planet as well as animate and inanimate objects found on it. Even at multiple orders of magnitude off, it still disputes the existence of your God.

We can trace the co-opting and absorption of other myths and religions by Christianity, point out provable factual errors, and show where scripture has been re-written very early on for political motivations. These things all demonstrate malleability of the supposedly inflexible which disputes the existence of your God.

No, you have evidence against the positions held by young-earth creationists and biblical literalists.  That doesn't dispute the existence of God, merely the beliefs of some of His followers.

Not anti-theist (mostly). Was just questioning your arguments. Also, I presume nothing. I merely asked if one had a burden to prove there weren't elephants, and if one had a burden to prove of there were. In a situation where neither is possible, I would assume there weren't, true. Starting point of skepticism, and all.

Also, you say that there is evidence of god. Would you care to eludicate it, or are you just going to say there is, and leave it at that? I am a fairly open-minded guy, if you can give me some hard proof, I'll believe you.

Not hard evidence, but a lot of scientists argue in favor of God's existence based on science.  For example, there is evidence to suggest that belief in God is hardwired in our brains and DNA.  Many scientists and philosophers have argued that programming for belief in a higher power is evidence in God's favor.

Man alive are you so thin skinned that someone, on an internet message board, posts or says something about God not existing and you just go ballistic?  How sad.

Ironbite-very sad.

Yeah, that's not even remotely how it happened. 
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Svata on October 02, 2015, 02:08:11 pm
To continue from where Art and I left off.

I said there's no evidence for god's existence, and therefore believing in it is nonsense. That's how it works. When it comes to assessing whether or not something exists, you don't need negative proof, you just need a lack of positive proof. It's why we don't take the idea of a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn, or invisible pink unicorns running around seriously. The fact that god somehow deserves special privilege in your book in that in this one specific case, it's suddenly up to nonbelievers to prove that it's irrational and not the other way around is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mentioned in my earlier post.

Really now, by your logic, I could claim that I am King of the Space Fairies, a race of wizard goblins who live on Mars, and as long as you bring up how fucking stupid that is first, then suddenly magical space wizards is the default and it's now up to you to disprove it, rather than on me to prove it.

The difference is that I have actual evidence that you are not, in fact, King of the Space Fairies.

Oh? Who is, then? You?

No.

Actually, I'm the King of the Space Fairies.

My liege!


Not hard evidence, but a lot of scientists argue in favor of God's existence based on science.  For example, there is evidence to suggest that belief in God is hardwired in our brains and DNA.  Many scientists and philosophers have argued that programming for belief in a higher power is evidence in God's favor.
Oh. What about all those people who don't, then? Can't be hardwired very well.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 02, 2015, 02:22:18 pm
No, you have evidence against the positions held by young-earth creationists and biblical literalists.  That doesn't dispute the existence of God, merely the beliefs of some of His followers.

Gonna nitpick on this because I see it all the time from the wishy-washy group of theists. You're not securing any sort of intellectual superiority by evading the historical attributes of your god that have been proven false by scientific advances. All you're doing is playing god-of-the-gaps or, in the case of deists, defining your god into something that can never be observed.

You fall squarely into king-of-the-space-fairies territory there. All you've demonstrated is that your god concept is ill-defined and indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. Absence of evidence for invisible, intangible, and unobservable purple monkeys on Neptune is evidence of absence.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 02, 2015, 02:49:17 pm
Gonna nitpick on this because I see it all the time from the wishy-washy group of theists. You're not securing any sort of intellectual superiority by evading the historical attributes of your god that have been proven false by scientific advances. All you're doing is playing god-of-the-gaps or, in the case of deists, defining your god into something that can never be observed.

God-of-the-gaps is intellectually superior to plugging one's ears and "LALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!"-ing.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 02, 2015, 05:02:47 pm
Nice to see Dynamic Dragon starting another anti-theist-bashing thread. Ahh, it's like the old days...

To start off, as an atheist, I'm only rejecting the claim by theists that any god exists. It's the null hypothesis; no further demonstration or proof of a negative is necessary. As an anti-theist, I'm asserting a claim that gods *do not* exist. The claim is positive, but it's not as big a sticking point as DD likes to think it is.

in the finest tradition of tl;dr, there's no common ground to be established between theists and anti-theists

Seriously? It's only one claim and its opposite in a dichotomy. People can have all sorts of other beliefs in common; it's not necessarily an issue as long as either one doesn't push the god concept on the other.

i'm an atheist leaning towards anti-theism (when it goes into hardcore proselytizing), but that doesn't mean i cannot talk with theists. i respect their position even if i'm convinced they're in the wrong. if they don't spew their religion on me, i won't try and bash their faith. simple as that. in other words, live and let live. you'd be getting nowhere fast doing so.and just like there's asshole fundies, there's asshole atheists and antitheists. common signs include wearing a fedora, hanging out on the internet, and being called ironchew, among others.

just because a few assholes ruin the image does not mean we're all the same. that would be boring. and depressing. and aggravating. and nerve-wracking.and you're still reading this, aren't you?

Well, since you brought me up...

I'm interested in which part of "live and let live" involves losing your shit and chasing JWs off with pitchforks.

See this?

This is why we have a don't be a dick rule. See you next week.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 02, 2015, 06:50:49 pm
Nice to see Dynamic Dragon starting another anti-theist-bashing thread. Ahh, it's like the old days...

To start off, as an atheist, I'm only rejecting the claim by theists that any god exists. It's the null hypothesis; no further demonstration or proof of a negative is necessary. As an anti-theist, I'm asserting a claim that gods *do not* exist. The claim is positive, but it's not as big a sticking point as DD likes to think it is.

in the finest tradition of tl;dr, there's no common ground to be established between theists and anti-theists

Seriously? It's only one claim and its opposite in a dichotomy. People can have all sorts of other beliefs in common; it's not necessarily an issue as long as either one doesn't push the god concept on the other.

i'm an atheist leaning towards anti-theism (when it goes into hardcore proselytizing), but that doesn't mean i cannot talk with theists. i respect their position even if i'm convinced they're in the wrong. if they don't spew their religion on me, i won't try and bash their faith. simple as that. in other words, live and let live. you'd be getting nowhere fast doing so.and just like there's asshole fundies, there's asshole atheists and antitheists. common signs include wearing a fedora, hanging out on the internet, and being called ironchew, among others.

just because a few assholes ruin the image does not mean we're all the same. that would be boring. and depressing. and aggravating. and nerve-wracking.and you're still reading this, aren't you?

Well, since you brought me up...

I'm interested in which part of "live and let live" involves losing your shit and chasing JWs off with pitchforks.

See this?

This is why we have a don't be a dick rule. See you next week.

Is there more to this that I don't know about?

All I see is a fairly mild rebuke to being called an asshole.

Gonna nitpick on this because I see it all the time from the wishy-washy group of theists. You're not securing any sort of intellectual superiority by evading the historical attributes of your god that have been proven false by scientific advances. All you're doing is playing god-of-the-gaps or, in the case of deists, defining your god into something that can never be observed.

God-of-the-gaps is intellectually superior to plugging one's ears and "LALALALALALAICANTHEARYOU!"-ing.

How does that work out in the long run? Ask Thor and Zeus what they're doing these days now that we've figured out how thunder and lightning really work.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 02, 2015, 07:10:18 pm
@mojo, what ironchew did was throw a punch below the belt after i posted this. my... bad blood with jw's and a case of me being off my rocker. (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6687.msg276948#msg276948)

besides, what i wrote was a joke. a poor one, true, but a joke nonetheless.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 02, 2015, 07:58:35 pm
Well that would explain it.

My apologies.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 02, 2015, 10:19:11 pm
How does that work out in the long run? Ask Thor and Zeus what they're doing these days now that we've figured out how thunder and lightning really work.

(A) The discovery of electromagnetism isn't what tore apart the old pagan belief systems. Convert-or-die Christianity did they.

(B) God of the gaps doesn't end with people refusing to install lightning rods because "Zeus will protect me." Protecting your house from lightning is clearly an improvement over not doing so; the fact that you technically still think Zeus exists doesn't change the fact that the resulting actions aren't irrational.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 03, 2015, 06:58:12 am
We've sent rovers and the like to Mars, and have thus far found zero evidence that the Martian environment can support any life above the microscopic level.
Do you not know how magic works? Your toy cars see only what I and my people allow them to see.

Foolish muggles...
Is it really so irrational?  There are some reasons to believe there's actual evidence in favor of God's existence.
Go on then. This'll be good for a laugh.
*Smiles evilly*  You just painted a giant target on your back, and you probably don't even realize it.  To quote your own source:

Quote from: Wikipedia
An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

You're assuming God doesn't exist simply because nobody's proven He exists.  Your own citation is undermining your point, arguing at cross purposes with you.
Well poopypants, I kind of ballsed that one up. Let me quote the full paragraph.
Quote from: Wikipeds
When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]
Pay close attention to the first sentence. The one who affirms has to make with the evidence. If the affirmative side can't prove it, then due to Occam's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) (the simplest possible solution takes precedence over more complex yet equally unproven alternatives), their proposition is assumed false until proven otherwise, as the side with fewer unproven assumptions can be assumed more probable than the alternative. If Occam's Razor didn't apply, then yes, assuming either one is true would be fallacious, but in the case of God exists vs. God doesn't exist, this is simply not the case.

My apologies for screwing up the quote. I should've been more clear about it in the first place.
And as for your other one:

Quote from: Wikipedia
A negative claim may exist as a counter point to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfil the burden of proof for a negative claim.

You have yet to use either of these methods.  Instead, you're taking absence of evidence to be the same as evidence of absence, which is a massive fallacy.  Maybe you should have read these sources more thoroughly before using them to back you up.
In the case of deities, the aforementioned Occam's Razor (which you seem to be confusing for "absence of evidence=evidence of absence" reasoning). That alone is enough to discount gods of any flavour until some serious hard evidence of their existence comes to light. Then if you want to consider the Christian god specifically, there's the plethora of objectively false claims in the Bible, as well as it's history. You know, that book whose entire purpose is to convince people of Christianity. Though of course, that's merely the cherry on top.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 03, 2015, 10:33:59 am
If there is a god, he sure seems to enjoy punking his followers by never arriving on scene or even calling in to back them up in an argument over his existence.  Srsly, is a sky writing Tweet or a toot on Gabriel's horn so much to ask? Immortal dickhead, if you ask me...
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ghoti on October 03, 2015, 10:57:52 am
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/898/402/48d.gif)
Don't mind me.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 12:08:00 pm
You've got it backwards, Art.  See, you're the one who started the argument in favor of God's nonexistence, therefore, you're taking the affirmative side. 

Given the social expectation we have to validate (or "respect") nonsensical beliefs just because they're religious, I for one wholeheartedly support ripping into it. It's a stupid double standard, really. If someone believes in ghosts or bigfoot, you're not expected to "respect their beliefs". Quite the opposite, really. But if they believe in God, suddenly we're expected to walk on eggshells. I more than approve of bucking that nonsensical trend.

If it were the other way around, you'd be completely right.  But you're the one making the claim, and I'm the one disputing it.

And citing Occam's Razor, eh?  Heh heh heh.

(http://oi59.tinypic.com/ivx0ki.jpg)

It's completely useless in theology.  If anything, it's a shot in the foot.  "God did it" is a far simpler explanation for the creation of the universe than just about anything else.

As for the Bible's historical accuracy, you have to consider the culture of the Ancient Near East.  Some details of the battles, for instance, can be explained by the fact that exaggeration, dramatization, and outright fabrication were routine in those days.  Even Herodotus, The Father of History, preferred an element of show to pure analysis.  And yet he's generally considered a reliable source by modern scholars, thanks to archeological discoveries showing strong evidence for his claims.  Moreover, huge chunks of Genesis are considered to be metaphorical by many, and have been since at least the Fourth Century CE.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 03, 2015, 02:04:12 pm
You've got it backwards, Art.  See, you're the one who started the argument in favor of God's nonexistence, therefore, you're taking the affirmative side. 

Wrong. What you're getting into is reframing the issue in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. However, in formal logic, the burden of proof most often lies on the one that can most easily satisfy it. For example, if I say "all ravens are black" and you say "not all ravens are black," then the burden of proof lies on the claim that can be most easily proven. However, I can rephrase the statements to be "there are no ravens that are white," and you would retort "there are ravens that are white." For all intents and purposes, the two examples I just gave you are the exact same, one is just stated in the positive and the other in the negative (all ravens are black vs. there are no white ravens). However, for both of these examples, the burden of proof lies on the second person since that person is asserting the existence of ravens that are not black.

And the point of all of this is that it is easier for the second person to present the world one raven that is white than it is for the first to gather all ravens, across the entire world, across all time, to confirm that they are all black. Since you are asserting the presence of god in the universe, all you need to do is come up with some proof for its existence. The burden of proof is not on Art to prove that god does not exist, is not hiding, has not abandoned humanity, has not died, etc. It is far easier for you to prove one of these (god exists, god is hiding, god abandoned humanity, god died, etc) than it is for Art to disprove all of these, not to mention any other excuse that the mind could conjure up. This isn't rocket science: it's something you'd learn in philosophy 101 at just about any university.

And for clarity, I use black and white ravens as the only two possibilities. While there could theoretically be a red raven (or some other in between) this is a metaphor for the existence of God--God cannot half-exist.

EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

EDIT 2: And until Paragon meets this burden of proof, then it is irrational to believe in the existence of God. And before Paragon jumps off the deep end crying intolerance or persecution, my stance on this issue is no different than devout Christians Soren Kierkegaard or Immanuel Kant. And further to clarify, cause Paragon will inevitably jump off the deep end, smart people can believe irrational things, and unintelligent people can believe rational things. Ben Carson is a decent example: he's a neurosurgeon and it is intuitive that that class of people will be smarter than most. He's also a homophobic asshat that believes homosexuality is a choice. Smart man, has stupid beliefs. See how the irrational belief can be separated from those people who believe them.

EDIT 3: And here we go,

Quote from: Paragon on Occam's Razor
It's completely useless in theology.  If anything, it's a shot in the foot.  "God did it" is a far simpler explanation for the creation of the universe than just about anything else.

Occam's razor is not purely about the simplest answer winning out, it is about the one that requires the least amount of outside complications. For example, let's say you're walking through a forest and you come across a charred tree stump in the middle of a field, and there was a thunderstorm recently. You could say, simply "god did it." Three words, can be applied to everything. However, the problem is that this simple answer has the most outside complications: you have to create the existence of a god in the universe, that acts upon our world, that destroys trees, wanted to destroy this tree, and did so. The far simpler answer is not to bring in this complication of the existence of god, but to simply observe what we know about the world and how that could create the condition we found. As such, the notion that the tree got struck by lightning is far simpler than the idea that god did it, because it does not require the creation of supernatural entities with pyromanical tendencies, but a deferral to what we already know true about the world. In essence, the fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you conflate short answers with simple answers.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 03, 2015, 02:55:45 pm
EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do you think I was overly harsh on Ironchew because he was provoked, or overly lenient on guizonde, or what?

I banned Ironchew because he crossed a pretty major line. I don't think what guizonde did was at all exceptional by forum standards.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 03, 2015, 03:05:52 pm
EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do you think I was overly harsh on Ironchew because he was provoked, or overly lenient on guizonde, or what?

I banned Ironchew because he crossed a pretty major line. I don't think what guizonde did was at all exceptional by forum standards.

Fair question, and I will concede that there is some gray area on which people may disagree. But my view is that there are certain members who can get away with certain behaviors and other members who cannot. For better or worse, Ironchew fits into the latter category. While Chew's dig at Guizonode was more personal than generic, Guizonode did provoke the insult by calling Ironchew an asshole with zero provocation. I feel it's one thing to call someone an asshole for making an asinine point, while arguing that point (e.g. "And you're being an asshole Sigma for saying that homeless people should be used as a cheap food substitute.") and another to sua sponte call someone an asshole (e.g., going into thread killer and saying "Sigma's an asshole.")

Note: Sigma is not an asshole, he just has thick enough skin that I can use him to help illustrate my point.

ETA: And thank you for asking the question. One thing about me is that, for better or worse, I will speak my mind even if it is unpopular. I think it shows maturity that you are willing to calmly address the issue without taking offense.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 03, 2015, 03:08:45 pm
EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do you think I was overly harsh on Ironchew because he was provoked, or overly lenient on guizonde, or what?

I banned Ironchew because he crossed a pretty major line. I don't think what guizonde did was at all exceptional by forum standards.

i'll apologize for my bad joke. it seemed like peanuts compared to the abuse some of you throw at each other, so that's why i wrote it in blue to make sure it was seen clearly as a joke. hell, have you seen what some of you write about him while he revels in his edgelordry? it was no reason for him to throw one of my darkest moments back at me like that.

anyway, i sincerely apologize for calling ironchew an asshole, even in jest. it was a bad call and won't happen again.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 03:20:12 pm
I find it ironic that you're defending Ironchew, when his previous ban was for deliberately misgendering a transwoman.  Then again, politics makes strange bedfellows.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of having a persecution complex, when you called me transphobic simply for questioning the demographics of Stonewall's clientele.

But we can argue semantics all we want.  There are scientific arguments for God's existence.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 03, 2015, 03:33:51 pm
Such as?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 03, 2015, 03:37:00 pm
I find it ironic that you're defending Ironchew, when his previous ban was for deliberately misgendering a transwoman.  Then again, politics makes strange bedfellows.

Playa, I'mma give you some formal logic.

Non-sequitur. I support the ban for deliberate misgendering. I question this one. I've made this point before to Niam, but I like to look at each individual wrongful act in isolation. What you're advocating is essentially the same as saying "well, this guy committed a previous DUI 10 years ago, guilty of murder. Once guilty, always guilty" Ironchew isn't perfect, I'll be the first to say that. But, fact is, if you were given a week ban and I felt it uncalled for, I would like to think that I would speak in your defense too, even though I think you're a complete handjob of a person.

And I find it ironic that you accuse me of having a persecution complex, when you called me transphobic simply for questioning the demographics of Stonewall's clientele.

Red Herring. The points in this thread is about who possesses the burden of proof on the existence of god. Instead of attacking the argument I've made on the issue, you bring up Stonewall to avoid the subject. I repeat: THE TOPIC OF THIS CHAT IS WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

I MADE A JOKE ABOUT THE NYPD, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO POINT THAT OUT? READING COMPREHENSION: DO YOU HAVE IT? I mean, sweet jesus fuck, I even tried to let that argument go because you're the one that kept dredging it up: my last attempt to do so involved giving out a boba tea recipe of mine instead of continuing the argument. Instead of letting that joke go, you dredge it up here instead of attacking the points I've made as they relate to formal logic.

And my caps should not be taken as anger or hostility. Instead, I used all caps in an attempt to bring attention to the subject matter of this discussion.

But we can argue semantics all we want.  There are scientific arguments for God's existence.

I demand you show me this scientific argument/proof for the existence of god.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 03, 2015, 03:46:59 pm
is there any way to reduce ironchew's sentence? a week off is maybe a bit hardcore, perhaps just a stern reprimand would've been better?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 03:59:13 pm
Such as?

Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.  Another argument is the fact that science now accepts that the universe was created out of nothing.  Many scientists, such as Gerald Schroeder, say that the "force of nature" that most mainstream scientists agree created the universe is actually God, because it predates the universe, is not physical, acts on the physical, and can create the physical out of nothing.

is there any way to reduce ironchew's sentence? a week off is maybe a bit hardcore, perhaps just a stern reprimand would've been better?

It's nice that you're concerned about him, but he needs to learn his lesson.  Maybe this will finally penetrate his thick skull.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 03, 2015, 04:02:40 pm
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 04:07:25 pm
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

You misunderstand what I mean by "higher power."  It need not necessarily be divine, it can be some higher principle, or some abstract idea.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 03, 2015, 04:08:34 pm
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 03, 2015, 04:12:53 pm
So... the fact that people very commonly have principles and ideals... proves that the Christian God is an entity that exists?

I'm getting echoes from that one guy on FSTDT who claimed that objective morality proves the existence of God somehow.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 04:18:47 pm
So... the fact that people very commonly have principles and ideals... proves that the Christian God is an entity that exists?

I'm getting echoes from that one guy on FSTDT who claimed that objective morality proves the existence of God somehow.

I'm not talking about objective morality, I'm talking about grand, unifying ideas.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 03, 2015, 04:47:36 pm
*continues munching on popcorn*

What a fascinating argument UP has gone for here.  Let's see if he can bypass the Earth's core and hit Istanbul.

Ironbite-*sips soda*
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 03, 2015, 05:07:54 pm
The existence of unifying ideas doesn't prove that a creator entity exists. It proves only that human beings have the capacity to communicate, share ideas with one another and form worldviews based on their own ideas and those of others.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 03, 2015, 06:13:19 pm
So... the fact that people very commonly have principles and ideals... proves that the Christian God is an entity that exists?

I'm getting echoes from that one guy on FSTDT who claimed that objective morality proves the existence of God somehow.

I'm not talking about objective morality, I'm talking about grand, unifying ideas.

And the alternate hypothesis is that it is an evolutionary adaptation to cope with an animal in possession of a highly intelligent and creative brain capable of abstract thought and a need for them to work in fairly large cohesive hierarchical groups in order to survive.

Having said that, I wonder if whales have gods?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 03, 2015, 06:14:01 pm
So... the fact that people very commonly have principles and ideals... proves that the Christian God is an entity that exists?

I'm getting echoes from that one guy on FSTDT who claimed that objective morality proves the existence of God somehow.

I'm not talking about objective morality, I'm talking about grand, unifying ideas.

And the alternate hypothesis is that it is an evolutionary adaptation to cope with an animal in possession of a highly intelligent and creative brain capable of abstract thought and a need for them to work in fairly large cohesive hierarchical groups in order to survive.

Having said that, I wonder if whales have gods?

They do but good luck trying to pronounce the names.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Cerim Treascair on October 03, 2015, 08:02:13 pm
So... the fact that people very commonly have principles and ideals... proves that the Christian God is an entity that exists?

I'm getting echoes from that one guy on FSTDT who claimed that objective morality proves the existence of God somehow.

I'm not talking about objective morality, I'm talking about grand, unifying ideas.

And the alternate hypothesis is that it is an evolutionary adaptation to cope with an animal in possession of a highly intelligent and creative brain capable of abstract thought and a need for them to work in fairly large cohesive hierarchical groups in order to survive.

Having said that, I wonder if whales have gods?

They do but good luck trying to pronounce the names.

I dunno, if you hit FPS on Reddit and you're a fan of Caterham, it probably sounds like "Cooooooonnnndiiiiiiishuuuuuuuuns~"
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 03, 2015, 09:13:47 pm
You've got it backwards, Art.  See, you're the one who started the argument in favor of God's nonexistence, therefore, you're taking the affirmative side. 

Wrong. What you're getting into is reframing the issue in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. However, in formal logic, the burden of proof most often lies on the one that can most easily satisfy it. For example, if I say "all ravens are black" and you say "not all ravens are black," then the burden of proof lies on the claim that can be most easily proven. However, I can rephrase the statements to be "there are no ravens that are white," and you would retort "there are ravens that are white." For all intents and purposes, the two examples I just gave you are the exact same, one is just stated in the positive and the other in the negative (all ravens are black vs. there are no white ravens). However, for both of these examples, the burden of proof lies on the second person since that person is asserting the existence of ravens that are not black.

And the point of all of this is that it is easier for the second person to present the world one raven that is white than it is for the first to gather all ravens, across the entire world, across all time, to confirm that they are all black. Since you are asserting the presence of god in the universe, all you need to do is come up with some proof for its existence. The burden of proof is not on Art to prove that god does not exist, is not hiding, has not abandoned humanity, has not died, etc. It is far easier for you to prove one of these (god exists, god is hiding, god abandoned humanity, god died, etc) than it is for Art to disprove all of these, not to mention any other excuse that the mind could conjure up. This isn't rocket science: it's something you'd learn in philosophy 101 at just about any university.

And for clarity, I use black and white ravens as the only two possibilities. While there could theoretically be a red raven (or some other in between) this is a metaphor for the existence of God--God cannot half-exist.

EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

EDIT 2: And until Paragon meets this burden of proof, then it is irrational to believe in the existence of God. And before Paragon jumps off the deep end crying intolerance or persecution, my stance on this issue is no different than devout Christians Soren Kierkegaard or Immanuel Kant. And further to clarify, cause Paragon will inevitably jump off the deep end, smart people can believe irrational things, and unintelligent people can believe rational things. Ben Carson is a decent example: he's a neurosurgeon and it is intuitive that that class of people will be smarter than most. He's also a homophobic asshat that believes homosexuality is a choice. Smart man, has stupid beliefs. See how the irrational belief can be separated from those people who believe them.

EDIT 3: And here we go,

Quote from: Paragon on Occam's Razor
It's completely useless in theology.  If anything, it's a shot in the foot.  "God did it" is a far simpler explanation for the creation of the universe than just about anything else.

Occam's razor is not purely about the simplest answer winning out, it is about the one that requires the least amount of outside complications. For example, let's say you're walking through a forest and you come across a charred tree stump in the middle of a field, and there was a thunderstorm recently. You could say, simply "god did it." Three words, can be applied to everything. However, the problem is that this simple answer has the most outside complications: you have to create the existence of a god in the universe, that acts upon our world, that destroys trees, wanted to destroy this tree, and did so. The far simpler answer is not to bring in this complication of the existence of god, but to simply observe what we know about the world and how that could create the condition we found. As such, the notion that the tree got struck by lightning is far simpler than the idea that god did it, because it does not require the creation of supernatural entities with pyromanical tendencies, but a deferral to what we already know true about the world. In essence, the fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you conflate short answers with simple answers.
I'd just like to point out that you've yet to actually address anything here that isn't related to Ironchew, Mr Paragon. Is Ironchew really that much more interesting to you, or are you just too embarrassed to admit that you clearly have absolutely no idea how basic logic works?
As for the Bible's historical accuracy, you have to consider the culture of the Ancient Near East.  Some details of the battles, for instance, can be explained by the fact that exaggeration, dramatization, and outright fabrication were routine in those days.  Even Herodotus, The Father of History, preferred an element of show to pure analysis.  And yet he's generally considered a reliable source by modern scholars, thanks to archeological discoveries showing strong evidence for his claims.  Moreover, huge chunks of Genesis are considered to be metaphorical by many, and have been since at least the Fourth Century CE.
Ah, so inaccuracies, dramatisations, exaggerations and outright fabrications do indeed explain much of the Bible's content. Except for the bits about there being a magical sky fairy who performs magic and then sacrificed himself to himself to save us all from himself. That bit, in a source that you just admitted should otherwise never be taken at face value, we should totally take literally. Why exactly is that? Because the Bible, that book you said often outright makes shit up, says that this magical sky fairy wants us to have blind faith in its existence for the sake of having blind faith in its existence?

Well, I don't know about you lot, but I'm totally convinced. That's it, guys, thread's over. Theism has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be every bit as rational as atheism. Totally. Yup. Mmhmm.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 10:25:13 pm
I was merely trying to provide some historical context.  More to the point, the Bible is less inaccurate than it was once claimed to be.  Skeptics used to scoff at many of its claims, but archaeology ultimately proved a lot of them right.

And "magical sky fairy?"  Appeal to ridicule will not help you here.  All it does is make you sound like a manchild.

Moreover, you're beating up a strawman.  Not all theists believe due to faith and/or tradition.  Some believe because of reason or science.  For example, Antony Flew used to be a staunch proponent of Atheism.  Then he wrote a book called There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.  Why the change of heart?  Because of his commitment to following the evidence.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 03, 2015, 10:32:36 pm
Aw, that's nice, yes.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 03, 2015, 10:40:03 pm
Still ignoring the part about Occam's Razor, are you? You may want to get on that at some point, especially since Queenie invoked the direct question rule.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 10:44:28 pm
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

And by the way, what I did earlier was called nitpicking.  I'd think you'd have come to expect it, because the Internet is the greatest refuge of the pedant.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 03, 2015, 10:51:48 pm
Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

Are you going to explain why?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 03, 2015, 10:55:26 pm
Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

Are you going to explain why?

Because with metaphysics, gathering evidence either way is ridiculously hard.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 03, 2015, 11:07:42 pm
Because with metaphysics, gathering evidence either way is ridiculously hard.

"Gathering evidence is hard" -> "The laws of evidence don't apply"?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 03, 2015, 11:10:35 pm
Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

Are you going to explain why?

Because with metaphysics, gathering evidence either way is ridiculously hard.

What do you know, making supernatural woo seem reasonable is hard. Who'd have thunk it?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ghoti on October 04, 2015, 12:08:53 am
What do you know, making supernatural woo seem reasonable is hard. Who'd have thunk it?
I'm putting that one in my signature.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 04, 2015, 12:10:21 am
I am honoured.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 04, 2015, 12:52:15 am
i invoke the direct question rule.

ultie, what's your faith, exactly? i'm curious.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 04, 2015, 12:57:53 am
i invoke the direct question rule.

ultie, what's your faith, exactly? i'm curious.

I'm a Methodist.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 04, 2015, 01:14:35 am
i invoke the direct question rule.

ultie, what's your faith, exactly? i'm curious.

I don't think the rule works that way, as it was originally created to hold Skyfire accountable for avoiding points made in a debate. There is a reason I politely reminded Paragon 2-3 times that I made that point and he ignored it before invoking the rule.

And Paragon did jack shit to address the underlying issue of my burden of proof argument. The nuance between physical and theoretical is again a red herring. The burden of proof remains on Paragon because all he has to do is come up with one argument for God's existence and not on Art because the only way that Art could disprove God is to find all the arguments for God's existence--including the ones that people haven't thought of or cannot conceptualize--and then disprove them. Practically speaking, if the burden of proof were on Paragon, then it would take him only one decent argument. However, if it were on Art, then it would take Art a lifetime and he would still be no where near done.

The other thing is that, as much as Skyfire, I mean Paragon, wants to argue that the existence of God is the default "because it is in our DNA" or something, he's wrong. It honestly rings of the fundamentalist argument that because everyone believes in god, in theistic debates the burden is on the atheist to disprove. But formal logic doesn't care about how many people think X. Further, we know that Art does not bear the burden of proof because we can explain the world absent god's existence (Occam's razor), and the default position is that god does not exist or interact with our world. I feel like I'm going in circles here.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: rookie on October 04, 2015, 01:47:29 am
I agree with you L 100%. Except in this case, a discussion about faith and God, the more you can be on the same page the better. Saying one is a Christian is almost meaningless as mainstream protestants, JWs, Mormons, catholics, the Westboro Baptist Church, and snake handlers are all self proclaimed christians. Now, in answering a very personal question (in that there are few things in life more personal than religion), UP had allowed everyone to at least grasp the platform of what he believes.

I know he's dealing with apologetics way too much, and that whether he's a methodist or lutheran or catholic or snake handler had no real relevance to the discussion as it stands right now. But should that change, it's nice to have a baseline for his beliefs as it would be nice if he had a baseline for whoever he was talking to.

That's my thoughts anyways.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 04, 2015, 02:27:54 am
thanks ultie, that'll help everyone grasp basically your views.  :)
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 04, 2015, 09:14:27 am
I was merely trying to provide some historical context.  More to the point, the Bible is less inaccurate than it was once claimed to be.  Skeptics used to scoff at many of its claims, but archaeology ultimately proved a lot of them right.

And "magical sky fairy?"  Appeal to ridicule will not help you here.  All it does is make you sound like a manchild.

Moreover, you're beating up a strawman.  Not all theists believe due to faith and/or tradition.  Some believe because of reason or science.  For example, Antony Flew used to be a staunch proponent of Atheism.  Then he wrote a book called There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.  Why the change of heart?  Because of his commitment to following the evidence.

It's pretty dishonest to to use Anthony Flew in any defense of the Bible. The man was a deist who specifically said "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian." (obligatory wiki ref.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew)

In all honesty, using Flew to prove the case for god isn't particularly good anyways since his argument came down to "I haven't seen any science that I believe in to explain the origin of life -- therefore god." His background and biases as a philosopher crept into the mix and he essentially asked himself why would the universe do this and the only answer that can explain a purpose and motivation to the universe is an intelligence of some sort. The catch is no overriding purpose or motivation is necessary for the universe to function and his presupposition that one is necessary forced him down a single path and into god's arms. Embracing randomness and chaos theory as the drivers of the universe would have sent him down another and to the big bang.

In either case it is simply a name for the spark that started the whole ball rolling and not advocating for a classically styled God. At best you could say he was a deist of the gaps.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 04, 2015, 10:33:46 am
I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 04, 2015, 11:11:01 am
This is the gist of what I'm gleaning from your more recent responses, UP:

Working theories that are incomprehensible for some science dude or philosopher (and most people) i.e., quantum mechanics + big bang + primogenesis + Higg's Boson + dark energy + string theory = "Hey-Itsa-Me! God".

Innate human propensity to feel emotional responses from abstract patterns observed in the world, and to apply abstract patterns onto reality = instinct for belief in god (or magic) = GodExists.

Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 04, 2015, 04:38:34 pm
*munches popcorn*

Well golly gee willikers, sounds like UP is proving his own point here.

Ironbite-*sips soda*
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 04, 2015, 05:32:57 pm
This is the gist of what I'm gleaning from your more recent responses, UP:

Working theories that are incomprehensible for some science dude or philosopher (and most people) i.e., quantum mechanics + big bang + primogenesis + Higg's Boson + dark energy + string theory = "Hey-Itsa-Me! God".

Innate human propensity to feel emotional responses from abstract patterns observed in the world, and to apply abstract patterns onto reality = instinct for belief in god (or magic) = GodExists.

Not exactly.  Those are two (somewhat simplified) trains of thought that allow for rational belief in God.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 04, 2015, 05:37:41 pm
But belief in abstract ideas (and remember, according to you, this means any unifying ideas) in no way infers the existence of a specific creator deity.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 04, 2015, 06:08:05 pm
is there any way to reduce ironchew's sentence? a week off is maybe a bit hardcore, perhaps just a stern reprimand would've been better?

I don't think a warning or shorter ban period would've helped. With any luck, a week off will be enough to stick in his memory.

EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do you think I was overly harsh on Ironchew because he was provoked, or overly lenient on guizonde, or what?

I banned Ironchew because he crossed a pretty major line. I don't think what guizonde did was at all exceptional by forum standards.

Fair question, and I will concede that there is some gray area on which people may disagree. But my view is that there are certain members who can get away with certain behaviors and other members who cannot. For better or worse, Ironchew fits into the latter category.

True, but complicated. "Getting away with things" includes both reactions from the general forum community and from the mod staff. There's not much I can do about the former, while the latter is under my responsibility and I try to make it as even-handed as possible. It's hard to be sure I'm not coloured by bias here, but I don't think I would have excused Ironchew's behaviour from anyone.

Quote
While Chew's dig at Guizonode was more personal than generic, Guizonode did provoke the insult by calling Ironchew an asshole with zero provocation. I feel it's one thing to call someone an asshole for making an asinine point, while arguing that point (e.g. "And you're being an asshole Sigma for saying that homeless people should be used as a cheap food substitute.") and another to sua sponte call someone an asshole (e.g., going into thread killer and saying "Sigma's an asshole.")

A valid point; most insults in this forum tend to happen in the context of an ongoing debate, and guizonde's was not. But I discounted the severity of his comment because he highlighted it in blue, which he typically does to show he's not being serious, and I have reason to believe Ironchew knows that. If that wasn't the case, or the context was otherwise different, I would have issued a warning to keep it in F&B, but I don't think guizonde's intention was to make a personal attack.

Quote
Note: Sigma is not an asshole, he just has thick enough skin that I can use him to help illustrate my point.

Entirely off-topic, but I'm currently starting to transition and I prefer "she" or "they" pronouns (no reason you should've known, just thought I'd take the opportunity to mention it).

Quote
ETA: And thank you for asking the question. One thing about me is that, for better or worse, I will speak my mind even if it is unpopular. I think it shows maturity that you are willing to calmly address the issue without taking offense.

No problem.


(I have thoughts on the state of the evidence regarding God, but I'm too tired to post them here)
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 04, 2015, 06:11:04 pm
But belief in abstract ideas (and remember, according to you, this means any unifying ideas) in no way infers the existence of a specific creator deity.

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 04, 2015, 06:32:00 pm
You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have beliefs in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.


Edit: typo
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 04, 2015, 06:52:22 pm
I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?

You were using Flew. The Christlike Christian. You will have to excuse me if your beliefs color my perception of what exactly you are trying to defend particularly since his idea of god is and what I presume (in a generic sense) your idea of god is are pretty much at odds with one another.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 04, 2015, 08:22:52 pm
But belief in abstract ideas (and remember, according to you, this means any unifying ideas) in no way infers the existence of a specific creator deity.

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

Erm, it's a side-effect of the species' massive instinct for pattern recognition (and that fact that it took an embarrassingly long time for most people to figure out that correlation does not equal causation)? Now, consider this theory, that's based entirely on already established facts, and yours, that assumes some sort of deity and all of the other unanswered questions that raises, remember everything we've learned so far about Occam's Razor, and tell me which one is the most rational solution?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 04, 2015, 08:36:38 pm
OOOH  OOOH!  PICK ME!  PICK ME! 

*waves arm over his head*

Ironbite-I KNOW THE ANSWER!
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 04, 2015, 09:00:27 pm
You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?

You were using Flew. The Christlike Christian. You will have to excuse me if your beliefs color my perception of what exactly you are trying to defend particularly since his idea of god is and what I presume (in a generic sense) your idea of god is are pretty much at odds with one another.

And you'll have to pardon me if I think you're ridiculously biased.  You assumed I couldn't be bothered to look at a guy's Wikipedia page to find out what his personal beliefs were, and from there, you strawmanned me into using a deist to defend the Bible.  Either that, or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

Erm, it's a side-effect of the species' massive instinct for pattern recognition (and that fact that it took an embarrassingly long time for most people to figure out that correlation does not equal causation)? Now, consider this theory, that's based entirely on already established facts, and yours, that assumes some sort of deity and all of the other unanswered questions that raises, remember everything we've learned so far about Occam's Razor, and tell me which one is the most rational solution?

I hadn't heard the pattern recognition theory.  Could you give me a link or something?  I want to be informed before I make my decision.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: R. U. Sirius on October 04, 2015, 09:15:37 pm
You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

An alternate explanation that's been put forth is that we're simply projecting our own reasons for burying the dead onto Neanderthals. After all, it doesn't take much brainpower to recognize that decaying bodies can spread disease or attract scavengers. Burying bodies in a fetal position might indicate some religious significance...or might just be an attempt to make the hole as small as possible to save labor for the poor sap who had to dig it. The fact is, we simply don't know, and many of the discoveries that have been made that supposedly support the conclusion that they had supernatural beliefs are contradicted by others that indicate the opposite.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 04, 2015, 09:22:33 pm
You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

An alternate explanation that's been put forth is that we're simply projecting our own reasons for burying the dead onto Neanderthals. After all, it doesn't take much brainpower to recognize that decaying bodies can spread disease or attract scavengers. Burying bodies in a fetal position might indicate some religious significance...or might just be an attempt to make the hole as small as possible to save labor for the poor sap who had to dig it. The fact is, we simply don't know, and many of the discoveries that have been made that supposedly support the conclusion that they had supernatural beliefs are contradicted by others that indicate the opposite.

There's some evidence to contradict the theory that their burials were purely pragmatic.  Several Neanderthal graves had deposits of pollen, implying that they were buried with flowers.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: R. U. Sirius on October 04, 2015, 09:26:38 pm
You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

An alternate explanation that's been put forth is that we're simply projecting our own reasons for burying the dead onto Neanderthals. After all, it doesn't take much brainpower to recognize that decaying bodies can spread disease or attract scavengers. Burying bodies in a fetal position might indicate some religious significance...or might just be an attempt to make the hole as small as possible to save labor for the poor sap who had to dig it. The fact is, we simply don't know, and many of the discoveries that have been made that supposedly support the conclusion that they had supernatural beliefs are contradicted by others that indicate the opposite.

There's some evidence to contradict the theory that their burials were purely pragmatic.  Several Neanderthal graves had deposits of pollen, implying that they were buried with flowers.

It's also possible that the pollen is a later intrusion, or that there was simply a large amount of pollen in the air at the time or wind blowing flowers around.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 04, 2015, 10:19:46 pm
Erm, it's a side-effect of the species' massive instinct for pattern recognition (and that fact that it took an embarrassingly long time for most people to figure out that correlation does not equal causation)? Now, consider this theory, that's based entirely on already established facts, and yours, that assumes some sort of deity and all of the other unanswered questions that raises, remember everything we've learned so far about Occam's Razor, and tell me which one is the most rational solution?
I hadn't heard the pattern recognition theory.  Could you give me a link or something?  I want to be informed before I make my decision.
Sure. Here a brief Wiki article on pattern recognition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia#.22Patternicity.22 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia#.22Patternicity.22)
Here's a scientific paper linking it to the evolution of superstitious belief.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1654/31 (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1654/31)
Also, if you'd like it summed up in in layman's terms.
https://etyman.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/apophenia-aep%C9%92%CB%88finij%C9%99/ (https://etyman.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/apophenia-aep%C9%92%CB%88finij%C9%99/)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/)
Enjoy!
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 04, 2015, 10:46:09 pm
It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

It still doesn't imply that they were theists, merely that they believed in ghosts. Care to read a list of non-theistic religions?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 05, 2015, 02:47:08 am
So what you're saying is that faith in an entity... automatically means that the entity exists? What about all the other creation myths people have believed in and still do? Do all of those creators exist?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 05, 2015, 08:50:52 pm
So what you're saying is that faith in an entity... automatically means that the entity exists? What about all the other creation myths people have believed in and still do? Do all of those creators exist?

What I'm arguing for at the moment is the existence of some kind of divinity.  What I'm talking about is God in the abstract sense.  And the fact that humanity is programmed to believe in some kind of divinity seems to me like evidence in Gods favor.

By the way, Art, I'll be reading those links.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 05, 2015, 09:03:27 pm
So how far has UP shifted the goal posts anyways?

Ironbite-is he three stadiums away now?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 05, 2015, 09:25:15 pm
So how far has UP shifted the goal posts anyways?

Ironbite-is he three stadiums away now?

UP is answering questions that we're asking to clarify on the original claim. That's not goalpost moving.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 05, 2015, 11:25:02 pm
So what you're saying is that faith in an entity... automatically means that the entity exists? What about all the other creation myths people have believed in and still do? Do all of those creators exist?

What I'm arguing for at the moment is the existence of some kind of divinity.  What I'm talking about is God in the abstract sense.  And the fact that humanity is programmed to believe in some kind of divinity seems to me like evidence in Gods favor.

By the way, Art, I'll be reading those links.  Thanks!

Why though? A god would not need to program a specific tendency towards belief in the divine, since if it wanted people to believe in it, that would be trivial (by showing up). And of course, a god who does not want to be believed in would not put that there in the first place. By necessity you must specify a very particular sort of god that wants people to believe in it, but not for the obvious reasons like "I met God and it healed my broken leg" but because of vague tendencies hidden in the brain. Obviously such a god is not a priori impossible, but it's a weird claim to make.

Besides, if you think that belief in the divine is hardwired, you are essentially saying you would be likely to believe in God even if there was no such thing. Are you sure you are arguing against theism being irrational?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 06, 2015, 12:09:47 am
One of the reasons that the burden of proof is on the person asserting something is that assertion defines what is to be disproved. Are we simply discussing the god of the bible, or any god? What is it that defines god - is it simply a higher power? Is it a higher power that created the universe? Does it have to be sentient?

Edit: which thread did this argument spin-off?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 06, 2015, 12:46:22 am
One of the reasons that the burden of proof is on the person asserting something is that assertion defines what is to be disproved. Are we simply discussing the god of the bible, or any god? What is it that defines god - is it simply a higher power? Is it a higher power that created the universe? Does it have to be sentient?

Edit: which thread did this argument spin-off?
The stupid videos thread.
So how far has UP shifted the goal posts anyways?

Ironbite-is he three stadiums away now?
Assuming his silence on the matter is tacit acceptance of how burden of proof and Occam's Razor actually works (which I shall assume unless he says otherwise), not all that much. He's now trying to make with some evidence that gods of some description exist, which would be the logical next step for him. It's certainly not good evidence, by any stretch of the imagination, but at least he's not trying to re-write basic logic anymore.

Baby steps, as they say.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 06, 2015, 10:48:02 am
I think Davedan hit the nail on the head as to the crux of the issue: how are we defining a god?  Bring a person from da Vinci's time to our world, and he'd declare that we're either masters of high sorcery, or outright gods.  Hell, even a person from a century ago would view our world as a sci-fi wonderland full of bright, amazing, impossible toys that nobody (except Tesla) could've ever dreamed would exist.  What would be miracles to one group may be a simple matter of inherent understanding for the others.  Take the internet for example: it allows us almost instantaneous communication across the entire planet with people we've never even heard of, much less seen.  With it, almost any kind of information can be found, given enough time and patience.  Its a great bazaar and Great Library all rolled into one absurdly powerful technological marvel that has expanded our capacity to understand as a species.  Such things were the impossible fever dreams of science fiction authors when our grandparents were kids.  Nowadays, the current generation is barely even cognizant of a world in which the internet doesn't exist, and can use it almost as easily as they can any other tool.  What Shakespeare would've deemed sorcery of the highest caliber is a simple fact of life for us.

Basically, any so-called "gods" we could theoretically encounter may well just be a species so far advanced, technologically, that we are unable to comprehend their capabilities, leaving the admittedly careless to claim their works to be miracles or magic or what have you.  They might appear all-powerful to the untrained eye, but much like the episode of Next Generation where Picard and the Enterprise crew become worshiped as gods by a primitive people, they could be no less mortal than the rest of us, its just that they've found more ways to extend life and cheat death than we have.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 07, 2015, 11:08:54 am
I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?

You were using Flew. The Christlike Christian. You will have to excuse me if your beliefs color my perception of what exactly you are trying to defend particularly since his idea of god is and what I presume (in a generic sense) your idea of god is are pretty much at odds with one another.

And you'll have to pardon me if I think you're ridiculously biased.  You assumed I couldn't be bothered to look at a guy's Wikipedia page to find out what his personal beliefs were, and from there, you strawmanned me into using a deist to defend the Bible.  Either that, or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy couple of days.

I probably am biased, but not in the way you think I am. I figured you knew who Flew was and what his belief system entailed. I just think you are willfully making a disingenuous argument by citing him as proof that is rational to believe that there is a great creator behind the universe -- a.k.a. a god. From there it is a short hop to belief in gods is rational therefore Christ which is what I think your endgame in this debate is.

Strawman?

Maybe in a technical sense since you didn't expressly state Flew is proof of the logic of the existence of Christ. You have however said:
There are some reasons to believe there's actual evidence in favor of God's existence.
...God doesn't exist simply because nobody's proven He exists.
...God, merely the beliefs of some of His followers.
...His followers.
God's
God
God's
God's
...the Bible's historical accuracy...
...chunks of Genesis are considered to be metaphorical...
God's
God
...the Bible is less inaccurate than it was once claimed to be...

At this point we are at page three, reply 42, where you mention Flew. That's a whole lot of capitalizing the letter G for a unnamed and hypothetical creator of the universe. You also gave it a gender. And you take time out to defend the accuracy of the bible a few times when its accuracy or inaccuracy is completely immaterial to the concept of the kind of god you were supposedly espousing.

So yeah, I'm skeptical of your motives and maneuverings here. Granted, I could be wrong and maybe habits are so ingrained you that you automatically capitalize the G and assign a gender; and your referencing the bible was mostly done in response to something someone else said.

What I'm arguing for at the moment...

I think I'll just remain skeptical.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 07, 2015, 04:11:21 pm
So what you're saying is that faith in an entity... automatically means that the entity exists? What about all the other creation myths people have believed in and still do? Do all of those creators exist?

What I'm arguing for at the moment is the existence of some kind of divinity.  What I'm talking about is God in the abstract sense.  And the fact that humanity is programmed to believe in some kind of divinity seems to me like evidence in Gods favor.

By the way, Art, I'll be reading those links.  Thanks!

Why though? A god would not need to program a specific tendency towards belief in the divine, since if it wanted people to believe in it, that would be trivial (by showing up). And of course, a god who does not want to be believed in would not put that there in the first place. By necessity you must specify a very particular sort of god that wants people to believe in it, but not for the obvious reasons like "I met God and it healed my broken leg" but because of vague tendencies hidden in the brain. Obviously such a god is not a priori impossible, but it's a weird claim to make.

Besides, if you think that belief in the divine is hardwired, you are essentially saying you would be likely to believe in God even if there was no such thing. Are you sure you are arguing against theism being irrational?

That's not what I meant.  What I'm saying is that humanity's natural belief in God is caused by God.  And I think that if there were no god, we wouldn't have this belief.  My argument is that the hardwired belief in God can be taken as reasonable evidence for God's existence.

As for your other arguments, I don't think we can understand God, any more than a cockroach can understand us.

Quote from: Canadian Mojo
Granted, I could be wrong and maybe habits are so ingrained you that you automatically capitalize the G and assign a gender; and your referencing the bible was mostly done in response to something someone else said.

You guessed it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLT2erau3zo

Art, the theory of patternicity is interesting, and I think it might explain superstition.  But I don't think it's an adequate explanation for the hardwired belief in God.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 07, 2015, 04:23:12 pm
...hardwired faith in God that's disproven by the existence of atheists and such.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 07, 2015, 04:29:27 pm
...hardwired faith in God that's disproven by the existence of atheists and such.

Like I told you before, said faith can be transferred.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Even Then on October 07, 2015, 04:45:15 pm
But what you're saying with THAT is "people have the capacity for abstract thought, therefore God". It's a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 07, 2015, 04:47:14 pm
But what you're saying with THAT is "people have the capacity for abstract thought, therefore God". It's a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.  What I'm talking about is belief in a higher power.  I don't see how or why it would have evolved naturally.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 07, 2015, 06:29:27 pm
You guessed it!

So then would you be willing to concede that while belief in a creative force behind the formation of the universe may be rational, belief in a Christian God is not?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 07, 2015, 06:32:01 pm
But what you're saying with THAT is "people have the capacity for abstract thought, therefore God". It's a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.  What I'm talking about is belief in a higher power.  I don't see how or why it would have evolved naturally.

There's this thing called death. It kind of sucks, and nobody really knows what goes on with the individual after experiencing it. We just know that once someone dies, they don't talk to us anymore, and that makes us sad. We also don't know if we have any degree of consciousness after death, which terrifies us. So, people being afraid the natural phenomenon create a supernatural phenomenon to assuage these feelings of melancholy and fear.

Once this idea comes into play, it really isn't too difficult to transfer it to a god. My neighbor is an asshole who beats his wife and kicks puppies, and yet he's rich. There must be something beyond the scope of our existence that can give him some comeuppance. So, the idea of god as this omniscient judge that holds everyone accountable for evil acts soon follows.

I'm not saying this is exactly how it developed, but I disagree with the notion that we are hardwired to believe in concepts of gods or after-lifes. I find it far more plausible that early peoples, guided by ignorance of earthly phenomenon (like lightning and earthquakes), guided by fears of dying, sadness over loved-ones, and just-desserts created early concepts of gods and after-lifes. From there, subsequent generations were indoctrinated to the point that it appears to be "hard-wired."

ETA: The practical point of this post being that your logic rests on a few assumptions. First, that people are, in fact, predisposed toward supernatural beliefs. Second, that this belief could only come from god, as opposed to temporal sources. If these two points are assumed, your logic holds up quite well. However, I just provided an alternative explanation that leads to the same result and requires neither assumption. Ergo, your logic rests on faulty assumptions and is inherently flawed.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 07, 2015, 07:17:09 pm
Assuming that there is a hardwired belief in God (or a higher power) I would have thought that could be evolutionally useful for a social animal to control the group and to ensure that the group acted for the benefit of the community and rather than a particular individual.

Also if we are to assume a omnipotent God - if it wanted people to believe in it, we all would because being omnipotent it would have no impediment to its will. Further we would all believe in exactly the same God.

Which is why I said we should first define what is meant by 'God'.

UP do you believe in Odin? The Rainbow Serpent? Zeus? Mithras? Hercules? Haunuman? Vishnu? Ram? Krishna?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 07, 2015, 07:59:56 pm
Personally, I believe in Goku.  He died for our sins.  Multiple times.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 07, 2015, 08:03:33 pm
You guessed it!

So then would you be willing to concede that while belief in a creative force behind the formation of the universe may be rational, belief in a Christian God is not?

Not yet.

Queen, the main problem with your assertion is that we don't know how our ancestors thought.  There's evidence to suggest that Cro Magnons actually had larger brains than modern humans.  If their brains were different, why should we assume their thought processes were the same?

Dave, right now, I'm talking about God in the philosophical, abstract sense.  The "unmoved mover," as it were.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 07, 2015, 08:23:21 pm
So what are the qualities of the 'unmoved mover' - the god of Aristotle?

1. That it created the universe from nothing?
2. That it itself was not created?
3. That it is sentient?
4. That it still exists and was not consumed/destroyed by the act of creation?
5. That it is omniscient?
6. That it is omnipotent?
7. Benevolent, disinterested or malicious?
8. Ineffable?

Which of the above fall within your conception of the 'unmoved mover'?

Also isn't your hardwiring argument simply a rehash of the ontological argument?

Edit: There is another problem with your hardwiring argument - You have based it on being unable to conceive of another reason for people having a generalised belief in a higher power other than the existence of a divine creator. Queen responded by putting forth a hypothesis which didn't require one (as did I but you elided my hypothesis). You now seek to dismiss that by saying that Cro-Magnon brains were different to ours and we don't know how they think. While that might dispose of Queen's hypothesis it must take yours with it too. Otherwise your are being internally inconsistent. Either way you are still without evidence.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 07, 2015, 08:40:19 pm
But what you're saying with THAT is "people have the capacity for abstract thought, therefore God". It's a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.  What I'm talking about is belief in a higher power.  I don't see how or why it would have evolved naturally.

Please address my earlier point (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6727.msg277905#msg277905) as to why it's very dubious that a creator god would have planted it deliberately.

As for why it would evolve, think e.g. our ability to detect faces. People see faces in goddamn everything, because our brain has an overactive face-detection system. And it has that face-detection system because faces are a thing that's important to recognise in a social species.

Agency is roughly analogous to faces here. Our brain has good reasons to evolve a system that assumes events have an agent behind them, because in a social species a lot of important things that happen have agents behind them.

Of course the evo-psych is speculative, but there's at least a plausible reason why an evolved brain of a social species would be biased towards attributing agency to natural events. I don't really find any equally plausible reason why a creator god would put that bias in, for the reasons already given.

Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 07, 2015, 08:41:30 pm
You guessed it!

So then would you be willing to concede that while belief in a creative force behind the formation of the universe may be rational, belief in a Christian God is not?
Queen, the main problem with your assertion is that we don't know how our ancestors thought.  There's evidence to suggest that Cro Magnons actually had larger brains than modern humans.  If their brains were different, why should we assume their thought processes were the same?

This is simply argument for argument sake and has no bearing on the points debated whatsoever. We also do not know where the concept of god originates, and it is simply rank speculation to assume that the concept of god is innate to human existence and not brought about by temporal factors. But, assuming arguendo that your point disproves my assertion, it also disproves your own (as we simply do not know), and we're right back to square one, with you bearing the burden of proving god's existence.

Second, you selectively apply this standard of uncertainty. If someone presents something you disagree with, for example that belief in god is not due to the existence of god, then you argue that we do not know with certainty and that is that. But, you have no problem arguing that the existence of god is innate to human existence, even though we cannot know which came first: humans without a belief in god or humans with a belief. You've done this before in other debates, and it really is bad form.

Third, this is where Occam's razor comes into play. My explanation relies purely on natural factors that we understand which are intuitive to a certain degree. Yours requires the existence of a god that wants its existence innately known by people, but not all people because atheists exist. Which assertion most conforms with our understanding of the world an requires the least outside complications?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 07, 2015, 09:33:09 pm
Is it not possible that, while Cro Magnon brains were physically larger than our own, ours are more structurally complex?  For example, a dolphin, if memory serves, has a similar brain-to-mass ratio to humans.  However, most of that mass is basically thermal shielding to keep dolphin brains from freezing in the deeper, colder waters of the ocean.  Discounting that shielding tissue, their brains are more in line with other, less advanced mammals, which is evidenced by the fact that dolphins act more like animals and less like humans, or even many species of ape.  I'd be willing to bet money that the main difference is that our brains are more condensed and are focused more on our frontal lobe than a Cro Magnon.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 07, 2015, 09:45:36 pm
From what I remember - and what I remember has most certainly been superseded, it is the surface area (ie how many folds there are in the cortex) which is more important than simple size per se for cognitive function.

However at the end of the day the relative size of the brain is a red herring for the reasons which have already been given.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 07, 2015, 10:06:40 pm
There's a difference between my arguments in favor of hardwiring and Her Highness's arguments in favor of emotional comfort: mine has actual evidence to support it.  See, the Cro-Magnons had the so-called "God Gene" (VMAT2).  This implies that they too had faith hardwired into their DNA and brains.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 07, 2015, 10:18:26 pm
It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:

" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"

You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.



Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 07, 2015, 11:43:55 pm
There's a difference between my arguments in favor of hardwiring and Her Highness's arguments in favor of emotional comfort: mine has actual evidence to support it.  See, the Cro-Magnons had the so-called "God Gene" (VMAT2).  This implies that they too had faith hardwired into their DNA and brains.
Ahem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene).

Quote
The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level.

Pay close attention to #5. As you can see, the hypothesis that you claim is evidence of a deity is actually evidence that spirituality can have temporal benefits. Nowhere do any actual scientists who came up with this hypothesis claim that it's evidence that any deity actually exists.

Quote
Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain. PZ Myers argues: "It's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'"[2]

Carl Zimmer claimed that VMAT2 can be characterized as a gene that accounts for less than one percent of the variance of self-transcendence scores. These, Zimmer says, can signify anything from belonging to the Green Party to believing in ESP. Zimmer also points out that the God Gene theory is based on only one unpublished, unreplicated study.[3] However Hamer notes that the importance of the VMAT2 finding is not that it explains all spiritual or religious feelings, but rather that it points the way toward one neurobiological pathway that may be important.

As it turns out, while this gene could well be what facilitates spirituality (in all its forms, not just theism), it would seem that it's actual function is simply to enable higher order thought. As you can see, an important function with would give an evolutionary advantage. As such, to claim that it's there because there is indeed a god who wants us to belief in him but not be entirely certain about it is either intellectually dishonest or just stupid.

Finally, a quote from Dean Hamer, the guy who came up with the "god gene" hypothesis.

Quote
Hamer repeatedly notes in his book that, "This book is about whether God genes exist, not about whether there is a God."

Again, he and any other geneticists who worked on this never claimed that this gene is evidence of a deity, rather a large part of why spirituality is possible in humans.

Honestly now, I was able to find this information in less than 10 seconds. Remember what you said earlier in the thread about reading your sources to make sure the actually support what you're arguing? Yeah, you may want to consider that before you go claiming something is evidence of god.

Well, piss. Dave beat me to it. Eh, I'm sure it can't hurt to emphasise the point.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 07, 2015, 11:44:50 pm
There's a difference between my arguments in favor of hardwiring and Her Highness's arguments in favor of emotional comfort: mine has actual evidence to support it.  See, the Cro-Magnons had the so-called "God Gene" (VMAT2).  This implies that they too had faith hardwired into their DNA and brains.

OK, no. This is not how, um, anything works.

Even if VMAT2 contributes to religious belief and spirituality and all that stuff (not equivalent to a hardwired belief in gods!), it's a single gene coding for a single protein that transports some chemicals around. The effects of that gene are going to be almost entirely dependent on everything else going on around; you can't expect the same neurotransmitter to have the exact same effect in brains that are structurally different. Hell, psychiatrists have a hard time finding drugs that have consistent effects on people who are not separated by 40,000 years of evolution.

Either Cro-Magnon brains are different enough that we can't understand their thought process, or they are similar enough that we can expect VMAT2 to work the same way. Both, though? No.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 08, 2015, 12:11:48 am
Okay, I'm tired and I have a headache.  I need some time to collect my thoughts.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 08, 2015, 12:25:13 am
Okay, I'm tired and I have a headache.  I need some time to collect my thoughts.

After an Aspirin and a good lie down, would you mind going through the qualities of the 'unmoved mover' for me please? Just so we can clearly define the parameters of the philosophical concept of the god we are talking about.

Not bugging you, I realise it's hard to hold up one end of the conversation when there is a group on the other end. But this is an interesting discussion. I will say that I find it interesting that you subscribe to the metaphysical concept of the 'unmoved mover' and are still a Christian because I don't think they are necessarily compatible.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 08, 2015, 07:44:49 pm
It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:

" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"

You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.

It's entirely possible for a theory to be right in principle, but wrong in the particulars.  Just look at Lamarck.  Where I'm skeptical of the hypothesis is the fifth point.  We know that religion makes modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier, Dave.  What I meant was "I can't think of anything else that doesn't rely on assumptions."

Now, I'm completely willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong.  Maybe the optimism part is actually right.  Or maybe the whole theory is bunk.  I can acknowledge that either one is a distinct possibility.

Also, my God isn't the same as the unmoved mover.  There are a number of key differences.  I was merely using the term I thought fit best for the abstract concept of God.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ghoti on October 08, 2015, 07:55:48 pm
So, wait, you're arguing for the existence of a completely different (concept of) god in order to support your own position that believing in your capital-G God is the most logical position because something something Cro-Magnons?

Do you hear yourself sometimes? Like, when you speak?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 08, 2015, 08:06:08 pm
It's funny that you are using the God Gene as an argument for God but ignoring the hypothesis behind it which is:

" The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level. (Stolen from Wikipedia)"

You seem to have ignored the 5th part of the hypothesis. In particular you must have overlooked it when you said " I can't think of anything else which would account for the hardwiring other than the existence of a higher power" - Because the 5th part of the hypothesis explains it without reference to a higher power.

It's entirely possible for a theory to be right in principle, but wrong in the particulars.  Just look at Lamarck.  Where I'm skeptical of the hypothesis is the fifth point.  We know that religion makes modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

I'm sorry I wasn't clear earlier, Dave.  What I meant was "I can't think of anything else that doesn't rely on assumptions."

Now, I'm completely willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong.  Maybe the optimism part is actually right.  Or maybe the whole theory is bunk.  I can acknowledge that either one is a distinct possibility.

Also, my God isn't the same as the unmoved mover.  There are a number of key differences.  I was merely using the term I thought fit best for the abstract concept of God.

So what are the difference between your conception and the 'unmoved mover' - I listed 8 or so variables which could be used to flesh it out.

As for whether you can't think of anything else that doesn't rely on assumptions. Isn't it a (pretty large - of well fucking huge) assumption to make that it is because of God. You also haven't addressed why that's unlikely for the reasons that Sigma stated.

One of the difficulties in discussing theology is if you fail to clearly mark out your views before commencing the discussion.

Why not start with the characteristics of your concept of god (your modified unmoved mover)?

Then list what you consider to be evidence of the existence of that unmoved mover?

Now if you don't have any rational evidence how can you assert that you can use rationality to argue about the existence of your concept of god?

If your god is ineffable, how can you say anything about it at all?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 08, 2015, 08:08:49 pm
So, wait, you're arguing for the existence of a completely different (concept of) god in order to support your own position that believing in your capital-G God is the most logical position because something something Cro-Magnons?

Do you hear yourself sometimes? Like, when you speak?

That's what happens when you try to debate several people at once.  Your thoughts sometimes come out disjointed.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 08, 2015, 09:01:02 pm
We know that religion makes modern humans more optimistic, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like I said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume faith had the same effects on them as it does on us. 

We suspect that VMAT2 contributes to religiosity in modern humans, but who's to say the same was true of Cro-Magnons?  Like you said earlier, they had bigger brains, so I don't think we should assume that protein had the same effects on them as it does on us. 
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 08, 2015, 09:35:39 pm
So, wait, you're arguing for the existence of a completely different (concept of) god in order to support your own position that believing in your capital-G God is the most logical position because something something Cro-Magnons?

Do you hear yourself sometimes? Like, when you speak?

Color me surprised.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 10, 2015, 11:49:46 am
There are scientific arguments for God's existence.

UP, a scientific argument has to be falsifiable. It has to lay out a series of specific, testable predictions which, if any one of them is contradicted by observation or experimental evidence, renders the whole argument false. Your apologetics are nothing of the sort.

Science doesn't rely on this much misdirection and special pleading to explain its body of knowledge. You're desperately trying to co-opt science's prestige for your theology without understanding why it has that prestige.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 10, 2015, 12:36:47 pm
There are scientific arguments for God's existence.

UP, a scientific argument has to be falsifiable. It has to lay out a series of specific, testable predictions which, if any one of them is contradicted by observation or experimental evidence, renders the whole argument false. Your apologetics are nothing of the sort.

Science doesn't rely on this much misdirection and special pleading to explain its body of knowledge. You're desperately trying to co-opt science's prestige for your theology without understanding why it has that prestige.

Are you sure?  Because there are some scientific arguments that don't meet those criteria.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 10, 2015, 02:12:18 pm
Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 10, 2015, 03:05:53 pm
Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 10, 2015, 03:23:04 pm
Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.

Something which, as far as I have seen in the literature, hasn't risen beyond speculation.

My favorite example of falsifiability is the Phlogiston theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory). It made testable predictions and scientists in the eighteenth century found evidence that contradicted the fundamentals of the theory, so it had to be discarded. Is it false and obsolete in our present knowledge? Sure, but it was scientific.

Your apologetics cannot be tested. They aren't even wrong.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 10, 2015, 03:25:02 pm
M Dimensional Theory in physics. Okayyy... Yet another example of citing the relative incomprehensibility to untrained people of aspects of working theories as = Hey-It's-a-Me! God! Sorry, nope, we've covered this ground early in thread. It's fun to imagine the (remote) possibility that god is there somewhere betwixt and between the fibers of reality, but that does not qualify as an argument for it, logically or scientifically.

('Chew just ninja-ed me, basically, but yeah.)
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 10, 2015, 06:27:06 pm
Forget what I said about moving goalposts.  UP is kicking at a different goalpost in a different stadium, in a different world every time.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ghoti on October 10, 2015, 07:59:35 pm
Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.
You mean the same multiverse theory used to justify Bioshock Infinite and twelve year olds who are (on all levels except physical) anime characters?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Svata on October 11, 2015, 01:01:38 am
Well, gee, then what are they, UP? And please don't reiterate your previous posts unless you have found some very significant data to back them up.

The multiverse hypothesis, for example.

First of all, hypothesis. Second of all, which version? Third of all, who is actually using it as a serious argument?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 11, 2015, 10:00:06 am
At this point, UP is bravely arguing with tropes...Ghoti's last post pointed that out rather nicely.

I have to admire UP's tenacity. Perhaps it's beginning to dawn on him just how hard it is to use one world view paradigm comprised of immutable foundations to challenge the basis of another world view paradigm that is very energetic in how it constantly looks for, adjusts itself to, new data.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 11, 2015, 10:25:16 am
This thread really makes no sense and it is just Paragon shifting goal posts.

First, Art has the burden of disproving god's existence. I disprove this.

Second, without conceding the first, there are scientific arguments for god's existence to support the first point. Sigma, Davedan, and Art disprove this while I hurr about in the background. Paragon tries a few more arguments, shifting from belief in god affirms gods existence, to a god gene, to the multiverse.

Third, now we are arguing what the true mark of scientific demarcation is. Chew has taken the, very reasonable, position of Popperian falsifiability. Paragon is arguing a mere speculation of a multiverse.

Fourth, at some point he channeled Donald Rumsfeld arguing that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That there are known knowns and that there are known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know.

In sum, can we just conclusively determine that there is no factual or logical support for god, and that the existence of god is innately irrational for this reason. It's really not that different a position than devout theists Kierkegaard or Kant.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 11, 2015, 11:13:03 am
This thread really makes no sense and it is just Paragon shifting goal posts.

He's got nothing. He started a whole thread about hot tips for debating those wily anti-theists and he only demonstrated how intellectually bankrupt his position is. (The ontological argument again? Really?)

The only advantage of ensnaring atheists in a formal debate is that it's a game of showmanship and public speaking ability more than a reliable method of discovering truth.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 11, 2015, 11:33:07 am
I got the chuckles from multi-verse theory

ETA:  Guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself here.  UP thinks he's a smart guy.  He really does and it bothers him that other people he considers smart don't actually follow his logic and agree with him.  Because he doesn't get that smart people don't think alike.  While a lot of us are smart, we also don't tend to agree on things unless we can understand the reasoning behind it.  Trying to equate faith with science is like trying to equate dogs with rutabagas.  It's nowhere near possible to even begin to relate the two.  And I laugh at that whole new goalpost shift that says the multi-verse theory proves God's existence.  That just proves how much of a straw UP wants to grasp at.

Ironbite-and it's a very odd straw at that.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 11, 2015, 07:30:21 pm
Can you please first define your concept of God?

How can you rationally justify anything if you don't even know what it is?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 11, 2015, 10:20:45 pm
Yeah, this thread is one giant train wreck. At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding goal post shifting. Now, not so much. Between that, trying to re-write the laws of elementary logic to suit his arguments, and let's not forget how this thread started (his butthurt over me pointing out that atheism is in fact more rational than theism, even going so far as to call me a bigot), I'm wondering how he can call himself "intellectual" and still keep a straight face.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 11, 2015, 10:31:44 pm
I got the chuckles from multi-verse theory

ETA:  Guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself here.  UP thinks he's a smart guy.  He really does and it bothers him that other people he considers smart don't actually follow his logic and agree with him.  Because he doesn't get that smart people don't think alike.  While a lot of us are smart, we also don't tend to agree on things unless we can understand the reasoning behind it.  Trying to equate faith with science is like trying to equate dogs with rutabagas.  It's nowhere near possible to even begin to relate the two.  And I laugh at that whole new goalpost shift that says the multi-verse theory proves God's existence.  That just proves how much of a straw UP wants to grasp at.

Ironbite-and it's a very odd straw at that.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, merely to understand my point of view.  And I'm not using multiverse theory to prove God's existence (that would be a massive leap in logic), just using it to point out what I see as a double standard.  Lots of physicists believe in some kind of multiverse, including big names like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and yet nobody seems to give them shit for it.

Yeah, this thread is one giant train wreck. At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding goal post shifting. Now, not so much. Between that, trying to re-write the laws of elementary logic to suit his arguments, and let's not forget how this thread started (his butthurt over me pointing out that atheism is in fact more rational than theism, even going so far as to call me a bigot), I'm wondering how he can call himself "intellectual" and still keep a straight face.

I wasn't moving the goalposts, although I admit I could have been clearer.  Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 11, 2015, 10:38:33 pm
Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.
Ahem.
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

And by the way, what I did earlier was called nitpicking.  I'd think you'd have come to expect it, because the Internet is the greatest refuge of the pedant.
Yeah, you're not fooling anybody.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 11, 2015, 10:50:13 pm
I got the chuckles from multi-verse theory

ETA:  Guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself here.  UP thinks he's a smart guy.  He really does and it bothers him that other people he considers smart don't actually follow his logic and agree with him.  Because he doesn't get that smart people don't think alike.  While a lot of us are smart, we also don't tend to agree on things unless we can understand the reasoning behind it.  Trying to equate faith with science is like trying to equate dogs with rutabagas.  It's nowhere near possible to even begin to relate the two.  And I laugh at that whole new goalpost shift that says the multi-verse theory proves God's existence.  That just proves how much of a straw UP wants to grasp at.

Ironbite-and it's a very odd straw at that.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, merely to understand my point of view.  And I'm not using multiverse theory to prove God's existence (that would be a massive leap in logic), just using it to point out what I see as a double standard.  Lots of physicists believe in some kind of multiverse, including big names like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and yet nobody seems to give them shit for it.

Yeah, this thread is one giant train wreck. At first, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding goal post shifting. Now, not so much. Between that, trying to re-write the laws of elementary logic to suit his arguments, and let's not forget how this thread started (his butthurt over me pointing out that atheism is in fact more rational than theism, even going so far as to call me a bigot), I'm wondering how he can call himself "intellectual" and still keep a straight face.

I wasn't moving the goalposts, although I admit I could have been clearer.  Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.

I don't think either Hawking or DeGrasse Tyson claim their belief in the Multiverse is anything more than theoretical speculation. Have either claimed to have proved it? I remember reading one of Hawking's books where he stated that we can't know anything prior to the singularity...
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ghoti on October 12, 2015, 01:10:24 am
So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 12, 2015, 01:28:13 am
So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
I think his logic is actually "multiverse theory isn't observable or testable, therefore scientific theories don't need to be testable and therefore apologetics are totally scientific".

Speaking of which, he's still yet to acknowledge that multiverse theory isn't actually a scientific theory, it's essentially idle speculation. Not that I expect him to at this point. If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, he'll just ignore it until he thinks of another straw to grasp at and the whole process will repeat.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ultimate Paragon on October 12, 2015, 01:21:28 pm
Nor was I attempting rewrite the rules of logic.  I'd just forgotten them, since it's been years since my last formal debate.
Ahem.
Quote
Well, I already mentioned the fact that humans seem to have belief in a higher power encoded in their brains and DNA.

If that were true, atheists wouldn't exist.

Not to mention your "scientific argument" is the fact that a scientist believes--on FAITH--that god drives the laws of our universe. I would like to point you to my previous point about Ben Carson and smart people being susceptible to irrational beliefs.

This also sounds like an argument from that abortion of a movie "God is not Dead." The reasoning sucked then, and it sucks now.

I would also like to reiterate that Paragon has danced around the formal logic issue and burden of proof since I came into this thread. I now invoke the direct question rule: do you acknowledge that because it is easier to prove a positive (the existence of X) than a negative (the absence of X) that the burden of proof in this debate on the existence of god falls on you, Paragon? Follow-up, if not, then why?

Not really, but now I understand why you think so.  Normally, I'd agree, but when it comes to metaphysics, I'd say the rules are different, because of what the arguments are about.

And by the way, what I did earlier was called nitpicking.  I'd think you'd have come to expect it, because the Internet is the greatest refuge of the pedant.
Yeah, you're not fooling anybody.

Okay, that was pretty blatant special pleading.  I'm sorry.

So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
I think his logic is actually "multiverse theory isn't observable or testable, therefore scientific theories don't need to be testable and therefore apologetics are totally scientific".

Speaking of which, he's still yet to acknowledge that multiverse theory isn't actually a scientific theory, it's essentially idle speculation. Not that I expect him to at this point. If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, he'll just ignore it until he thinks of another straw to grasp at and the whole process will repeat.

Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.  You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 12, 2015, 01:34:05 pm
Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.

Did you know that some people make shitty arguments sometimes? Because they do.

You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.

Again, you've got nothing. All you're trying to do at this point is to claim the other side is just as baseless and irrational as yours, which it isn't, for reasons we've already painstakingly laid out.

If this were a serious debate with a sane moderator you wouldn't be able to Gish gallop as much as you are.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 12, 2015, 02:15:47 pm
Multiverse currently has to do partly with theoretical physicists trying to figure out, amongst other things, just where all the extra, unaccounted-for mass in our universe might be. For us layman, buzz words like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Branes, M Dimensional Theory, String Theory, etc. etc.  Multiverse ties in as perhaps intersectionality of where that perceived "missing" mass in "our" universe might be "hidden".
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: ironbite on October 12, 2015, 06:16:27 pm
And none of what mellen just said has anything to do with proving "God" exists.

Ironbite-like at all.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 12, 2015, 07:07:29 pm


So lemme get this straight, some smart people have expressed the opinion that there might be multiple universes, therefore people should believe in god? Because that's what this whole brouhaha is about, right? Whether it's more sensible to believe in god or to not believe (let's ignore for the moment all of the different gods one might believe in an assume that "G/god" means your specific god). So any evidence you bring into play should either explain or add to your position. What the hell does the presence or absence of multiple universes have to do with the presence or absence of god (and therefore the rationality of believing in him/her/it/them)?
I think his logic is actually "multiverse theory isn't observable or testable, therefore scientific theories don't need to be testable and therefore apologetics are totally scientific".

Speaking of which, he's still yet to acknowledge that multiverse theory isn't actually a scientific theory, it's essentially idle speculation. Not that I expect him to at this point. If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, he'll just ignore it until he thinks of another straw to grasp at and the whole process will repeat.

Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.  You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.
 



Well you were the one who entered it into this debate. At this stage you are having trouble expressing a rational thought, let alone a rational argument for god(s).

This is your thread. You must have had some idea of the rational arguments you would seek to make before you commenced. If not why not simply concede that there is not presently a rational argument for god. There may be in the future but currently there isn't.

Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 12, 2015, 08:40:23 pm
Perhaps it's UP unwittingly trying to merge science woo with metaphysics woo. Woo.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 12, 2015, 09:10:35 pm
Did I mention that some people use multiverse theory as an argument against God?  Because they do.  You can call it idle speculation all you want, but once it's entered into a serious debate, the one who entered it is expecting us to take it seriously.
And that is relevant because..?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: mellenORL on October 12, 2015, 09:13:15 pm
Woo?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Sigmaleph on October 12, 2015, 10:38:35 pm
And none of what mellen just said has anything to do with proving "God" exists.

Ironbite-like at all.

...it was a sub-point on a debate about what constitutes valid criteria for a scientific theory. UP brought it up as a counterexample to Ironchew's point. You can disagree on whether it's a good counterexample, but the relevance to the debate seems fairly obvious to me.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Barbarella on October 12, 2015, 11:31:34 pm
Alright, I'll bite....

I can see what both UP and the rest of you are saying.

That said, I feel the spiritual exists. I don't believe in God the same way as UP does...I'm a Spiritual Pantheist.

I believe the "spiritual" & "supernatural" is just as normal and natural as material reality.

There may not be strong proof but there's at least some circumstantial evidence.

As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.

Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.

Do I believe there's a lot of crappy pseudoscience? Heck yeah! That said, some things related to scientific theories, the new physics or a multiverse shouldn't be tossed out as woo because it sounds too weird or hard to test in a lab.

Sometimes I feel that U.P. and I are the only people on this board who have any sort of spiritual belief. We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference. People like U.P. and I find Anti-Theists irritating because we hate being lumped together with whackjobs like Pat Robertson & DAESH. We hate religious frummery and ignorance as much as any rational person! We accept science, a billions-years-old world, humans as primates and all other modern science. We believe in equal rights.

It's insulting! I hate being compared to DAESH.

Let me say something else, sometimes I do side with guys like James Randi. There are many things in which I and the "skeptic" crowd agree. I respect his efforts to debunk phony psychics, faith healers, cults, televangelists. I love reading RationalWiki and I find conspiracy nuts, anti-vaxxers, many New Age trends (I do have New Agey beliefs but some New Age stuff is clearly stupid and a scam), certain forms of alternative medicine & anti-GMO foods to be ridiculous.

Why can't Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, Deists & Pantheists just all get along, find common ground and unite and fight FRUMMERY & FANATICISM instead?

Granted, even I think U.P. was kinda crusin' for a brusin' by starting this thread to begin with. However I feel that deep-down, he's a decent guy.

This thread gets way too snarky & unfriendly. Why can't you be like the folks over at the sister site of FSTDTs? Somehow, there's more a variety of people and they seldom turn on each other. I feel welcome there. Perhaps Paragon & I should ditch this place and hang out at FSTDTs exclusively.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 12, 2015, 11:38:20 pm
Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.
Oh?
As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.
Clearly not, seeing as you already believe an extraordinary claim when you know full well that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 13, 2015, 12:14:46 am
We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference.

That's...not what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a specific subset of atheism involving the positive claim that no gods exist.

To compare to a monotheist like UP, he already believes every god doesn't exist except his own. Anti-theists go one god further.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: davedan on October 13, 2015, 12:19:58 am
Spandex Space Kitten,

The whole point of this thread was the assertion that there is a rational argument for god and so theism is as rational a position as atheism. No one appears to have been overly rude to UP, particularly given the arrogant tone of the beginning of the thread.

Couple of things given what you have said - and please note - just because I'm not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm attacking you:

What is the circumstantial evidence for god?

As for the supernatural just being another part of the normal/natural world, that's kind of wrong. The supernatural is, by definition outside of the natural order.

How can you accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence on the one hand but on the otherside of your mouth claim that scientific, repeatable tests are too difficult for psychic powers?
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: pyro on October 13, 2015, 01:06:20 am
There may not be strong proof but there's at least some circumstantial evidence.

There's also circumstantial evidence that the moon landing was faked (more specifically, there was plenty of motive to fake it, actually getting there is hard, and we haven't repeated the feat in over a decade). There's a reason people don't trust circumstantial evidence.

Since I should probably give a more rigorous reason why circumstantial evidence should be ignored; the probability of observing the evidence when it's true isn't higher than the probability of observing the evidence when it's false. It's not evidence.

Quote
As for James Randi and his Million Dollar Challenge, I feel it hasn't been won because his standards are too high. The thing about the so-called "supernatural" or "woo" is that it can't always be performed or examined on-cue perfectly like stuff in the material plane. He's applying strict standards meant for matter that wouldn't work well with spirit or psyche.

Then how can you tell it apart from random chance?

Quote
Do I believe there's a lot of bogus "psychics" & "mystics" out there? Yes! I'm no fool. I believe that extraordinary claims require a whole lot of scrutiny.

Already been explained why that's exactly what Randy thinks, too.

Quote
Do I believe there's a lot of crappy pseudoscience? Heck yeah! That said, some things related to scientific theories, the new physics or a multiverse shouldn't be tossed out as woo because it sounds too weird or hard to test in a lab.

The only reason the multiverse hypothesis isn't woo is because it's proponents are trying to come up with experiments instead of selling fake "contact your parallel universe self" tools. (It should go without saying that if it turns out somebody actually is selling contact with your parallel universe self, they're peddling woo.)

Quote
Sometimes I feel that U.P. and I are the only people on this board who have any sort of spiritual belief. We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

I've noticed, and I strongly appreciate that. And though I do not think your ideas make any sense, I fully oppose anyone who says you shouldn't be allowed to believe them.

Quote
Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference. People like U.P. and I find Anti-Theists irritating because we hate being lumped together with whackjobs like Pat Robertson & DAESH. We hate religious frummery and ignorance as much as any rational person! We accept science, a billions-years-old world, humans as primates and all other modern science. We believe in equal rights.

Misrepresenting people is, of course, wrong, and comparing you to DAESH is practically libel.

I'm afraid, whether you want to or not, if you're arguing that belief in god(s) is rational, then you're trying to refute any atheist who does not believe due to (in their estimation, of course) lack of evidence. Not just the obnoxious ones, though they're far more likely to participate in debates like this one.

Quote
It's insulting! I hate being compared to DAESH.

The quiet majority of religious people do not and will not go kill-all-heretics. I get that. That does not, however, make your beliefs rational. It merely makes them safe.

Quote
Let me say something else, sometimes I do side with guys like James Randi. There are many things in which I and the "skeptic" crowd agree. I respect his efforts to debunk phony psychics, faith healers, cults, televangelists. I love reading RationalWiki and I find conspiracy nuts, anti-vaxxers, many New Age trends (I do have New Agey beliefs but some New Age stuff is clearly stupid and a scam), certain forms of alternative medicine & anti-GMO foods to be ridiculous.

Why can't Atheists, Agnostics, Theists, Deists & Pantheists just all get along, find common ground and unite and fight FRUMMERY & FANATICISM instead?

(A) that line is not as easy to draw as you make it seem. Anon-e-moose from FSTDT seems pretty fanatical to me (one word: "thoughtcrime"), but I don't think you'd agree. And that's before the possibility of hyperbole comes in.

(B) some of them ARE frummers and fanatics, you just said so yourself a few paragraphs ago. Even among the pantheists.

(C) despite this, it is happening. That's why organizations like the ACLU exist. But where disagreement exist, there will be some arguing; the only question is whether it's kept civil.

Admittedly, though I've tried not to make it worse, this thread isn't a shining example of civility.

Quote
Granted, even I think U.P. was kinda crusin' for a brusin' by starting this thread to begin with. However I feel that deep-down, he's a decent guy.

This thread gets way too snarky & unfriendly. Why can't you be like the folks over at the sister site of FSTDTs? Somehow, there's more a variety of people and they seldom turn on each other. I feel welcome there. Perhaps Paragon & I should ditch this place and hang out at FSTDTs exclusively.

Fights are less common on FSTDT because people have a common target to vent at. See also the Worst Political Cartoons thread.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Rime on October 13, 2015, 10:04:37 am
We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference.

That's...not what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a specific subset of atheism involving the positive claim that no gods exist.

To compare to a monotheist like UP, he already believes every god doesn't exist except his own. Anti-theists go one god further.

I recall your definition of Anti-theism to be "positive atheism," except for that last sentence.  That's just the definition of atheism.  So when did this change?

Anti-theism also carries overtones of fundamentalist attitudes toward those who don't agree with them in terms of gods.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: R. U. Sirius on October 13, 2015, 10:21:08 am
Okay, given the feelings of aloneness that Barb has expressed, I guess I should come out and say it: I also hold beliefs about the universe that are currently considered irrational. If forced to describe myself with a label, I would probably call myself a spiritual pantheist as well.

That being said, I don't believe in the supernatural per se. After all, many phenomena we now understand the mechanics of were once attributed to supernatural causes. I just think that we haven't come up with the proper tools to measure things like psychic abilities, ghosts, etc. The short version is that I think the universe is both more subtle and more responsive to consciousness (and may itself BE conscious) than is generally believed.

What's my evidence? A whole lot of personal experiences, which happen often enough that I feel it at least stretch the boundaries of pure probability, if not break it entirely. At the same time, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence", so I try to remain skeptical of extraordinary claims. The difference I see between my mindset and most people here is that I try to use skepticism as a method rather than holding it as a worldview; the difference I see between my mindset and U.P. and Barb's is that if I can't come up with an explanation for something, I'm more likely to shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, that's a toughie" than say "because God."

Is this way of looking at the world less rational than the pure reason many of the people here seem to go for? Possibly. Am I trying to derive a sense of purpose and comfort from the universe that it simply doesn't owe me? Possibly. But I don't try to make the claim that my views are just as rational as the current scientific consensus, nor do I try to claim that they give me insight into some divine plan or that I have a direct line to the Universal Consciousness (as I call it). After all, it's a big universe; even if I'm right about it being conscious in itself, it may not care about us any more than we care about individual cells in our bodies. If these beliefs are irrational, then it's an irrationality I'm comfortable enough with not to argue about or debate with others. I don't care if you're a pantheist, polytheist, monotheist, deist, atheist or anti-theist; I care about how you treat other people and animals and the impact you try to leave on the world around you.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: The_Queen on October 13, 2015, 10:28:33 am
We don't hate Atheists. I'm fine with Atheism. I deeply respect a person's right to have that worldview without people hatin' on them.

Paragon isn't talking about refuting Atheists, he's talking about Anti-Theists....people who take Atheism to evangelistic levels. There is a difference.

That's...not what anti-theism is. Anti-theism is a specific subset of atheism involving the positive claim that no gods exist.

To compare to a monotheist like UP, he already believes every god doesn't exist except his own. Anti-theists go one god further.

I recall your definition of Anti-theism to be "positive atheism," except for that last sentence.  That's just the definition of atheism.  So when did this change?

Anti-theism also carries overtones of fundamentalist attitudes toward those who don't agree with them in terms of gods.

Not necessarily. The term has never been consistently applied. Some famous atheists use the term to denote the positive assertion as to the non-existence of god. Others, such as myself, hold it as a view antithetical to theism; i.e. the view that religion, in the aggregate, has been a detriment instead of a benefit to society. Which, now I must ask Paragon and Spuki, where did this hatred for anti-theists come from

It's one of the downsides of having a group of people united in a lack of belief, but not really much else. No real central group to define things for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 13, 2015, 11:42:44 am
i usually view the distiction gramatically: a-theism is passive unbelief. anti-theism is active unbelief with the goal of attacking theism.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 13, 2015, 01:08:50 pm
Not necessarily. The term has never been consistently applied. Some famous atheists use the term to denote the positive assertion as to the non-existence of god. Others, such as myself, hold it as a view antithetical to theism; i.e. the view that religion, in the aggregate, has been a detriment instead of a benefit to society.

Fair point. I see that popping up in a lot of commonly-held definitions of anti-theism.

i usually view the distiction gramatically: a-theism is passive unbelief. anti-theism is active unbelief with the goal of attacking theism.

Holding the belief that religion is generally harmful to society isn't the same thing as "attacking theism", and only a highly repressed society that forbids any criticism of religious beliefs would perceive it as such.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Barbarella on October 13, 2015, 01:54:45 pm
Okay, given the feelings of aloneness that Barb has expressed, I guess I should come out and say it: I also hold beliefs about the universe that are currently considered irrational. If forced to describe myself with a label, I would probably call myself a spiritual pantheist as well.

That being said, I don't believe in the supernatural per se. After all, many phenomena we now understand the mechanics of were once attributed to supernatural causes. I just think that we haven't come up with the proper tools to measure things like psychic abilities, ghosts, etc. The short version is that I think the universe is both more subtle and more responsive to consciousness (and may itself BE conscious) than is generally believed.

What's my evidence? A whole lot of personal experiences, which happen often enough that I feel it at least stretch the boundaries of pure probability, if not break it entirely. At the same time, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence", so I try to remain skeptical of extraordinary claims. The difference I see between my mindset and most people here is that I try to use skepticism as a method rather than holding it as a worldview; the difference I see between my mindset and U.P. and Barb's is that if I can't come up with an explanation for something, I'm more likely to shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, that's a toughie" than say "because God."

Is this way of looking at the world less rational than the pure reason many of the people here seem to go for? Possibly. Am I trying to derive a sense of purpose and comfort from the universe that it simply doesn't owe me? Possibly. But I don't try to make the claim that my views are just as rational as the current scientific consensus, nor do I try to claim that they give me insight into some divine plan or that I have a direct line to the Universal Consciousness (as I call it). After all, it's a big universe; even if I'm right about it being conscious in itself, it may not care about us any more than we care about individual cells in our bodies. If these beliefs are irrational, then it's an irrationality I'm comfortable enough with not to argue about or debate with others. I don't care if you're a pantheist, polytheist, monotheist, deist, atheist or anti-theist; I care about how you treat other people and animals and the impact you try to leave on the world around you.

You've said it better than I could. Thank you so much.  :)

One thing I must clarify to the others....Again, I respect Atheists and would gladly side with Atheists fighting frummerism and Atheist-Rights.

Anyway. It's been a fascinating talk. I'm not looking to convert anyone. In fact, I perfectly understand why some would find spiritual stuff "irrational". Different people see things in different ways. Different minds....different perceptions.

To me, Ultimate Paragon, R.U. Siruis & whatever....The spiritual/metaphysical/non-corporeal/mystical/etc. is absolutely REAL & plausible to us. To others, it's about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. That is okay. People are people. Only character should be judged. Things only become problematic if it involves fanaticism and conning people of their life-savings or free-will in a dangerous cult or "psychic" scam.

However, being a moderate person who goes to an Episcopalian Mass every Sunday while not being a judgmental nut who rejects science & common sense is fine......Same with a guy who shells out $15.00 for a psychic reading for fun.

In fact, my spirituality has kept me from losing my marbles.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 13, 2015, 02:24:00 pm
To me, Ultimate Paragon, R.U. Siruis & whatever....The spiritual/metaphysical/non-corporeal/mystical/etc. is absolutely REAL & plausible to us. To others, it's about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. That is okay.

No, not really.

I mentioned over in another thread (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6423.msg266744#msg266744) that I care about truth. Objective reality isn't something that's true for some people and false for others. When you assert to others that your beliefs are "absolutely REAL", you have to be ready to examine them critically and generally make an effort to determine if they're true or not. Retreating to wishy-washy subjectivity isn't a defense; it's an unwillingness to defend what you asserted.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 13, 2015, 03:33:32 pm
To me, Ultimate Paragon, R.U. Siruis & whatever....The spiritual/metaphysical/non-corporeal/mystical/etc. is absolutely REAL & plausible to us. To others, it's about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. That is okay.

No, not really.

I mentioned over in another thread (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6423.msg266744#msg266744) that I care about truth. Objective reality isn't something that's true for some people and false for others. When you assert to others that your beliefs are "absolutely REAL", you have to be ready to examine them critically and generally make an effort to determine if they're true or not. Retreating to wishy-washy subjectivity isn't a defense; it's an unwillingness to defend what you asserted.

to be fair, we can't hit 100% objectivity. personnal interpretation plays a major factor. that's why courts exist. and once somebody believes something, then they are in the strictest sense of the word, telling the truth because the believe what they say. they can be objectively wrong, (climate-change deniers, for example), but they believe their truth. and i'll stop here because it's a philosophical question for the ages.

i believe spuki when she says that the spiritual is real to them. however, she makes it clear it's not real to us.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Ironchew on October 13, 2015, 03:47:06 pm
To me, Ultimate Paragon, R.U. Siruis & whatever....The spiritual/metaphysical/non-corporeal/mystical/etc. is absolutely REAL & plausible to us. To others, it's about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. That is okay.

No, not really.

I mentioned over in another thread (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6423.msg266744#msg266744) that I care about truth. Objective reality isn't something that's true for some people and false for others. When you assert to others that your beliefs are "absolutely REAL", you have to be ready to examine them critically and generally make an effort to determine if they're true or not. Retreating to wishy-washy subjectivity isn't a defense; it's an unwillingness to defend what you asserted.

to be fair, we can't hit 100% objectivity. personnal interpretation plays a major factor. that's why courts exist. and once somebody believes something, then they are in the strictest sense of the word, telling the truth because the believe what they say. they can be objectively wrong, (climate-change deniers, for example), but they believe their truth. and i'll stop here because it's a philosophical question for the ages.

i believe spuki when she says that the spiritual is real to them. however, she makes it clear it's not real to us.

Which, again, is a complete disregard of the notion of what is true and what isn't. Questions of certainty aside, either something is true or it isn't. It doesn't get to be true for some people.

An argument that relies on me disregarding truth just enough to believe a claim is totally unconvincing.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 13, 2015, 04:10:43 pm
To me, Ultimate Paragon, R.U. Siruis & whatever....The spiritual/metaphysical/non-corporeal/mystical/etc. is absolutely REAL & plausible to us. To others, it's about as believable as the Tooth Fairy. That is okay.

No, not really.

I mentioned over in another thread (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6423.msg266744#msg266744) that I care about truth. Objective reality isn't something that's true for some people and false for others. When you assert to others that your beliefs are "absolutely REAL", you have to be ready to examine them critically and generally make an effort to determine if they're true or not. Retreating to wishy-washy subjectivity isn't a defense; it's an unwillingness to defend what you asserted.

to be fair, we can't hit 100% objectivity. personnal interpretation plays a major factor. that's why courts exist. and once somebody believes something, then they are in the strictest sense of the word, telling the truth because the believe what they say. they can be objectively wrong, (climate-change deniers, for example), but they believe their truth. and i'll stop here because it's a philosophical question for the ages.

i believe spuki when she says that the spiritual is real to them. however, she makes it clear it's not real to us.

Which, again, is a complete disregard of the notion of what is true and what isn't. Questions of certainty aside, either something is true or it isn't. It doesn't get to be true for some people.

An argument that relies on me disregarding truth just enough to believe a claim is totally unconvincing.

it depends on what is considered "truth" (absolute, scientific truth, or philosophical truth?), if the point of view is considered (in which case it's de facto subjective), and if there are degrees to that truth or not.

"some people believe in god" is truth, as in, observable scientific truth. it's also a subjective truth based on the person considered, and some people believe more than others. its corrolary is equally true.

as for your last sentence, you can see it as a thought exercise. what can be true for someone may not be for another if it's a subjective truth.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 13, 2015, 08:15:34 pm
it depends on what is considered "truth" (absolute, scientific truth, or philosophical truth?), if the point of view is considered (in which case it's de facto subjective), and if there are degrees to that truth or not.
No, actually, it's really not. We're talking about how the real world supposedly works. Either gods, ghosts, psychics and all that other woo exists or it doesn't. Much like anything else, just because someone believes one way or another does not mean it's literally true for one person and false for another.
"some people believe in god" is truth, as in, observable scientific truth. it's also a subjective truth based on the person considered, and some people believe more than others. its corrolary is equally true.
Of course. Whether or not whatever they actually believe is true is another matter entirely. If I were to claim that there's a railway line near my house, and you were to disagree, it's true that we'd both believe different things. However, whether or not the railway line actually exists is another matter entirely. Either it's there or it isn't. It's not physically in existence for me and yet somehow not there for you. That would just be stupid. It's no different with anything else, "supernatural" or otherwise.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 13, 2015, 09:05:38 pm
it depends on what is considered "truth" (absolute, scientific truth, or philosophical truth?), if the point of view is considered (in which case it's de facto subjective), and if there are degrees to that truth or not.
No, actually, it's really not. We're talking about how the real world supposedly works. Either gods, ghosts, psychics and all that other woo exists or it doesn't. Much like anything else, just because someone believes one way or another does not mean it's literally true for one person and false for another.
"some people believe in god" is truth, as in, observable scientific truth. it's also a subjective truth based on the person considered, and some people believe more than others. its corrolary is equally true.
Of course. Whether or not whatever they actually believe is true is another matter entirely. If I were to claim that there's a railway line near my house, and you were to disagree, it's true that we'd both believe different things. However, whether or not the railway line actually exists is another matter entirely. Either it's there or it isn't. It's not physically in existence for me and yet somehow not there for you. That would just be stupid. It's no different with anything else, "supernatural" or otherwise.

in which case it becomes "absolute, objective, scientific truth". right, we're on the same page. just wanted to clarify the whole shebang between "objective truth" and "belief = telling the truth = subjective truth".
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 13, 2015, 09:07:00 pm
it depends on what is considered "truth" (absolute, scientific truth, or philosophical truth?), if the point of view is considered (in which case it's de facto subjective), and if there are degrees to that truth or not.
No, actually, it's really not. We're talking about how the real world supposedly works. Either gods, ghosts, psychics and all that other woo exists or it doesn't. Much like anything else, just because someone believes one way or another does not mean it's literally true for one person and false for another.
"some people believe in god" is truth, as in, observable scientific truth. it's also a subjective truth based on the person considered, and some people believe more than others. its corrolary is equally true.
Of course. Whether or not whatever they actually believe is true is another matter entirely. If I were to claim that there's a railway line near my house, and you were to disagree, it's true that we'd both believe different things. However, whether or not the railway line actually exists is another matter entirely. Either it's there or it isn't. It's not physically in existence for me and yet somehow not there for you. That would just be stupid. It's no different with anything else, "supernatural" or otherwise.

in which case it becomes "absolute, objective, scientific truth". right, we're on the same page. just wanted to clarify the whole shebang between "objective truth" and "belief = telling the truth = subjective truth".

Ah, gotcha. I thought you were actually arguing that "belief = truth". My bad.
Title: Re: Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists
Post by: guizonde on October 13, 2015, 09:15:26 pm
it depends on what is considered "truth" (absolute, scientific truth, or philosophical truth?), if the point of view is considered (in which case it's de facto subjective), and if there are degrees to that truth or not.
No, actually, it's really not. We're talking about how the real world supposedly works. Either gods, ghosts, psychics and all that other woo exists or it doesn't. Much like anything else, just because someone believes one way or another does not mean it's literally true for one person and false for another.
"some people believe in god" is truth, as in, observable scientific truth. it's also a subjective truth based on the person considered, and some people believe more than others. its corrolary is equally true.
Of course. Whether or not whatever they actually believe is true is another matter entirely. If I were to claim that there's a railway line near my house, and you were to disagree, it's true that we'd both believe different things. However, whether or not the railway line actually exists is another matter entirely. Either it's there or it isn't. It's not physically in existence for me and yet somehow not there for you. That would just be stupid. It's no different with anything else, "supernatural" or otherwise.

in which case it becomes "absolute, objective, scientific truth". right, we're on the same page. just wanted to clarify the whole shebang between "objective truth" and "belief = telling the truth = subjective truth".

Ah, gotcha. I thought you were actually arguing that "belief = truth". My bad.

in a sense, it does, but truth is big. perhaps my post was poorly worded. let's just say i never got over my philosophy baccalaureate exam and whenever questions about the nature of truth appear, i get very fidgety with the definition of what kind of truth we're talking about. objectivity versus subjectivity. both can be true at the same time, but it's coincidental, not correlated.