First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/8/10

excalion wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



I thought I should point out that the one who keeps bringing this conversation back to god is you. We were talking about cognition, acquiring information and reliable methodology when you suddenly brought up god. The one who is putting god on a pedestal is you, not me.

Like I've also said before, even though I believe all things are possible, I do not believe all possibilities are equal. As long as I do not believe all possibilities are equal, I can easily pick out the most plausible possibility and act on that. So stop using the "you are unable to make a choice if you think everything is possible" argument against me.

You see where we differ? Even though we make the same choice, agnostics realize our choice is just the most plausible/practical whereas atheists believe their choice is the absolute truth.

Now before you make another response, can you please carefully consider to see if I have already answered the very same question in a previous post? I feel like a broken record here, having to constantly repeat myself.


RED is where you FAIL BIG time. An show your lack of Understanding to what I have been telling you.. Over and over again, and why I repeat my self. Atheism is not about absolutes! NOTHING is 100% Atheist know this.
We don't believe in absolutes!
Like I said are understanding of Gravity is not 100% their is still a 0.001% chance we are mistaken on how it works. """But that does not change the fact that it is the most practical choice based on the evidence. and so we accept it, as close the matter, until new information comes. We accept that God does not exist basted on the lack of evidence at this time. Case closed, till new evidence is presented.
what about that said atheism is 100% anything? No we just don't place god above any other ideals. If their is no evidence at the time we drop it as not likely till new evidence can be found. The fact of the matter is we think of all things on the same terms.

Agnostics, choose not to make a decision on this one topic yet, accept all other topics the same as we do. Why is that.
As for me I think its do to fear. (as if that is the case or not you know better. Being agnostic.)

One more time I like to Reiterate. NOTHING IS CERTAIN but it should not stop people from making decisions based on the evidence at hand. Well death is Certain at this point in life... But who knows maby even that will change sometime. In that case your saying I should not accept that some day I will die.. Just In case the day comes wen people don't Die anymore?
Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


JJT2 wrote:



No, we can only debate about stuff if the Mods find the topic ok. If they find a topic offensive to them, they will take it off even if it follows every rule in the rule book. They killed my baby...they killed my baby...peace over war


Did you not try getting it reinstated?
They can not remove something without it failing some type of rule.
Even if the mod her self... thinks its sick and degrading, if it does not brake the rules they can not touch it. An if they do you can get it over turn or even have that mod looked into and maby even lose her position as a mod. Go over her head.

Yeah yeah, it might have been a he.. But I felt like calling the mod a she today.


I really don't understand the obvious biased against moderators, but since I'm the only mod who regularly is seen throughout this forum, I guess "she" is me.

If this thread gets out of hand, like all the others it will be locked.
Thread posts deleted
17227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


You know what, after arguing this much and feeling like we're basically just arguing in circles, I decided to find some material to read and clarify exactly what we're talking about. The problem we're having here is due in the most part to the topic of your thread and people's general misconception of what atheism, agnosticism and theism mean and how they relate to each other. Maybe this article will clear some things up for all of us.



Prejudice Against Atheism, Atheists

Agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.


Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm



I'd say, given the way we've described ourselves, we're both agnostic atheists. So basically neither of us could actually win the argument because there was no discrepancy between our perspectives to begin with. We just called it two different things.
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10

LosingOrbit wrote:I really don't understand the obvious biased against moderators, but since I'm the only mod who regularly is seen throughout this forum, I guess "she" is me.
If this thread gets out of hand, like all the others it will be locked.
Thread posts deleted


Sweetheart, don't get upset! Seems like moderating can sometimes be a thankless job-- & a rant here & there, or clashes- from a personality conflict? well, if you don't take things personally, then they don't apply to you. It's a matter of reactive vs. proactive. So, please think positive & leave the complainers to their own limited thinking.
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/8/10

farmbird wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:I really don't understand the obvious biased against moderators, but since I'm the only mod who regularly is seen throughout this forum, I guess "she" is me.
If this thread gets out of hand, like all the others it will be locked.
Thread posts deleted


Sweetheart, don't get upset! Seems like moderating can sometimes be a thankless job-- & a rant here & there, or clashes- from a personality conflict? well, if you don't take things personally, then they don't apply to you. It's a matter of reactive vs. proactive. So, please think positive & leave the complainers to their own limited thinking.



In my defense I was not targeting any mods, I was only asking if he tried to get it reinstated.

On another note, I admit I am a little wary of mods in Crunchyroll. But then They did make a well known troll a mod, so I am a little uncertain about the mods, I do not know just how qualified some of them are. So it might take me some time to trust them without knowing them for a bit.

Just from my own experiences of course.
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/13/10
3324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 8/26/10


I didn't want to start another religious thread so I figured if I post here instead I would get some replies (hopefully):

Recently I came across an interesting ontological argument that proves the (contingent) existence of God.

1. If you're thinking of the greatest being possible, then you cannot think of any being greater.

2. If it's false that you cannot think of any being greater, it is false that you're thinking of the greatest being possible.

3. Being is greater than not being.

4. If the being you're thinking of does not exist, then it is false you cannot think of any being greater.

5. If the being you're thinking of does not exist, then it is false that you're thinking of the greatest being possible.

Conclusion:
If you are thinking of the Greatest being possible, then you are thinking of a being that exists.


What a mind-bending argument!
Keep in mind this argument does not necessitate the existence of God, but it says God may exist if you think so. Also keep in mind that the philosopher who came up with this argument defines God as the "greatest being thinkable."

Does this argument commit any logical fallacies?

Posted 8/26/10

qweruiop wrote:



I didn't want to start another religious thread so I figured if I post here instead I would get some replies (hopefully):

Recently I came across an interesting ontological argument that proves the (contingent) existence of God.

1. If you're thinking of the greatest being possible, then you cannot think of any being greater.

2. If it's false that you cannot think of any being greater, it is false that you're thinking of the greatest being possible.

3. Being is greater than not being.

4. If the being you're thinking of does not exist, then it is false you cannot think of any being greater.

5. If the being you're thinking of does not exist, then it is false that you're thinking of the greatest being possible.

Conclusion:
If you are thinking of the Greatest being possible, then you are thinking of a being that exists.


What a mind-bending argument!
Keep in mind this argument does not necessitate the existence of God, but it says God may exist if you think so. Also keep in mind that the philosopher who came up with this argument defines God as the "greatest being thinkable."

Does this argument commit any logical fallacies?

Yes, as in "non sequitur" logical fallacy. When you didn't show:

1)the logical step of how thinking/imagining some being equals that being existing.

2)the rational reasoning of why "being is greater than not being".

Please provide clear and distinct explanation of both claims, thereby avoiding further "leap of logic".
55358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/26/10
There is no logic to agnostic that true. But people get bombard with all sort of religious stuff and anti-religious stuff. Mos young adults have a hard time with this and it takes time to sort thing out. it not just a simple science to humans. some need something more to believe in to push on with life. In some case's lately Islam it to take there own life and the lives of others. How dose a peaceful religion keep producing these kind of people and why is not more done by Islam to stop it.
3324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 8/27/10

DomFortress wrote:

Yes, as in "non sequitur" logical fallacy. When you didn't show:

1)the logical step of how thinking/imagining some being equals that being existing.

2)the rational reasoning of why "being is greater than not being".

Please provide clear and distinct explanation of both claims, thereby avoiding further "leap of logic".



1) Not sure what you are saying, but you should read the argument again or diagram it out, because it's definitely not committing a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion definitely follows from the premises. If being is greater than not being, then how can something that doesn't exist be greater than something that does? So if all the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true, therefore making this a deductively valid argument. The logical rule of inference he uses is Modus Tollens: If a --->b we know ~b--->~a

2.) "Being is greater than not being" is simply a premise. As long as the conclusion cannot be false when all the premises are true than it is a logically valid argument.

But I do agree that that statement is the crux of the ENTIRE argument. However, can you provide an instance where being is not greater than not being?
Posted 8/28/10

qweruiop wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Yes, as in "non sequitur" logical fallacy. When you didn't show:

1)the logical step of how thinking/imagining a being "equals" that being existing.

2)the rational reasoning of why "being is greater than not being".

Please provide clear and distinct explanation of both claims, thereby avoiding further "leap of logic".





But I do agree that that statement is the crux of the ENTIRE argument. However, can you provide an instance where being is not greater than not being?
Before you derail your responsibility with your "red herring" logical fallacy, please answer my questions in the exact fashions that I had inquired. As in:

1) how imagining = existing? When bringing forth imagination into real existence requires physical creation, who created God?

2) why being > not being? When qualitatively "being" simply not equal to "not being", why did you made "being" quantitatively greater than "not being"? Unless you made "not being" with equal quality as "being". If so, how?
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/28/10 , edited 8/28/10
'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)

Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)

174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/28/10 , edited 8/28/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)


Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.
3324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 8/28/10

DomFortress wrote:

Before you derail your responsibility with your "red herring" logical fallacy, please answer my questions in the exact fashions that I had inquired. As in:

1) how imagining = existing? When bringing forth imagination into real existence requires physical creation, who created God?

2) why being > not being? When qualitatively "being" simply not equal to "not being", why did you made "being" quantitatively greater than "not being"? Unless you made "not being" with equal quality as "being". If so, how?


Alright.

First of all you must know the difference between "an object existing in one's understanding" and "understanding that object to exist."
This image might help you understand this concept better.

In the area marked A we have things that exist in the understanding alone; in the area marked B we have things that exist both in the understanding and in reality; and in the area marked C we have things that exist in reality but not in the understanding. (For obvious reasons, we cannot give any concrete examples of the last category.)

Let me try explaining it again but slightly differently. Maybe it will make more sense:

(1) Suppose that God exists in the understanding alone.

(2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.

(3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.

(4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.

(5) Hence we are forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.

(6) But that is absurd.

(7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.

If you're still not satisfied with the simplification that I provided of the argument, here is the full argument in it's original context for you to enjoy!

"...we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God? But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak - a being than which nothing greater can be conceived - understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to exist. For it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, another to understand that the object exists. For when a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding be he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding and he understands that it exists, because he has made it. Hence even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."

If you don't agree with me, tell me what do you think the premises are? The conclusion?

By the way do you know who proposed this argument?
Posted 8/28/10

qweruiop wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Before you derail your responsibility with your "red herring" logical fallacy, please answer my questions in the exact fashions that I had inquired. As in:

1) how imagining = existing? When bringing forth imagination into real existence requires physical creation, who created God?

2) why being > not being? When qualitatively "being" simply not equal to "not being", why did you made "being" quantitatively greater than "not being"? Unless you made "not being" with equal quality as "being". If so, how?


Alright.

First of all you must know the difference between "an object existing in one's understanding" and "understanding that object to exist."
This image might help you understand this concept better.

In the area marked A we have things that exist in the understanding alone; in the area marked B we have things that exist both in the understanding and in reality; and in the area marked C we have things that exist in reality but not in the understanding. (For obvious reasons, we cannot give any concrete examples of the last category.)

Let me try explaining it again but slightly differently. Maybe it will make more sense:

(1) Suppose that God exists in the understanding alone.



By the way do you know who proposed this argument?
The proper condition of proposition A is hypothetical conceptualization, where as proposition B is proven theory with factual evidences. Thereby it's illogical to automatically assume that any imaginary concept can really "exist", without it crossing the theoretical threshold of reality actualization. In other words, although the mathematical concept of the perfect circle is easy to understand, it's impossible for such perfection to ever exist in reality for obvious reason, as according to Plato's own self-criticism in his Theory of Form:

The difficulty lies in the conceptualization of the "participation" of an object in a form (or Form). The young Socrates conceives of his solution to the problem of the universals in another metaphor, which though wonderfully apt, remains to be elucidated:[31]

Nay, but the idea may be like the day which is one and the same in many places at once, and yet continuous with itself; in this way each idea may be one and the same in all at the same time.

But exactly how is a Form like the day in being everywhere at once? The solution calls for a distinct form, in which the particular instances, which are not identical to the form, participate; i.e., the form is shared out somehow like the day to many places. The concept of "participate", represented in Greek by more than one word, is as obscure in Greek as it is in English. Plato hypothesized that distinctness meant existence as an independent being, thus opening himself up to the famous third man argument of Parmenides,[32] which proves that forms cannot independently exist and be participated.[33]

If universal and particulars - say man or greatness - all exist and are the same then the Form is not one but is multiple. If they are only like each other then they contain a form that is the same and others that are different. Thus if the Form and a particular are alike then there must be another, or third, man or greatness by possession of which they are alike. An infinite regression must result (consequently the mathematicians often call the argument the Third Man Regression); that is, an endless series of third men. The ultimate participant, greatness, rendering the entire series great, is missing. Moreover, any Form is not unitary but is composed of infinite parts, none of which is the proper Form.

The young Socrates (some may say the young Plato) did not give up the Theory of Forms over the Third Man but took another tack, that the particulars do not exist as such. Whatever they are, they "mime" the Forms, appearing to be particulars. This is a clear dip into representationalism, that we cannot observe the objects as they are in themselves but only their representations. That view has the weakness that if only the mimes can be observed then the real Forms cannot be known at all and the observer can have no idea of what the representations are supposed to represent or that they are representations.

Socrates later answer would be that men already know the Forms because they were in the world of Forms before birth. The mimes only recall these Forms to memory.[34] Science would certainly reject the unverifiable and in ancient times investigative men such as Aristotle mistrusted the whole idea. The comedian Aristophanes wrote a play, the Clouds, poking fun of Socrates with his head in the clouds.(citation)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.