When atheists go too far

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea it was closer to "Argument from authority" than it was "argumentum ad populum" if we want to be accurate. Still, to coin a phrase, a fallacy by any other name is still a fallacy.

The mistake people could make is in thinking that because a Scientist believed in god, that their science in any way supported their belief in god. People are capable of holding both in their head independently. There are those theists however who will jump on that fact to pretend there is some link between the two and that therefore science must support a belief in god.

They do so in the vain hope that people will happily not notice that there IS no science... at all.... on offer that supports the notion of there being a god... a fact that is good to point out whenever one has the platform to do so.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

^^ I understand that's the claim. I just don't see how that can really be the justification when other scientifically minded people can believe in God.

Because "God" is a mysterious answer to a mysterious question that's still a mysterious question after you answer it mysteriously. It's a curiosity stopper. This article explains in detail what I mean.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Admittedly I believe in Christ because I think it is the truth, not because of what I can "get out of it". Truth is more important than wishful thinking as far as I see it.

So you don't care if when you die you won't exist anymore? Interesting.

Tigerbaby

I thought the following applied;

1. Atheist = There is no God

2. Agnostic = There is no proof for a God/ I'm not sure.

Now I had this discussion with one of my saplings recently, and we basically collided. *Everything* became lost in translation. I argued that getting into the areas of "God", "after death" and metaphysics in general, that she could not use the tools of logic, reason or personal imperial deduction. All of these tools are based on the 5 physical senses. When one dies or goes beyond this material World even momentarily, all physical measurements become redundant.

Thus, anyone who proclaims from on high that there is no God becomes every bit as faulted and rabid as any Bible-basher. They are trying to disprove the existence of something which cannot be assessed using the tools of the senses. I find both types of fundamentalist tiresome and immature.

Its like trying to explain yellow to a blind person. One can only convey ones own subjective experience of "yellow", not a subjective and definitive truth.

cheers.

nb.. Chesterton "Those who believe in nothing will end up believing in anything"

sbsquarepants

Mickeroo wrote: »

I mean IMO thinking any of the thousands of gods created by man are real requires you to ignore a heap of evidence to the contrary in the first place.

This is one of my major problems with any individual religion. What happens to the millions if not billions of others around the world who bet on a different horse? If catholics for example believe god sent his son 2000 years ago to save them, why don't they have a problem with the the "fact" that he abandoned the countless millions, of his children, that lived before and dutifully worshipped say zeus and appolo, to an eternity in hell? Why did he leave the eskimos or the aborigines out? Does he not like native americans either? Seems very fickle for a creature capable of creating a whole universe!

CerebralCortex

Tigerbaby wrote: »

.....When one dies or goes beyond this material World even momentarily, all physical measurements become redundant....

....Thus, anyone who proclaims from on high that there is no God becomes every bit as faulted and rabid as any Bible-basher. They are trying to disprove the existence of something which cannot be assessed using the tools of the senses. I find both types of fundamentalist tiresome and immature....

Its like trying to explain yellow to a blind person. One can only convey ones own subjective experience of "yellow", not a subjective and definitive truth.

nb.. Chesterton "Those who believe in nothing will end up believing in anything"

You have a false premise! How does dying == going beyond the material? It's just more mysterious nonsense, that doesn't warrent belief!

philologos

nozzferrahtoo: Not even from authority. I'm simply saying, these people exist, but you've just said that having a scientific mind leads you away from God. Simply that isn't true if there are numerous other people with scientific minds who are Christians. That's simply logical. Therefore we need to look to something else.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Thus, anyone who proclaims from on high that there is no God becomes every bit as faulted and rabid as any Bible-basher.

The problem is that for the vast majority of people who do not subscribe to the idea of there being a god... you are attacking a strawman. They do not proclaim that there is no god, they proclaim that there is no reasons on offer to think... and therefore to act.... like there is.

THAT is the position of the majority of atheists and secularists and therefore THAT is the position you would do well to deal with.

I rarely, if ever, use the word atheist to describe myself for example. I describe my position as follows: "If you present to me an idea that is ENTIRELY devoid of any argument... data... evidence... or reasons to lend it even a modicum of credence I will a) dismiss the idea entirely and b) resist the use and application of that idea in our halls of power, education and science".

GIVEN therefore that the idea there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.... I therefore dismiss the idea as unsubstantiated and resist its use and application in politics, education and science.

It is other people who label me "atheist" as a consequence of this. It is not a term I use for myself, except when a term of convenience is required in a larger prose.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

but you've just said that having a scientific mind leads you away from God.

Can you either quote me saying this, or be so kind as to take your words out of my mouth, given I clearly have more than enough of my own?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahtoo: Not even from authority. I'm simply saying, these people exist, but you've just said that having a scientific mind leads you away from God. Simply that isn't true if there are numerous other people with scientific minds who are Christians. That's simply logical.

Did I miss something here?

philologos wrote: »

Therefore we need to look to something else.

Tigerbaby

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You have a false premise! How does dying == going beyond the material? It's just more mysterious nonsense, that doesn't warrent belief!

I would have thought that the death of the body, and the associated loss of the senses would be self explanatory. Whatever is left over after death ( if anything) is clearly not sensible in the way the material World and its residents can appreciate.

I fail to see any false premise. I'm not asking that it "warrant belief" either.

CerebralCortex

Tigerbaby wrote: »

I would have thought that the death of the body, and the associated loss of the senses would be self explanatory. Whatever is left over after death ( if anything) is clearly not sensible in the way the material World and its residents can appreciate.

I fail to see any false premise. I'm not asking that it "warrant belief" either.

I thought you were giving credence, or a certain probability to something immaterial about the human person. My bad.

Tigerbaby

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The problem is that for the vast majority of people who do not subscribe to the idea of there being a god... you are attacking a strawman. They do not proclaim that there is no god, they proclaim that there is no reasons on offer to think... and therefore to act.... like there is..

Therefore they are agnostic, not atheist. perfectly reasonable stance.

[/QUOTE]THAT is the position of the majority of atheists and secularists and therefore THAT is the position you would do well to deal with..[/QUOTE]

Since when did weight of numbers or bodycount mean anything? and I am doing quite well with my own position, even though it may be at variance with the majority of atheists and secularists that you seem to have co-opted

[/QUOTE]I rarely, if ever, use the word atheist to describe myself for example. I describe my position as follows: "If you present to me an idea that is ENTIRELY devoid of any argument... data... evidence... or reasons to lend it even a modicum of credence I will a) dismiss the idea entirely and b) resist the use and application of that idea in our halls of power, education and science"..[/QUOTE]

Good for you. Perfectly reasonable again. Based on the tools of the senses, you are reasonable and logical in following this dogma.

.[/QUOTE]GIVEN therefore that the idea there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.... I therefore dismiss the idea as unsubstantiated and resist its use and application in politics, education and science..[/QUOTE]

What do you define as intelligence? I personally think the workings of the amoeba pretty amazing and rather intelligent, and also as a physical expression of the intelligence behind existence.

.[/QUOTE]It is other people who label me "atheist" as a consequence of this. It is not a term I use for myself, except when a term of convenience is required in a larger prose.[/QUOTE]

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can you either quote me saying this, or be so kind as to take your words out of my mouth, given I clearly have more than enough of my own?

Read up on what was actually said before claiming falsely that I'm appealing to authority in that post.

Someone said that them being scientifically minded leads them away from the idea of belief. I questioned this in reference to Christian scientists and science lecturers. How come they can do it?

So I'm suggesting that it isn't actually about being scientifically minded, it's for some other reason.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Read up on what was actually said before claiming falsely that I'm appealing to authority in that post.

Someone said that them being scientifically minded leads them away from the idea of belief. I questioned this in reference to Christian scientists and science lecturers. How come they can do it?

So I'm suggesting that it isn't actually about being scientifically minded, it's for some other reason.

What is unscientific about taking a set of hypotheses(including your God hypothesis) gathering evidence assigning probabilities to each hypothesis and then taking the hypothesis with the most probability? My answer is nothing. Do you think CiS are doing this on all hypotheses? I believe they aren't and evidence says that the highest probability is on that belief, compartmentalisation and so on.

Mark200

philologos wrote: »

Someone said that them being scientifically minded leads them away from the idea of belief. I questioned this in reference to Christian scientists and science lecturers. How come they can do it?

So I'm suggesting that it isn't actually about being scientifically minded, it's for some other reason.

Well studies have consistently found that scientists are much less likely to believe in a god or be religious:

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States

Among members of the National Academy of Sciences (sometimes considered to be the world's leading scientists) only 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Read up on what was actually said before claiming falsely that I'm appealing to authority in that post.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that you were appealing to authority. I said what you were doing was CLOSER to appeal to authority than it was to argumentum ad populum. Go read it again and see.

Really, if you can not reply to what people say, replying to what you invent for them instead, I am agog to know why you even bother to reply at all!

philologos wrote: »

Someone said that them being scientifically minded leads them away from the idea of belief.

I am not that someone. So I think we are agreed your claim in post #1330 that it was me that said it was an outright lie on your part. I can see how people intuit the link between you and Jakkass now given the level of honesty you both operate at.

In short however, if you want to reply to things I have actually said on here, then I am here for you.

If you want to put words in my mouth I never said and reply to them instead of the ones I did say, then you are a liar plain and simple and I have no time for this, and shall not be pandering to it in any way.

philologos

I agree you're not that someone. That's precisely the point. I'm simply defending the validity of that post.

Oh, and as for Jakkass, I don't deny that. I am that user. Look to my profile here in the About Me section. I changed my name with the Subscribers Help Desk about a month ago. I don't see how awful that is exactly.

As for the honesty argument that's petty. I've been pretty up front about everything. I misread your "closer", oh noes! You still implied that it was based on authority. Honesty indeed!

nozzferrahhtoo

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Therefore they are agnostic, not atheist. perfectly reasonable stance.

I am afraid your definition of agnostic is as accurate as your ability to correctly use the forum QUOTE function. That is: Not at all. Thomas Huxley... they guy who actually coined the term agnostic.... defined it not as a person who holds they do not know something, or have not got the evidence yet... but as someone who has declared that something is entirely unknowable. Not just now, but ever.

The majority of atheists and secularists are not claiming that the existance of god is an unknowable question. They are claiming that there is no evidence, argument, data OR reasons CURRENTLY to suggest there is any such entity.

Tigerbaby wrote: »

What do you define as intelligence?

Variable depending on context. In this context I would define it as an entity capable of making a design, exhibiting intent in that design, and then implementing and/or maintaining it.

There is no evidence, argument, data OR reasons on offer to me to think such an entity exists.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I agree you're not that someone. That's precisely the point. I'm simply defending the validity of that post.

And as expected after putting words in someone elses mouth and being pulled up on it, you do not once even APPROACH anything resembling an apology. Behavior I have long come to expect from you alas.

philologos wrote: »

I changed my name with the Subscribers Help Desk about a month ago. I don't see how awful that is exactly.

I do not remember saying anything about it being Awful. I simply said I can understand, given the level of your behavior, how people could be found to quickly intuit the link between the two names.

philologos wrote: »

As for the honesty argument that's petty. I've been pretty up front about everything. I misread your "closer", oh noes! You still implied that it was based on authority. Honesty indeed!

You can be sarcastic and dismissive of the point all you like. It does not change the fact that if you take a person saying X, and you pretend they said Y instead and reply to Y instead... you are engaged in dishonesty, strawmannery, and lies. Simple as. Being sarcastic about it when caught out, rather than apologising for your dishonesty, does not somehow make the lies go away by magic.

philologos

I misread your post, but you still strongly implied that it was based on authority. Therefore I defended the logic behind it. It's a typical mistake that I acknowledge.

That's fair game in my view.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I agree you're not that someone. That's precisely the point. I'm simply defending the validity of that post.

Oh, and as for Jakkass, I don't deny that. I am that user. Look to my profile here in the About Me section. I changed my name with the Subscribers Help Desk about a month ago. I don't see how awful that is exactly.

As for the honesty argument that's petty. I've been pretty up front about everything. I misread your "closer", oh noes! You still implied that it was based on authority. Honesty indeed!

So how come you rarely answer my posts?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I misread your post, but you still strongly implied that it was based on authority. Therefore I defended the logic behind it. It's a typical mistake that I acknowledge.

That's fair game in my view.

Whats fair game I think is what I said above already: If you want to reply to things I have actually said... I am here for you. If you want to pretend I said something else and reply to that instead (probably because it is easier for you) then I have no time to pander to this.

So if you want to scroll back to my posts, hit reply again, and see if you are capable of replying to what I have ACTUALLY said, then I am all ears. Have at it son.

philologos

^^ I've made the valid point I wanted to. Let's move on :pac:. I acknowledge I made a minor mistake but the point is still relevant. You still implied that it was closer to an argument from authority.

CerebralCortex: I would presume that the people at CiS like a lot of other scientists don't assume as you do that science is the only useful means of inquiry, but one of them.

nozzferrahhtoo

So you will not be replying to anything I said then, just using replies to me to reply to what other people have said. Fair enough, but do not blame me if people interpret that as you hiding from them by replying to them in posts to others where you hope your points, meant for them, will actually go unnoticed.... especially when they interpret it in the light of the level of honesty you have just been practicing with me.

philologos

I've acknowledged the mistake. My point was still relevant to your post. I don't see what is dishonest about that. Let's move on.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

^^ I've made the valid point I wanted to. Let's move on :pac:. I acknowledge I made a minor mistake but the point is still relevant. You still implied that it was closer to an argument from authority.

CerebralCortex: I would presume that the people at CiS like a lot of other scientists don't assume as you do that science is the only useful means of inquiry, but one of them.

Ah so it's safe to say about any scientist especially those in CiS who don't apply their scientific abilities to all of their beliefs? It's just turns out that atheist scientists did when it comes your God hypothesis.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I've acknowledged the mistake. My point was still relevant to your post. I don't see what is dishonest about that. Let's move on.

You acknowledged it after much cajoling and you have done nothing close to apologising for it. In fact you decided in post #1339 to even get sarky about it as if me noticing that you are putting words in my mouth is my problem, and not the problem of the dirty liar who engaged in it.

Nothing you have said so far is relevant to anything I posted in reply to you. You have been hitting reply to me, but replying to posts by others. This is hardly having a conversation with me.

Again, all I pointed out was that what you were engaged in was CLOSER to the authority fallacy than the populum one. That is all.

I then went on to point out that many people make the fallacious leap of thinking that because a person can hold science, and a beleif in god, in their head at the same time.... that this somehow constitutes evidence that science supports the idea there is a god.... which it does not.

Those were my points, and I have yet to see you reply to them despite the fact you keep hitting the reply button on my posts. I also put a much longer reply to your points earlier in this thread, which took some time and effort to type. I note you have completely ignored that one too. I can almost picture the cloud of dust left in your wake as you ran from it.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ah so it's safe to say about any scientist especially those in CiS who don't apply their scientific abilities to all of their beliefs? It's just turns out that atheist scientists did when it comes your God hypothesis.

You're still basing the assumption that science is the only valid means of inquiry. This simply isn't true for a lot of people, including many scientists.

There is a case for God but it involves philosophy, history, archaeology, textual analysis, cosmology, human nature and so on, but it isn't confined to natural science. So I'm not going to argue on that basis. If you wish to hold that assumption that's up to you. I think it's royally invalid.

I guess your view must lead you to think that the aforenamed disciplines are useless?

nozzferrahhtoo: The point is made. I made a mistake, and somehow you construe that as intentional dishonesty. Really, I'm not that interested in such pettiness. The point was still relevant to your post.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: The point is made. I made a mistake, and somehow you construe that as intentional dishonesty. Really, I'm not that interested in such pettiness.

I am also not interested in the pettiness of putting words in other peoples mouths and then getting sarky when caught out as if the problem is actually with the person you lied about.

I have reiterated what my points actually are. I notice you are still incapable of replying to them.... choosing instead to do your usual trick of hiding a dig at me inside a reply to someone else in the hopes I would not see it.

Neither your pettiness, your lies nor your running away from my points surprises me alas as I have had run ins with you before on other threads, with your old name and they all pretty much ended the same way.

In fact I am pushed to recall a single incident, though I am convinced there must be one or two somewhere, where you actually did reply to something I actually did say without either running away from it and not replying (as you did with my long long post in this thread to you), or distorting it to something else before replying to it (as you have been doing with my posts from yesterday and today).

The reason I keep on about it though is that I think it useful to highlight at length the level of honesty you operate at. You might be on here trying to spread the word of god, but I find it useful to allow people to clearly see just what kind of person you are while you are doing it... and the lengths of dishonesty and distortion you are willing to go to while engaged in it.

Had you actually ACTED in something of a Christian fashion and said "Oh, I see what you meant now, I was clearly wrong and I apologise for distorting your words in one post, and inserting the words of someone else into your mouth in another post" you would actually have not harmed your own cause so much, and rubbished my attempts to show people what kind of character we are dealing with here.

Ad hominem? Maybe, but I think it important that people know what they are dealing with in someone like you all the same. They have that right.