Theism: An untenable position

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Assumption one: Occam's Razor is an effective guideline for structuring our understanding of the world.
Assumption two: It is impossible to prove any quality of a being completely outside of our sphere of existence (based partially but not entirely on the argumentation presented in Putting Faith In Its Place).

Definition: God is a supernatural being; that is, one that by definition has no demonstrable impact on the natural world.


So let's break this down...
Followup one: Based on assumption one, which I will assume because not assuming it leads to fairly ridiculous paths (I seriously hope I don't have to explain why I assume Occam's Razor), it can be followed that any idea presented has a certain Burden of Proof to display before it is reasonable to accept it.
Based on assumption two and followup one, we can then conclude that the idea of a god has a burden of proof to fulfill, but cannot ever fulfill it.


This, of course, leaves theists in a very shaky position, unless I'm missing something–A position of irrationality about as legitimate as, I dunno, Flat-Earthers, Germ Theory Denialists, and Acupuncture. You can of course replace theism with any supernatural belief.

This leaves me to wonder-why are so many otherwise intelligent and logical people religious, or have otherwise untenable supernaturalistic beliefs? Are they unable to see past their own filter? Were they brainwashed as children? Or is there an issue with conventional logic?


...Discuss.

 

[rvkevin]

The think the objection lies here:

"Definition: God is a supernatural being; that is, one that by definition has no demonstrable impact on the natural world."

They think the natural state of things is nothing, then God created the natural world, so the existence of something would be the demonstrable impact of God. Also, this definition would not fit for someone who thinks miracles are possible or have taken place, which is the vast majority of theists.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, but the vast majority of theists are idiotic cuntbags. Like Dre. HEY DRE. Yo'RE A MORON.

 

[Dre89]

I'm guessing you were drunk when you said that, or are just trying to bait me into participating in this thread.

 

[Nicholas1024]

*yawn*

BPC, there's a major flaw with your definition of God. Yes, God exists primarily outside of the universe, but he is still completely free to interact with our universe. For crying out loud, if you've actually READ any arguments for Christianity (or theism in general, I'd imagine), since God, you know, created the world, doesn't that mean he interacts with it? Of course, since you'd rather attribute ANY possible evidence of God to little green men from Mars (aka: Some mysterious advanced alien civilization) rather than God, there's little point to me debating this.

 

[Sieguest]

Yes, but the vast majority of theists are idiotic cuntbags. Like Dre. HEY DRE. YOU'RE A MORON.

The callout? o.o

Must've been drunk, you spelled "you're" wrong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

*yawn*

BPC, there's a major flaw with your definition of God. Yes, God exists primarily outside of the universe, but he is still completely free to interact with our universe. For crying out loud, if you've actually READ any arguments for Christianity (or theism in general, I'd imagine), since God, you know, created the world, doesn't that mean he interacts with it? Of course, since you'd rather attribute ANY possible evidence of God to little green men from Mars (aka: Some mysterious advanced alien civilization) rather than God, there's little point to me debating this.

Well... Prove it.

See, again, what we have here is a baseless assumption. You absolutely cannot demonstrate god's interaction with the universe ever happening.

That said, I must admit that this seems to negate the second premise... And moves god from the unprovable to the unproven. You're still an assuming moron and I'd still hold it against you if you taught this crap to your kids, but hey-at least you're not logically wrong. Just utterly wrong empirically. Whee. I'll think about this more when I'm not desperately hung over and late for school.

I'm guessing you were drunk when you said that, or are just trying to bait me into participating in this thread.

I was drunk but the sentiment holds. I really don't like you.

 

[DanteFox]

wow the debate hall has an axe to grind against Theism.

also who approved this guy as a debater. he's clearly not there yet.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Well... Prove it.

See, again, what we have here is a baseless assumption. You absolutely cannot demonstrate god's interaction with the universe ever happening.

When you're willing to attribute any evidence of God to the little green men from mars, no, I can't. Despite the immense improbability of two separate species managing to independently develop at around the same time, not to mention we haven't seen any sign of other intelligent life in the universe, plus the difficulties of travel over lightyears of distance... but you still find all that preferable to God. I've given up trying to prove anything to you.

That said, I must admit that this seems to negate the second premise... And moves god from the unprovable to the unproven. You're still an assuming moron and I'd still hold it against you if you taught this crap to your kids, but hey-at least you're not logically wrong. Just utterly wrong empirically. Whee. I'll think about this more when I'm not desperately hung over and late for school.

As far as evidence for God, there's the immense improbability of the fundamental constants actually creating a life-sustaining universe, plus the additional problem of life starting up on its own (Don't give me the trillions of planets bit, even taking that into account you've got an enormous problem), as well as the further issue of life's biodiversity (Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?), not to mention the issue of the conscience (With electrical signals to the brain, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield managed to cause epilepsy patients to move arms/legs, turn their heads or eyes, or even talk and swallow. Invariably, the patient would say "I didn't do that, you did." And no matter how much he probed the cerebal cortex, he could not find a place where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or decide. If there is no consciousness outside of the brain, this shouldn't be possible. This consciousness is non-physical, and therefore direct evidence for God.) Plus, there's the historical evidence for the gospel (I went over it ad-nauseum in another thread, but basically you have to maintain that all 12 disciples, plus hundreds, if not thousands, of early church believers were compulsive liars, and died for said lies.)


*WARNING*
Slightly insulting summary of BPC's usual tactics incoming. You guys can skip it if you want, I just really needed to get it out of my system.

Spoiler

Anyway, in before

"If it weren't for those coincidences, we wouldn't be here."

"Yeah, aliens are simpler than God" (Although the quote above would no longer apply in this case...)

"WE HAZ FOSSILS!" (I won't bring up the possibility of faked fossils, since I'm not a biologist, and couldn't disprove examples. Although, if growing legs and such is such an easy sequence of microevolutions, why hasn't any scientist actually done it in an experiment? You'd figure that would settle the debate.)

"There were no 12 disciples/Jesus Christ/Christians dying for their beliefs." (Although how you can claim that when the historical texts say they do and there's no counter-evidence is just beyond me. How would you react if I claimed there was no Alexander the great, or burning of rome by Nero, or crusades and pretended the burden of proof was on you to prove it? And then arbitrarily invalidated the primary sources of evidence because the people who wrote them were supposedly biased?)

And last but not least...

"You idiot, how can you claim that God exists? You are a lying moronic creationist, etc."

I was drunk but the sentiment holds. I really don't like you.

Hooray for personal insults. Honestly, if it weren't for ballin, I probably would have abandoned the debate hall by now. (Not that there aren't other good atheist debaters, just that he's the main active one.)

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not an atheist.

Interesting info on Wilder Penfield, although I DEFINITELY don't think the existence of the mind has anything to do with God. In fact, it might actually hurt the "first cause" argument, since the mind violates causality.

Also, please stop bringing up "probability" with respect to the creation of the universe. There is no way to define a probability space. It's like asking "What is the probability that Mount Everest exists?". Plus I can just ask "What is the probability that God happened to want to create this particular universe?" - so God doesn't even explain anything in that case, it just moves the problem up another level.

To elaborate a bit: suppose we are pure Bayesians, meaning that Probability is our subjective belief that a proposition is true. Now we want to determine P(G|U), where G is God exists, and U is the universe exists.

So using Bayes' theorem P(G|U) = P(U|G)*P(G)/(P(U))

But there is NO way to come up with reasonable probabilities for any of the probabilities on the right hand side. If we say unknown propositions => probability is 1/2 then we get P(G|U) = 1/2, so it is an unknown proposition.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When you're willing to attribute any evidence of God to the little green men from mars, no, I can't. Despite the immense improbability of two separate species managing to independently develop at around the same time, not to mention we haven't seen any sign of other intelligent life in the universe, plus the difficulties of travel over lightyears of distance... but you still find all that preferable to God. I've given up trying to prove anything to you.

Did you even watch the video I linked you to to explain that point, which you just oversimplified to the absolute extreme? Let me make this perfectly clear: advanced enough technology can replicate any supernatural phenomenon.
Show someone from the enlightenment a nuclear bomb, and they'll scream about the wrath of god.
Show someone from the dark ages a gun and they'll think it's a magic wand created by witches to curse us.
Show someone from the middle ages a computer and they'll think it's the work of the devil.
Show a caveman a book of matches and they'll consider it a gift from the god of fire.
Show someone from our times a miracle and in the future we will be able to replicate it with technology.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Every single argument from this direction comes down to a god of the gaps argument; that is, "We don't understand it, it must be god". And if you can't see the fallacious nature of that argument... Well, I guess I'm not the only one who G fang should be asking "who let this guy in".

As far as evidence for God, there's the immense improbability of the fundamental constants actually creating a life-sustaining universe, plus the additional problem of life starting up on its own (Don't give me the trillions of planets bit, even taking that into account you've got an enormous problem), as well as the further issue of life's biodiversity (Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?), not to mention the issue of the conscience (With electrical signals to the brain, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield managed to cause epilepsy patients to move arms/legs, turn their heads or eyes, or even talk and swallow. Invariably, the patient would say "I didn't do that, you did." And no matter how much he probed the cerebal cortex, he could not find a place where electrical stimulation will cause a patient to believe or decide. If there is no consciousness outside of the brain, this shouldn't be possible. This consciousness is non-physical, and therefore direct evidence for God.)

Give me a frame of reference for probability. You keep on saying "it's improbable as all hell" when at the same time you're presenting a probability problem that is so ridiculously out of bounds that we can understand. For example, even if we did know "the universe had a 1/X chance of coming to exist", we still do not have any idea how large X is, or how large the probability of the other things present are. It really is like asking "What's the probability that this rock would exist". WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FRAME OF REFERENCE. Maybe the probability that the universe would have these laws as such is 1 in 1, ever considered that? Or maybe it's 1 in 10^300, but we live in one universe out of 10^300 present in the multiverse. We have absolutely no frame of reference.

Also your last little point there? That's god of the gaps. AGAIN. "We don't know where belief and decisions come from in the brain, so we're going to assume that god did it instead of saying "I don't know" and waiting for a rational answer."
And you know what? I have a counterproposal to that idea: it's not direct evidence for god, it's direct evidence for the butt faeries. They live in your brain and chatter on and on. Normally

Plus, there's the historical evidence for the gospel (I went over it ad-nauseum in another thread, but basically you have to maintain that all 12 disciples, plus hundreds, if not thousands, of early church believers were compulsive liars, and died for said lies.)

Well... hmm... let me think, what could I possibly use against proof like "a bunch of morons absolutely believed in something to the point where they would give up their lives for said belief"... Jeez, I have no idea... I mean, nobody else has ever flown a plane into a building for their religion in a suicide attack; nobody else has ever committed mass suicide based on a religious cult; nobody has ever gone against the grain for something they believed in that might not have been true.

If I were to accept this historical evidence (which may or may not have ever actually happened), then surely you should accept my historical evidence that literally everyone knows happened: 9/11 (Islamic Jihad), Jonestown massacres (suicide to a cult), and many, many more. This argument is bad and you should feel bad; I assume you'll be converting to islam shortly?

*WARNING*
Slightly insulting summary of BPC's usual tactics incoming. You guys can skip it if you want, I just really needed to get it out of my system.
Anyway, in before

"If it weren't for those coincidences, we wouldn't be here."

Well... yeah. Ignoring the above problem, imagine a universe unfit for life. Would there be people to dream up the idea of god? Of course not!

"Yeah, aliens are simpler than God" (Although the quote above would no longer apply in this case...)

A naturalistic, explanable phenomenon is almost by definition simpler than a supernaturalistic, unexplainable one.

"WE HAZ FOSSILS!" (I won't bring up the possibility of faked fossils, since I'm not a biologist, and couldn't disprove examples. Although, if growing legs and such is such an easy sequence of microevolutions, why hasn't any scientist actually done it in an experiment? You'd figure that would settle the debate.)

...I don't even want to dignify this with a response. I'm sorry, but this is a topic for a biology teacher. I'm not quite at the level to completely ruin this, but the short of it is that you are completely and totally wrong and the reason it hasn't been proven experimentally is that it's a fairly long and tedious process. Trust me, if we could replicate natural evolution quickly and easily in a test tube (see also: that one south park episode with "sea people" or whatever it was), it probably would happen. But you'd need to simulate an entire planet. That's just not a realistic goal. And even if we did, there would still be dishonest creationist ******* who would deny it! Just ask William Lane Craig, who basically says, "No matter how wrong you show me to be, I will still think I'm right".

"There were no 12 disciples/Jesus Christ/Christians dying for their beliefs." (Although how you can claim that when the historical texts say they do and there's no counter-evidence is just beyond me. How would you react if I claimed there was no Alexander the great, or burning of rome by Nero, or crusades and pretended the burden of proof was on you to prove it? And then arbitrarily invalidated the primary sources of evidence because the people who wrote them were supposedly biased?)

What do we have as historical evidence of the disciples and Christ? There's the gospels, but those were written after their deaths, and doctored by the council of Nicea or whatever that was. There are one or two inconsequential texts that mention these people in passing... Remember, you're talking about a person who supposedly healed the sick, fed the hungry, turned water into wine, and came back to life after he died. How was that famous quote again? "Extraordinary suppositions require extraordinary proof." We have here... fairly pitiful proof. One historian mentions it shortly in passing (debatably), and we have a very suspect book of ancient fairy tales that may or may not contain the actual recounts by the apostles.

And I don't care if there was an Alexander the great. Okay, fine, he didn't exist. I'm not willing to argue about it because it has absolutely no relevance to the modern world whether or not that happened. So you know what? You can have that argument. I don't believe in Alexander the great.

"You idiot, how can you claim that God exists? You are a lying moronic creationist, etc."

This isn't an argument but boy do I feel justified in the second half of it.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Somewhat unrelated, but do you think that Creationists, or Christians in general, or any type of Theist or religious person is so sub-human that you feel justified in insulting us at every chance you get? Why do you feel the need to argue about it if, in the long run, it doesn't matter (according to your worldview). You should be more concerned with the advancement of the overall human population according to your beliefs, rather than the advancement of one or two people on the internet.

The only thing related to this debate that I will mention is that Creationists don't use "God did it" as an excuse and then go on to other things. It's, "We believe God, and this is what God said. We will now go on to try and explain it as best we can." To contrast, this is an atheist's position: "We believe everything is natural, and that is all there is. We will now go on to try and explain it as best we can."

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Originally posted by BPC_
What do we have as historical evidence of the disciples and Christ? There's the gospels, but those were written after their deaths, and doctored by the council of Nicea or whatever that was. There are one or two inconsequential texts that mention these people in passing... Remember, you're talking about a person who supposedly healed the sick, fed the hungry, turned water into wine, and came back to life after he died. How was that famous quote again? "Extraordinary suppositions require extraordinary proof." We have here... fairly pitiful proof. One historian mentions it shortly in passing (debatably), and we have a very suspect book of ancient fairy tales that may or may not contain the actual recounts by the apostles.

Um, last I checked Jesus was a historical figure. I am not sure how that was ever called into question . Is he the son of god as christians claim, I do not belive so, however there is no reason to doubt that such a person existed although there is pleanty to doubt the claims around him.

And I don't care if there was an Alexander the great. Okay, fine, he didn't exist. I'm not willing to argue about it because it has absolutely no relevance to the modern world whether or not that happened. So you know what? You can have that argument. I don't believe in Alexander the great.

There is historical evidence though. You know the recordes of his conquest and all >_>.

Also BPC, why are you personally insulting to people, sure you disagree with them, but if we disliked everyone for disagreeing with us then there would be war, hatred, persecution because of a simple disagreement.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Somewhat unrelated, but do you think that Creationists, or Christians in general, or any type of Theist or religious person is so sub-human that you feel justified in insulting us at every chance you get? Why do you feel the need to argue about it if, in the long run, it doesn't matter (according to your worldview). You should be more concerned with the advancement of the overall human population according to your beliefs, rather than the advancement of one or two people on the internet.

It does matter. People being this wrong for this long has been shown to have consequences. >.>

The only thing related to this debate that I will mention is that Creationists don't use "God did it" as an excuse and then go on to other things. It's, "We believe God, and this is what God said. We will now go on to try and explain it as best we can." To contrast, this is an atheist's position: "We believe everything is natural, and that is all there is. We will now go on to try and explain it as best we can."

I'm calling that out as a rationalization, personally; the reason the belief showed up in the first place was a god of the gaps argument, only now where that is no longer legitimate are you trying to ignore that little fact. >.> A classic case of the gap disappearing and god poking a hole to let himself in.

 

[Sieguest]

It does matter. People being this wrong for this long has been shown to have consequences. >.>

Just a side observation, but I do remember you some time ago saying that you feel justified in ridiculing people who "know" God exists. I believe the inverse is also applicable in this case. Would I be justified in continuously ridiculing people who "know" God doesn't exist? Point being, until you can without a shadow of a doubt give me proof that God doesn't exist, then you stand in no ground to continuously berate an opposing viewpoint just because it runs counter to your own. History shows this mindset leads to nothing but trouble. Slavery, the World Wars, even present day conflicts are proof of this.

Neither side of any God debate I have ever read/participated in this debate hall, heard in real life, or have read anywhere else has anything definitive as to proof that they're side is correct. All either side tries to do is deconstruct the other by saying how illogical the opposition argument is. (This is partially the reason I don't even jump into God or any religious based debates anymore.) So again I provide the challenge I stated in the first paragraph; put something concrete on the table to prove God doesn't exist.

Eh, seems my "side observation" turned more into a minirant than I wanted.... =/

 

[Dre89]

I was drunk but the sentiment holds. I really don't like you.

Lol because I disagree with you on something? That has to be the reason, seeing as I've never attacked your character directly.

Gotta admire the passion on Smashboards, inspiring stuff.

 

[ballin4life]

It's, "We believe God, and this is what God said. We will now go on to try and explain it as best we can." To contrast, this is an atheist's position: "We believe everything is natural, and that is all there is. We will now go on to try and explain it as best we can."

This is a misrepresentation in multiple ways.

For one, how do you know "what God said"?

But more importantly, the "atheist position" is NOT "We believe everything is natural" AT ALL. Not even close.

Just a side observation, but I do remember you some time ago saying that you feel justified in ridiculing people who "know" God exists. I believe the inverse is also applicable in this case. Would I be justified in continuously ridiculing people who "know" God doesn't exist? Point being, until you can without a shadow of a doubt give me proof that God doesn't exist, then you stand in no ground to continuously berate an opposing viewpoint just because it runs counter to your own.

You're way off base here. I don't think BPC ever said he 100% for sure knows God doesn't exist. It is totally consistent (though not very nice) to ridicule someone who "just knows" something for which THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE. This is BPC's point with this thread.

He is not saying "the TRUTH is that God doesn't exist" he is saying "There can never be a legitimate reason to BELIEVE God exists"

 

[Mewter]

BPC, your definition of God does not agree with the points of the majority of theists that you are arguing against.
Disprove some miracle claims please (and I mean actual miracles, not misunderstandings about natural phenomena.)

Besides, Atheists and theists are the same, right? Theists start with the assumption of "my god(s) exist" and build their worldviews around that while Atheists take only empirical data and "logic" and demand that everything adapt to the fact that "everything is physical." Both need proof to back up their core claims, and scientific Atheists frequently dismiss supernatural occurrences because they have filters too.

In the end, it's probably impossible to prove that everything is physical and that gods exist, so that would make both sides' arguments worth little more than dust at a construction site.

So an agnostic would be the only one with no burden of proof, since agnostics claim that it is impossible to know, right? No, since that is contradictory. What about deists? Their belief that gods exist falls short because of the same reason that theists' do.

So, this makes theists, Atheists, agnostics, and deists all the same. They all have no proof!

Their arguments are more full of holes than Menger sponges.

 

[ballin4life]

Besides, Atheists and theists are the same, right? Theists start with the assumption of "my god(s) exist" and build their worldviews around that while Atheists take only empirical data and "logic" and demand that everything adapt to the fact that "everything is physical." Both need proof to back up their core claims, and scientific Atheists frequently dismiss supernatural occurrences because they have filters too.

In the end, it's probably impossible to prove that everything is physical and that gods exist, so that would make both sides' arguments worth little more than dust at a construction site.

Once again, this is a misunderstanding of what the so-called "atheist position" actually is.

It's not "LOL I KNOW EVERYTHING IS PHYSICAL". It's "does it make sense to assume something is nonphysical?"

Also, from a philosophical standpoint there is no such thing as the supernatural, since natural is defined as "what exists".

So an agnostic would be the only one with no burden of proof, since agnostics claim that it is impossible to know, right? No, since that is contradictory.

How in the heck is that contradictory?

 

[Dre89]

Natural would be defined as that within the consistent laws of the universe.

Something supernatural would be accessible via the scientific method, and would violate the laws of the universe, like someone walking through a wall.

 

[ballin4life]

Natural would be defined as that within the consistent laws of the universe.

Something supernatural would be accessible via the scientific method, and would violate the laws of the universe, like someone walking through a wall.

I presume you mean "inaccessible"? Also, it is technically possible according to current theories of physics to walk through a wall (just very unlikely).

Anyway, this is again a misunderstanding of how science works. IF we observed people walking through walls, we would then come up with theories to describe it. THAT is science. Science is not "here is physics, it is 100% correct and anything that violates it is supernatural".

Notice how physics has changed drastically over time, from Aristotelian mechanics to Newtonian mechanics to General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics (etc).

This is because science CHANGES its models once something "impossible" occurs. So if we were to observe people walking through walls, we would study that and revise our models.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Disprove some miracle claims please (and I mean actual miracles, not misunderstandings about natural phenomena.)

You need to prove those miracle claims. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that they occurred and were in fact miracles (not just misunderstandings about natural phenomena or coincidences).

It's similar to me asking you to disprove that the JFK assassination was organised by aliens who controlled the CIA. I know you can't, so it must have been the aliens!

 

[Sieguest]

You're way off base here. I don't think BPC ever said he 100% for sure knows God doesn't exist. It is totally consistent (though not very nice) to ridicule someone who "just knows" something for which THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE. This is BPC's point with this thread.

He is not saying "the TRUTH is that God doesn't exist" he is saying "There can never be a legitimate reason to BELIEVE God exists"

I don't believe it's too farfetch'd to make the inference that BPC "knows" that God doesn't exist. Else why be so adamant that those who say "God exists" are wrong? There's a difference between saying "You can't know God exists" and the campaign BPC has entered to essentially show that "Believing in God is wrong". I mean, even a look at the title of this thread could tell you that.

Edit: A look at BPC's posts over the past few weeks also confirms my assertion.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't believe it's too farfetch'd to make the inference that BPC "knows" that God doesn't exist. Else why be so adamant that those who say "God exists" are wrong? There's a difference between saying "You can't know God exists" and the campaign BPC has entered to essentially show that "Believing in God is wrong". I mean, even a look at the title of this thread could tell you that.

Edit: A look at BPC's posts over the past few weeks also confirms my assertion.

There's a world of difference between "I know God doesn't exist" and "It's wrong to believe God exists, because you can't know that God exists"

 

[rvkevin]

There's a difference between saying "You can't know God exists" and the campaign BPC has entered to essentially show that "Believing in God is wrong"

No there isn't. If someone thinks that a certain claim is unknowable, then it follows that they think that everyone who claims to know that claim is wrong to take that view.

 

[Sieguest]

There's a world of difference between "I know God doesn't exist" and "It's wrong to believe God exists, because you can't know that God exists"

Notwithstanding the fact that BPC is stating the former and not the latter. More along the lines of "I know God doesn't exist and if you disagree with me then you are an ignorant God following **** who denies common knowledge and logic and the world would be a better place without you."

Besides the second statement is fallacious. "It's wrong to believe God exists, because you can't know that God exists." Believing something to be true and knowing something to be true are two totally different things (at least as far I use the two words). You can believe in the tooth fairy, yeah sure no problem. But once you claim to know that the tooth fairy exists is when people have a problem. Just like scientists believe many different theories about one topic, but once a scientist claims to know the answer to some hot topic then there is a problem.

BPC instantly categorizes people who argue for God in a debate as "knowing" that God exists and as such he proceeds to continually berate arguments and other such things that add no value to the discussion. Citing the time he queried whether creationism should be taught in school (essentially "Why teach something that is wrong?"), or his view that discrimination against Christians that are "irrational" to be okay. (Basically BPC's definition of the irrational Christian would encompass any subscriber to the Religion because subscribing to that religion means denying "conventional logic" and such)

There is also no ignoring the fact that he harbors a hatred for most theists. Why hate someone for believing in something they can't know exists unless you're solid in the idea that this something in question does not exist? Why incessantly state as a fact that "God can't exist" unless you were solid in the "knowledge" that He doesn't exist? One doesn't need a direct quote to draw the inference that someone "knows" something of this nature.

You could say "maybe he just 'believes' God cannot exist" but again I point to previous questions. When one "believes" something (of this nature), they do not rule out that the other side may be correct, they just take convincing to a certain degree. One who "knows" something (again of this nature) already rules out the idea that the other side may be correct. The fact he deriding claims that ideas such as creationism and ID are "bull****" and have that as a fact is a testament to that. Only someone who knows they're right can instantly write off the opposition as not even worth mentioning. Someone who believes they're right won't say the other view is wrong without a doubt, because they also know that they're own side may be wrong.

On a final summarizing note, asserting "You're wrong because you can't know about the nature of the existence of X" while he is also saying "X can't exist because ____" is fallacious. Saying the opposing group can't answer the question and then turning around and answering the question is what a person who "knows" they have the answer does.

No there isn't. If someone thinks that a certain claim is unknowable, then it follows that they think that everyone who claims to know that claim is wrong to take that view.

Hence the difference in the terms "know" and "believe".

 

[rvkevin]

There's a difference between saying "You can't know God exists" and the campaign BPC has entered to essentially show that "Believing in God is wrong"

No there isn't. If someone thinks that a certain claim is unknowable, then it follows that they think that everyone who claims to believe that claim is wrong to take that view.

Fixed. If you define knowledge as justified true belief, then it follows that something that is unknowable is either unable to be verified as being true or or is unable to be justified. In the first case, one has accepted as true something they cannot tell is true or not and in the second case, they have taken on a belief that they cannot justify. In either case, it would be irrational to accept the claim. I don't particularly like this definition of knowledge, but its a fairly common one and since we're talking about BPC's comments, I think its apt for interpretation.

Why hate someone for believing in something they can't know exists unless you're solid in the idea that this something in question does not exist?

Because believing in unjustified claims can result in disastrous consequences. Suppose you and a friend are at a roulette table. Your friend believes that the next roll will come up black. Given this insight, he plans on gambling his entire bank account. Now, are you saying that unless you're solid or certain that the roll will not turn up black, you can't say this is a bad idea?

Let's up the stakes a little bit. Instead of gambling with only his stakes, he includes your health, your families health, and the health of the future of humanity. Would this warrant some spite? Isn't this exactly what happens when a politician uses the Bible as a reason to think that global warming will have no effect on us. I don't think any further explanation is necessary. Now, maybe there will be no negative results from not cutting emissions, maybe the outcome of the roulette spin will be black, but it is irresponsible to act as if those are given when they are very much open questions. It is this overconfidence, sometimes to the point of absolute certainty, that deserves scorn.

The difference is that the friend and I are making two different types of claims. The friend is making an ontological claim about the roulette spin, that it will actually be black. I am making an epistemological claim about the roulette spin, that we are not in a position to determine whether it will actually be black or not. Since we are both in the same epistemic position, it would then be irrational to believe the claim that the outcome will be black when we are unable to determine the outcome based on the available evidence. Nowhere am I making an ontological claim about the outcome, that it will actually be black or not. Instead, I am saying that the most that can be known is that the outcome is uncertain, and having a false sense of certainty is an irrational stance to have.

 

[ballin4life]

Notwithstanding the fact that BPC is stating the former and not the latter. More along the lines of "I know God doesn't exist and if you disagree with me then you are an ignorant God following **** who denies common knowledge and logic and the world would be a better place without you."

Besides the second statement is fallacious. "It's wrong to believe God exists, because you can't know that God exists." Believing something to be true and knowing something to be true are two totally different things (at least as far I use the two words). You can believe in the tooth fairy, yeah sure no problem. But once you claim to know that the tooth fairy exists is when people have a problem. Just like scientists believe many different theories about one topic, but once a scientist claims to know the answer to some hot topic then there is a problem.

So you're saying that if I made a bunch of posts proclaiming the existence of the tooth fairy, you wouldn't feel the need to say anything? Like "what evidence is there for the tooth fairy?" BPC claims that NO evidence can be brought forward to back up a belief in God, and that therefore one shouldn't have that belief. It's basically a version of Russell's teapot: You would think that I was crazy if I told you that I believed there was a pink teapot orbiting Neptune. Even though you can't disprove this claim, there is no reason to believe it.

BPC instantly categorizes people who argue for God in a debate as "knowing" that God exists and as such he proceeds to continually berate arguments and other such things that add no value to the discussion. Citing the time he queried whether creationism should be taught in school (essentially "Why teach something that is wrong?"), or his view that discrimination against Christians that are "irrational" to be okay. (Basically BPC's definition of the irrational Christian would encompass any subscriber to the Religion because subscribing to that religion means denying "conventional logic" and such)

Yes, BPC is caustic.

That doesn't mean his point is wrong.

There is also no ignoring the fact that he harbors a hatred for most theists. Why hate someone for believing in something they can't know exists unless you're solid in the idea that this something in question does not exist? Why incessantly state as a fact that "God can't exist" unless you were solid in the "knowledge" that He doesn't exist? One doesn't need a direct quote to draw the inference that someone "knows" something of this nature.

I don't recall BPC saying that God can't exist. His whole point is that there is a BIG difference between knowing something and believing in something.

You could say "maybe he just 'believes' God cannot exist" but again I point to previous questions. When one "believes" something (of this nature), they do not rule out that the other side may be correct, they just take convincing to a certain degree. One who "knows" something (again of this nature) already rules out the idea that the other side may be correct. The fact he deriding claims that ideas such as creationism and ID are "bull****" and have that as a fact is a testament to that. Only someone who knows they're right can instantly write off the opposition as not even worth mentioning. Someone who believes they're right won't say the other view is wrong without a doubt, because they also know that they're own side may be wrong.

Would you write off the teapot orbiting Neptune?

Also I think calling creationism/ID in particular bull**** is a very different story. 99% of creationism/ID are dumb and incorrect attempts to "disprove" evolution.

On a final summarizing note, asserting "You're wrong because you can't know about the nature of the existence of X" while he is also saying "X can't exist because ____" is fallacious. Saying the opposing group can't answer the question and then turning around and answering the question is what a person who "knows" they have the answer does.

Hence the difference in the terms "know" and "believe".

Where did BPC say God can't exist?


I'd like to page BPC to the thread since I don't know if I am misrepresenting his views.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't believe it's too farfetch'd to make the inference that BPC "knows" that God doesn't exist. Else why be so adamant that those who say "God exists" are wrong? There's a difference between saying "You can't know God exists" and the campaign BPC has entered to essentially show that "Believing in God is wrong". I mean, even a look at the title of this thread could tell you that.

Edit: A look at BPC's posts over the past few weeks also confirms my assertion.

I don't know there is no god. Just like you don't know that a kick in the nuts will hurt you. Mind if I kick you in the nuts? Just like you don't know that I am not the infallible messiah. Just to clear this up, I confess that "I know there is no god" is a proposal you cannot make. Gnostic Atheism is just as untenable as Gnostic Theism. That said, if you saw someone genuinely believing in a fairy tale, and then deciding "yeah, you're a worse person because you don't", wouldn't you be offended?

My issues with theism mostly have to do with, well, the fact that religion is bad. I'm not even going to extrapolate on that point; I think it's been made clear far too many times already why religion is bad and wrong.

Notwithstanding the fact that BPC is stating the former and not the latter. More along the lines of "I know God doesn't exist and if you disagree with me then you are an ignorant God following **** who denies common knowledge and logic and the world would be a better place without you."

Yeah, see, no. I'm saying "You can't know that god exists". Although the fact that "supernatural" beings can in theory interact with the natural world does put a bit of a knick in my argumentation, I must admit, and I admitted that the second premise of my argument is false.

Besides the second statement is fallacious. "It's wrong to believe God exists, because you can't know that God exists." Believing something to be true and knowing something to be true are two totally different things (at least as far I use the two words). You can believe in the tooth fairy, yeah sure no problem. But once you claim to know that the tooth fairy exists is when people have a problem. Just like scientists believe many different theories about one topic, but once a scientist claims to know the answer to some hot topic then there is a problem.

...Wut?

Belief in something you cannot prove may or may not be an issue, based on your willingness to reevaluate this belief and your willingness to not let it have an effect on your life. But the irrational belief in an unproven, unprovable phenomenon... To claim that there is nothing wrong with that is incredibly blind to the real issues such faith causes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk#t=7m40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7QRPvmjaoQ&feature=feedu

Imagine that I have a belief that humans need to be killed and eaten by me in order to go to heaven. Can you not immediately see where problems are going to arise from this irrational, unfounded, senseless belief? Now imagine that I believe that there is an almighty, perfect creator, and if I do not follow his perfect will, I will suffer eternal torment, and his will includes spreading word of his existence, killing those who do not believe, killing those who do not follow laws like "do not make fun of this belief"... Hmm, I wonder where the problems in that would come from?

But this isn't just a problem with these specific claims. The underlying problem is indeed with the legitimization of such claims in the first place. If any random thing that a person says can be taken on faith, then your "bull**** detector" is completely out of whack, and you may or may not be a danger to society. I fight against unfounded beliefs because of the almost inherent result of them: contradicting reality.

Like I said above, I can't know that god doesn't exist. But you can't know that a 3000-foot fall will do anything other than heal your inoperable cancer and ensure that you live to 100! I will admit that my original argumentation had a serious flaw, based on the second premise being faulty. I will have to revise it, and I'm trying to think of a good way to do so. but

BPC instantly categorizes people who argue for God in a debate as "knowing" that God exists and as such he proceeds to continually berate arguments and other such things that add no value to the discussion. Citing the time he queried whether creationism should be taught in school (essentially "Why teach something that is wrong?"), or his view that discrimination against Christians that are "irrational" to be okay. (Basically BPC's definition of the irrational Christian would encompass any subscriber to the Religion because subscribing to that religion means denying "conventional logic" and such)

Well, yes. I do categorize them as such. I fail to see the sensibility of Agnostic Theism, or indeed how it is even possible in most modern religions. How can you possibly be an agnostic baptist, when god demands absolute loyalty and for his word to be taken as absolute truth? Makes no sense.

I'd argue that you'd discriminate against someone who holds a different view of reality to yourself. Would you not? Because I can think up a perfectly good example where nobody even bats an eye: the institutionalization of people who are insane. They see the world differently to us, so we lock them away, where they can't cause harm. Why that hasn't happened to people like this or this is beyond me, because they are clearly using their bizarre worldview to cause harm to themselves, their children, and those around them. Not even mentioning Islam here (they are WAY worse).

There is also no ignoring the fact that he harbors a hatred for most theists. Why hate someone for believing in something they can't know exists unless you're solid in the idea that this something in question does not exist? Why incessantly state as a fact that "God can't exist" unless you were solid in the "knowledge" that He doesn't exist? One doesn't need a direct quote to draw the inference that someone "knows" something of this nature.

"You (and all other theists) are a lousy sack of demon-possessed **** with no consciousness, no morals, and no ability to think critically, and have no place in modern society and should therefore be executed or deported."

That is my unfounded, ridiculous belief. You can't prove or disprove it. Hell, I don't know it to be right, but I'll still live my life around it. You going to take that at face value or expect justification for it? Would you start to resent me for holding such a belief? What if I tried to push it on my children? My neighbors? My country? The world? When would you start to hate me for my belief?

Obviously I do not hold this belief. I keep it at "Most theists are irrational in their belief in god". I have theistic friends, and while I do think slightly worse of them for their belief in god, I will not consider them bad people because of it.

You could say "maybe he just 'believes' God cannot exist" but again I point to previous questions. When one "believes" something (of this nature), they do not rule out that the other side may be correct, they just take convincing to a certain degree. One who "knows" something (again of this nature) already rules out the idea that the other side may be correct. The fact he deriding claims that ideas such as creationism and ID are "bull****" and have that as a fact is a testament to that. Only someone who knows they're right can instantly write off the opposition as not even worth mentioning. Someone who believes they're right won't say the other view is wrong without a doubt, because they also know that they're own side may be wrong.

You are misinterpreting my standpoint completely. I could be wrong, but again: would you take this excuse in court? "Judge, to my defense, I thought that shooting Hospes's closest friend/child/mother/whatever in the head with a shotgun would give them superpowers! I mean, sure, there was a 99.9999999% chance that I was wrong based on previous experience, but I just thought, 'what the hell, let's give it a shot'." Just to be clear, this was based on an unfounded belief that shooting people in the head with shotguns would turn them into Superman.

I could be wrong. I will change my stance if I am demonstrated to be wrong. But the chances of me being wrong are so ridiculously slim that, as a pragmatist, I feel justified in saying "yeah, no, that's bull****".

On a final summarizing note, asserting "You're wrong because you can't know about the nature of the existence of X" while he is also saying "X can't exist because ____" is fallacious. Saying the opposing group can't answer the question and then turning around and answering the question is what a person who "knows" they have the answer does.

I'm not claiming the latter. At all.

As said, premise 2 of my original argument was faulty and until I find an answer to the problem of miracles, I am going to have to rethink it. But I am NOT a gnostic atheist.

EDIT: Also who is hospes?

 

[Sieguest]

I don't know there is no god. Just like you don't know that a kick in the nuts will hurt you. Mind if I kick you in the nuts? Just like you don't know that I am not the infallible messiah.

But I have been kicked in the nuts before.... >.< albeit it happened by accident. I also know you're not the infallible messiah, but if you are, then how come I'm not home right now?

Just to clear this up, I confess that "I know there is no god" is a proposal you cannot make. Gnostic Atheism is just as untenable as Gnostic Theism. That said, if you saw someone genuinely believing in a fairy tale, and then deciding "yeah, you're a worse person because you don't", wouldn't you be offended?

Personally, I wouldn't be angry (but that's just because I never really anger easily), but I would call them out on it. If someone wants to believe in a fairy tale, then they can. But if sitting on their throne of "knowledge" that the tooth fairy exists and that I'm going to Cavity Hell for not acknowledging that "fact" then I will call them out on it, same as you call out people who "know" God exists. On the other side of this, while I may find it hard to believe how someone could believe in the tooth fairy, the fact is that I can't know if she exists or not, what if she's using my parents to do her work for her and then she reimburses that quarter my parents left me at a later time? That said I won't say they're wrong for believing in her existence.

My issues with theism mostly have to do with, well, the fact that religion is bad. I'm not even going to extrapolate on that point; I think it's been made clear far too many times already why religion is bad and wrong.

I don't have to time answer to this right now so I'll have to come back to it later.

Yeah, see, no. I'm saying "You can't know that god exists". Although the fact that "supernatural" beings can in theory interact with the natural world does put a bit of a knick in my argumentation, I must admit, and I admitted that the second premise of my argument is false.

So how does saying "You can't know that God exists." then jump into "This is why God can't exist"? The two don't really seem to follow from how I see it.
But I must digress, that would pretty much be taking away the ability discuss your viewpoint in the first place. x.x

...Wut?

Belief in something you cannot prove may or may not be an issue, based on your willingness to reevaluate this belief and your willingness to not let it have an effect on your life. But the irrational belief in an unproven, unprovable phenomenon... To claim that there is nothing wrong with that is incredibly blind to the real issues such faith causes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk#t=7m40s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7QRPvmjaoQ&feature=feedu

So by irrational belief, do you mean those who claim to know as an undeniable fact that God exists? Given the nature of religion the only reason why you would subscribe to a religion or lack thereof is if you believed that religion to be correct in its totality, this is not to say that the person knows for a fact that the religion they subscribe is correct (hence people who move from belief in a higher being to a belief that no higher being may exist), but rather they believe their religion to be correct (kind of the along the same lines that one believes a certain moral viewpoint but acknowledge that they can't know said moral viewpoint is true by conceding that an objective morality does not exist).

To be honest, I believe that there is nothing wrong with believing in someone or something that is unproven and unprovable, as long as one does close their mind and become intolerant to the other views present (e.g. knowing they're right and everyone else is wrong). It is not belief in religion that causes problems, its the close-mindedness of those that follow religion commonly fall into that is the issue.

Imagine that I have a belief that humans need to be killed and eaten by me in order to go to heaven. Can you not immediately see where problems are going to arise from this irrational, unfounded, senseless belief? Now imagine that I believe that there is an almighty, perfect creator, and if I do not follow his perfect will, I will suffer eternal torment, and his will includes spreading word of his existence, killing those who do not believe, killing those who do not follow laws like "do not make fun of this belief"... Hmm, I wonder where the problems in that would come from?

Because the Crusades are totally in full force today. (sarcasm)
Along with the point I mentioned earlier there is also the point I brought up in the social thread differentiating Levitical law from Grace. I'll edit it in later [can't right now, have a commitment to make] (directed at the "kill those who do not follow laws like"). As to the spreading word about His existence, that's just like you going around and spreading word about how He can't exist, so I don't see a problem there. As to the eternal torment part it's pretty much a choice to believe or not so *shrugs*. We can never know.

Also if you held the belief that humans need to be killed and eaten by you to go to Heaven, then to be honest I wouldn't have a problem with you truly "believing" that because you acknowledge that you may be wrong. Once you come around to actually "knowing" that you're belief is correct is when you no longer reason with them and that's when your belief becomes a problem.

But this isn't just a problem with these specific claims. The underlying problem is indeed with the legitimization of such claims in the first place. If any random thing that a person says can be taken on faith, then your "bull**** detector" is completely out of whack, and you may or may not be a danger to society. I fight against unfounded beliefs because of the almost inherent result of them: contradicting reality.

Problem here is that a lot of stuff is falsifiable, I'll use the exampel you have below.

Like I said above, I can't know that god doesn't exist. But you can't know that a 3000-foot fall will do anything other than heal your inoperable cancer and ensure that you live to 100! I will admit that my original argumentation had a serious flaw, based on the second premise being faulty. I will have to revise it, and I'm trying to think of a good way to do so. but

Physics will let you know that a 3,000 foot fall will let you do anything except let you live or not being shattered for the rest of your life. No such knowledge can be used to identify a being outside of our senses.

Well, yes. I do categorize them as such. I fail to see the sensibility of Agnostic Theism, or indeed how it is even possible in most modern religions. How can you possibly be an agnostic baptist, when god demands absolute loyalty and for his word to be taken as absolute truth? Makes no sense.

Simple, the same way one has morals yet acknowledges the non-existence of an objective morality. One believes that God exists and is loyal to Him despite the idea that they can't see him or have any sort of physical manifestation of Him existing. That's what one takes on faith. Just like we can't be sure whether mankind will pull through yet people still put faith that mankind will pull through. There's nothing out of the ordinary of considering that X item in question may or may not be true, but you believe X is true so you remain loyal to that idea.

I don't know God exists, but I take it on faith based on my experiences that he does so I remain loyal to Him. It's as simple as that.

I'd argue that you'd discriminate against someone who holds a different view of reality to yourself. Would you not? Because I can think up a perfectly good example where nobody even bats an eye: the institutionalization of people who are insane. They see the world differently to us, so we lock them away, where they can't cause harm. Why that hasn't happened to people like this or this is beyond me, because they are clearly using their bizarre worldview to cause harm to themselves, their children, and those around them. Not even mentioning Islam here (they are WAY worse).

And by "different view of reality" I suppose you mean those that would possibly argue with you that the sky is always a neon green? People who are insane have no concept of reality, they perception of anything is a myriad of conflicting principles, that's why they're insane. They believe "If I keep doing the same thing enough times then at some point a result different from the past 9001 tries will occur."

As to a "different view of reality" as in people who have different worldviews, then the whole world should be discriminating against each other. That would mean I should be looking up your address right now so I that I can come kill you and your entire family in the night. I believe in God, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you that if you stick your hand on burning stove enough times that you won't be burning your hand. Or that if you say the sky is neon green enough times that the sky will one day turn neon green.

"You (and all other theists) are a lousy sack of demon-possessed **** with no consciousness, no morals, and no ability to think critically, and have no place in modern society and should therefore be executed or deported."

That is my unfounded, ridiculous belief. You can't prove or disprove it. Hell, I don't know it to be right, but I'll still live my life around it. You going to take that at face value or expect justification for it? Would you start to resent me for holding such a belief? What if I tried to push it on my children? My neighbors? My country? The world? When would you start to hate me for my belief?

Obviously I do not hold this belief. I keep it at "Most theists are irrational in their belief in god". I have theistic friends, and while I do think slightly worse of them for their belief in god, I will not consider them bad people because of it.

I don't resent anyone for holding any belief, even if it was "Everybody in the world must call Guest a douchebag before they can go to some eternal eden" You could even try pushing this belief onto those you know, whether they believe you or not is their deal, but believing something means that you are still open to other viewpoints, and as I've said before, whenever you come to "know" and close your mind off to these other viewpoints, that's when it becomes a problem. Almost like the mindset fueling slavery. "Them colored people are mindless and don't have souls, the only use they'll have is hard labor". It's an unfounded belief, and it spread, what made it a problem was that these believers supposedly "knew" they were in the right and were closed off to the notion they were wrong.

You are misinterpreting my standpoint completely. I could be wrong, but again: would you take this excuse in court? "Judge, to my defense, I thought that shooting Hospes's closest friend/child/mother/whatever in the head with a shotgun would give them superpowers! I mean, sure, there was a 99.9999999% chance that I was wrong based on previous experience, but I just thought, 'what the hell, let's give it a shot'." Just to be clear, this was based on an unfounded belief that shooting people in the head with shotguns would turn them into Superman.

Once again, there's the difference between what is falsifiable and what isn't. Moral beliefs aren't falsifiable, we could go in circles all day about what is truly wrong and right. "I believe the sky is neon green" well look outside and see that you're wrong. "I believe a shotgun makes people superman" pull up other experiences of shotguns killing people and see that you're wrong, as I said earlier, believing something to be true means that you're open to being shown that you're wrong, doesn't mean you won't be punished for being wrong. =/ "Knowing" you're right is what's dangerous, because even when shown that you are wrong you'll do it again. "I'm positive judge that shooting someone in the head with a shotgun makes them superman, the power flowing into the guy I shot today just hasn't activated within him yet, *proceed to shoot judge* you'll know I'm right after you see for yourself"

I could be wrong. I will change my stance if I am demonstrated to be wrong. But the chances of me being wrong are so ridiculously slim that, as a pragmatist, I feel justified in saying "yeah, no, that's bull****".

Alright.

I'm not claiming the latter. At all.

As said, premise 2 of my original argument was faulty and until I find an answer to the problem of miracles, I am going to have to rethink it. But I am NOT a gnostic atheist.

If you say so then there is no arguing it. lol

EDIT: Also who is hospes?

Hospes=Guest both literally and former SWF name wise. o.o (most people know me as Guest even though my username before this one was G. Fang)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But I have been kicked in the nuts before.... >.< albeit it happened by accident. I also know you're not the infallible messiah, but if you are, then how come I'm not home right now?

Yeah, you got kicked in the nuts once... How do you know it hurts every time? You can't!

Also I had other plans than to get you home. :V

Personally, I wouldn't be angry (but that's just because I never really anger easily), but I would call them out on it. If someone wants to believe in a fairy tale, then they can. But if sitting on their throne of "knowledge" that the tooth fairy exists and that I'm going to Cavity Hell for not acknowledging that "fact" then I will call them out on it, same as you call out people who "know" God exists. On the other side of this, while I may find it hard to believe how someone could believe in the tooth fairy, the fact is that I can't know if she exists or not, what if she's using my parents to do her work for her and then she reimburses that quarter my parents left me at a later time? That said I won't say they're wrong for believing in her existence.

See this is where I take issue. You are completely failing to do what a normal, rational person should do when they hear something like this: slam the breaks and say, "Hang on, that's bull****".

Futhermore, again, I just fail to see the difference between "I have faith in an idea" and "I know this idea to be true", and I'll explain why below.

So how does saying "You can't know that God exists." then jump into "This is why God can't exist"? The two don't really seem to follow from how I see it.
But I must digress, that would pretty much be taking away the ability discuss your viewpoint in the first place. x.x

Because of the basic burden of proof. "You can't know that God exists" doesn't mean "God cannot exist". It means "there is absolutely no reason for a rational person to believe god exists". Consider it the reverse of Pascal's wager, if you will. The problem is basically that when presented with an idea, normal procedure is to present it with a burden of proof to overcome. In the case of an unprovable idea, it's literally impossible to overcome this burden of proof, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to ever believe in it.

So by irrational belief, do you mean those who claim to know as an undeniable fact that God exists? Given the nature of religion the only reason why you would subscribe to a religion or lack thereof is if you believed that religion to be correct in its totality, this is not to say that the person knows for a fact that the religion they subscribe is correct (hence people who move from belief in a higher being to a belief that no higher being may exist), but rather they believe their religion to be correct (kind of the along the same lines that one believes a certain moral viewpoint but acknowledge that they can't know said moral viewpoint is true by conceding that an objective morality does not exist).

To be honest, I believe that there is nothing wrong with believing in someone or something that is unproven and unprovable, as long as one does close their mind and become intolerant to the other views present (e.g. knowing they're right and everyone else is wrong). It is not belief in religion that causes problems, its the close-mindedness of those that follow religion commonly fall into that is the issue.

Do you believe that 1+1=2? If so, congratulations! You are closed-minded to the ideas of those who believe that 1+1=3!

I have a serious issue with this whole idea of Gnostic vs. Agnostic acceptance of an idea.

Specifically when it comes to many theistic denominations, it has something to do with the fact that they demand absolute belief in god, to the point where they know there is a god. As in, in several religions, it's not enough to believe; you have to know. To the exclusion of all other ideas, evidence, what have you (for example William Lane Craig, which I will hold up as a prime example of just what religious brainwashing can do to a person).

But more generally, there's an issue with the gnostic-agnostic divide. Every idea you accept closes your mind to other ideas. It's completely impossible to believe in the theory of abiogenesis and at the same time believe in young earth creationism (at least, without logically inconsistent–and frankly ridiculous–doublethink). Truth itself is dogmatic; you cannot accept an idea while leaving your mind open to contradictory ideas.

And so we get to the point of the discussion. Accepting an idea as truth via belief is the same as accepting an idea through "knowledge". I would claim there is still a difference between rejecting a claim based on lack of evidence and rejecting a claim because you know it's wrong... But I simply do not accept the difference between gnostic and agnostic theists.

Because the Crusades are totally in full force today. (sarcasm)
Along with the point I mentioned earlier there is also the point I brought up in the social thread differentiating Levitical law from Grace. I'll edit it in later [can't right now, have a commitment to make] (directed at the "kill those who do not follow laws like"). As to the spreading word about His existence, that's just like you going around and spreading word about how He can't exist, so I don't see a problem there. As to the eternal torment part it's pretty much a choice to believe or not so *shrugs*. We can never know.

I didn't mean the crusades. I meant a hypothetical belief that enforces them. I specifically avoided mentioning the crusades because I knew something like this would come.

Also if you held the belief that humans need to be killed and eaten by you to go to Heaven, then to be honest I wouldn't have a problem with you truly "believing" that because you acknowledge that you may be wrong. Once you come around to actually "knowing" that you're belief is correct is when you no longer reason with them and that's when your belief becomes a problem.

Again though, where's the difference? I act on these actions as a belief just as much as I act on them as knowledge; I believe vs. I know is a trivial distinction. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and wants to expand on it, I'm aware that my ability to express these points here kinda suck...

Problem here is that a lot of stuff is falsifiable, I'll use the exampel you have below.

Physics will let you know that a 3,000 foot fall will let you do anything except let you live or not being shattered for the rest of your life. No such knowledge can be used to identify a being outside of our senses.

Uh... what? No, physics will let you know that a 3,000 foot fall has resulted in people dying, and that the current models of gravity and such, as we know them, will lead to a result. It has predictive power, but do we know that it remains constant over time? No, of course not. The predictive models are likely to give you the right answer, not guaranteed. Yes, if they fail, they are revised, but just because they have never failed over the course of a few millennia doesn't mean they couldn't fail tomorrow.
Speaking of predictive power: every single statement that puts god in the place of a natural phenomenon thus far has been proven wrong. DAMN that's a high rate of failure!

Simple, the same way one has morals yet acknowledges the non-existence of an objective morality. One believes that God exists and is loyal to Him despite the idea that they can't see him or have any sort of physical manifestation of Him existing. That's what one takes on faith. Just like we can't be sure whether mankind will pull through yet people still put faith that mankind will pull through. There's nothing out of the ordinary of considering that X item in question may or may not be true, but you believe X is true so you remain loyal to that idea.

I don't know God exists, but I take it on faith based on my experiences that he does so I remain loyal to Him. It's as simple as that.

See above...

And by "different view of reality" I suppose you mean those that would possibly argue with you that the sky is always a neon green? People who are insane have no concept of reality, they perception of anything is a myriad of conflicting principles, that's why they're insane. They believe "If I keep doing the same thing enough times then at some point a result different from the past 9001 tries will occur."

Eh... what? No, they have a different view of reality, seeing as it is, after all, subjective. But even then, that's not the only background for a difference in viewpoint; just watch a debate between a creationist and a scientist what they hold of a piece of evidence. They could just as well be right. They probably aren't, but whatever.

As to a "different view of reality" as in people who have different worldviews, then the whole world should be discriminating against each other. That would mean I should be looking up your address right now so I that I can come kill you and your entire family in the night. I believe in God, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you that if you stick your hand on burning stove enough times that you won't be burning your hand. Or that if you say the sky is neon green enough times that the sky will one day turn neon green.

Kill me? That seems a little extreme, no?

I don't resent anyone for holding any belief, even if it was "Everybody in the world must call Guest a douchebag before they can go to some eternal eden" You could even try pushing this belief onto those you know, whether they believe you or not is their deal, but believing something means that you are still open to other viewpoints, and as I've said before, whenever you come to "know" and close your mind off to these other viewpoints, that's when it becomes a problem. Almost like the mindset fueling slavery. "Them colored people are mindless and don't have souls, the only use they'll have is hard labor". It's an unfounded belief, and it spread, what made it a problem was that these believers supposedly "knew" they were in the right and were closed off to the notion they were wrong.

As said above, the difference between "believe" and "know" is both blurry and dubious.

 

[Sieguest]

Yeah, you got kicked in the nuts once... How do you know it hurts every time? You can't!

Also I had other plans than to get you home. :V

Chain of logic, surprised such a question would come from that's alway blubbering "WHY DO YOU DEFY LOGIC Aaoaighoaighoai"

<_<

See this is where I take issue. You are completely failing to do what a normal, rational person should do when they hear something like this: slam the breaks and say, "Hang on, that's bull****".

Okay, so someone believes different from me so I should say "That's bull****"? Okay, allow me to go tell the world that if they don't think exactly like me then they believe bull****.

What you're saying is fallacious. Why should I call BS on a person who believes different from me? Just because I think they're wrong? What if I'm wrong? Then what? Congratulations, I just made a fool of myself.

Futhermore, again, I just fail to see the difference between "I have faith in an idea" and "I know this idea to be true", and I'll explain why below.

Do you believe that God cannot exist?
Do you know that God cannot exist?

Because of the basic burden of proof. "You can't know that God exists" doesn't mean "God cannot exist". It means "there is absolutely no reason for a rational person to believe god exists". Consider it the reverse of Pascal's wager, if you will. The problem is basically that when presented with an idea, normal procedure is to present it with a burden of proof to overcome. In the case of an unprovable idea, it's literally impossible to overcome this burden of proof, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to ever believe in it.

This logic works in the reverse, "You can't know that God exists" doesn't mean "God can exist". It means "there is absolutely no reason for a rational person to believe god doesn't exist". Burden of proof flies both ways, if you claim God doesn't exist, then prove it. Same as if I said God does exist, I'd have to prove it. You can't prove He doesn't exist, and I can't prove He does exist. So how come the opposing side would go up in arms if I were to say "there is absolutely no reason for a rational person to believe God doesn't exist". Since neither can know, then how you attribute rationality to the one who doesn't believe God exists yet object when the opposite is stated?

Do you believe that 1+1=2? If so, congratulations! You are closed-minded to the ideas of those who believe that 1+1=3!

I believe and know that 1+1=2. Because I show someone who believes that 1+1=3 the error that they made, most likely with a model. Again, your example is bad because this is something that is able to proven, whereas we can't prove God.

I have a serious issue with this whole idea of Gnostic vs. Agnostic acceptance of an idea.

Specifically when it comes to many theistic denominations, it has something to do with the fact that they demand absolute belief in god, to the point where they know there is a god. As in, in several religions, it's not enough to believe; you have to know. To the exclusion of all other ideas, evidence, what have you (for example William Lane Craig, which I will hold up as a prime example of just what religious brainwashing can do to a person).

Nowhere in my upbringing was I told that I had to know that God existed, I mean heck, I've been told that I can't know and that to have physical proof was to mean that I would die, and that I must have faith and believe that he is God and accept him into my life *insert stuff you wouldn't want to read about here*. Now before you go and howl "but to accept him means you have to know" it does not. Accepting Him is being thoroughly convinced through circumstances that aren't the cold hard evidence the opposition desires that he exists so one chooses to believe in Him, they can't know that he exists, but they take it on faith and believe that He does. Reference mankind example again.

Unless I'm just a bad Christian....

But more generally, there's an issue with the gnostic-agnostic divide. Every idea you accept closes your mind to other ideas. It's completely impossible to believe in the theory of abiogenesis and at the same time believe in young earth creationism (at least, without logically inconsistent–and frankly ridiculous–doublethink). Truth itself is dogmatic; you cannot accept an idea while leaving your mind open to contradictory ideas.

I'm not saying you can believe in contradictory ideas. I'm saying that the difference between believing in an idea and knowing an ideas is that if you believe in an idea, you are open to consider the opposing sides views and either confirm or change your initial views.

If we couldn't leave our mind open to contradictory ideas then how does one acquire changes in thinking throughout a debate? How does one even come up with a coherent response to the opposing sides views in a debate? It can't happen if you don't allow yourself to try and understand the opposing side's view.

And so we get to the point of the discussion. Accepting an idea as truth via belief is the same as accepting an idea through "knowledge". I would claim there is still a difference between rejecting a claim based on lack of evidence and rejecting a claim because you know it's wrong... But I simply do not accept the difference between gnostic and agnostic theists.

And I simply disagree. You may accept the idea as truth, but once again, believing in something denotes that you leave yourself open to consider what others say while knowing denotes that the willingness to try and understand the other side is gone. I'll ask you this again:

Do you believe that God cannot exist?
Do you know that God cannot exist?
The inverse makes the same point for some others:
Do you believe that God exists?
Do you know that God exist?

There's also this point: How do debates even operate. Two sides believe clashing viewpoints on a topic and through discussion and the bringing forward of things they know, they reach consensus or at least a better understanding of the other side of the argument. If both sides knew their viewpoint was correct the debate would be paralyzed from the start.

I didn't mean the crusades. I meant a hypothetical belief that enforces them. I specifically avoided mentioning the crusades because I knew something like this would come.

Even entertaining the hypothetical belief, I'd be repeating the main contention in this discussion again. "Believe" vs. "Know".

Again though, where's the difference? I act on these actions as a belief just as much as I act on them as knowledge; I believe vs. I know is a trivial distinction. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and wants to expand on it, I'm aware that my ability to express these points here kinda suck...

When you act on an action in belief (assuming something not of the nature of God) then you can be shown to be in error. Citing your example of shooting someone in the head turning them to superman. When you act on an action in knowledge there is no showing them their error since they "know" they are right.

Uh... what? No, physics will let you know that a 3,000 foot fall has resulted in people dying, and that the current models of gravity and such, as we know them, will lead to a result.

... I'm not sure if the wording confused you but this is exactly what I said just in different terms.

It has predictive power, but do we know that it remains constant over time? No, of course not. The predictive models are likely to give you the right answer, not guaranteed. Yes, if they fail, they are revised, but just because they have never failed over the course of a few millennia doesn't mean they couldn't fail tomorrow.

That's like saying it's not guaranteed that if you try diving down to the ocean floor without any sort of protection that you'll be crushed by the pressure.

I'm supposed to be the illogical one here.

Speaking of predictive power: every single statement that puts god in the place of a natural phenomenon thus far has been proven wrong. DAMN that's a high rate of failure!

?

Eh... what? No, they have a different view of reality, seeing as it is, after all, subjective. But even then, that's not the only background for a difference in viewpoint; just watch a debate between a creationist and a scientist what they hold of a piece of evidence. They could just as well be right. They probably aren't, but whatever.

Do you think I should be put in an insane asylum? Would you consider one who has a completely irrational view of reality as insane? If so, does that then mean that anyone who believes God exist should be classified as insane? If so, why?

Kill me? That seems a little extreme, no?

*Shrugs* Seems perfectly rational to me, you don't think the same way I do so I should get rid of you and make the world a better place. I mean Hitler was just trying to rid the world of the horrible stain that is the existence of Jewish people right? I'll be a hero!

As said above, the difference between "believe" and "know" is both blurry and dubious.

And I believe the difference between "believe" and "know" is quite distinct and makes a huge impact on how we view things.