Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Pudding]

Apologize for the late reply, hopefully i'll not find any strawman or evasive ambiguous statements in your latest response to me.

Post numbers in this thread that state the position. Going in reverse order:
#261
#241
#217

I have read the three post and cannot see how you have elaborate "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Debatable. Side point, really.

Strawman:
Where have i say it's not a side point?

More like you refuse to look at what's already been clarified. Playing a game really. I could do the same with your posts which lack in clarification, but I choose to move things forward. You appear like you'd rather be stuck in your own ambiguity, projecting that onto me.

Still haven't been clarify after reading your three post, then now you're making more strawman.

That is on you. Why, I wonder do you keep trying if that is going to be your default position?

You're making more strawman and bold empty claims then ignore to response to the context of that quote of mine.
Where have i take your response out of context, quote mined and response to some of it then ignore the rest of it?

I wonder why do you even response if all you'll do is making strawman and bold empty claims then ignore to response to the context of that quote of mine.

Entirely on you, just like the creation of straw man positions.

Strawman and bold empty claims continue to go on.

That's cool. I don't appreciate such intellectual dishonesty anyway.

You yourself engage in such intellectual dishonesty but you say it's me who have such intellectual dishonesty?
As usual, strawman and bold empty claims continue to go on.

Thanks for the conversation, i cannot continue about it since you had made so many strawmans and bold empty claims and so frequently ignore to response to the context of my post and also because you'll probably continue to be so.

Let me predict how you'll response to my post: more strawman and bold empty claims.
Your strawmans and bold empty claims win.

bye

 

[Nefelie]

.

NewGuyOnTheBlock and Sapiens:

Have you ever heard or used the phrase: “I have faith in you” from one person to another?

What is that? What does it mean?

.

 

[Acim]

Field work is usually both. If you were a scientist, you'd understand that.

Nice stipulation there. All of your work is, or not? If not, then I would still contend it is ritualistic.

My guess is that you're not much up on the theory of science and that you're not overly familiar with Karl Popper's work.

I am, but find it is continually being updated. That's a good thing, but also sign of makeshift in overall aims.

Here's Satoshi Kanazawa writing in Psychology Today:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.

This last part is debatable. Many know this. The rest assume it exists objectively roughly the same for everyone and that isn't worth further debate.

The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Which is why I routinely ask for objective evidence for the physical universe, pretty much understanding philosophically that it can't be found. Just as an atheist might ask for physical proof of a (spiritual) deity, realizing it can't be provided. Yet, back in the philosophical realm, where all arguments (regardless of the endeavor) find their legs, is where the debate continues.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

But also helps understand the fundamental faith that science rests on. I call it fundamental faith, but am okay if it is referred to as trust/confidence unless one is actually wanting to engage in debate about matters of faith vs. confidence.

Once faith in the physical universe is accepted as no longer needing evidence (for the individual), I agree with many things about the rest of the fundamentals of scientific practice that you'd make note of. All of that agreement would be tentative and provisional.

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

That last part would be subjective assertion, or an argument that is philosophical, not scientific.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that every thing in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

Not sure how this relates to what was previously being argued, such as:
- science is not (ever) engaged in solemn practices, whereby any part of the practice is not routine, nor routinely formalized into a methodology. I am saying it very much is, and is therefore ritualistic. Because some aspects of practice are clearly not formalized, doesn't mean that it is thereby not a ritualistic endeavor, as the same could be said about other endeavors that have occasions (frequency as well) where the people following in that endeavor are not engaged in anything that is formalized.

or

- Zero doubt and 100% accuracy are claims that should never be made in proximity to the word science. Just a bizarre claim that you are saying every scientists on earth supports. Which is even more bizarre claim. I'd challenge just one to support it, wondering how first the 'should never' is being justified in relation to first part. Then wonder what this proximity is that is being noted. Sound as if we must be thousand feet away from the precious and ever so proper scientists who is having fun with their informal methodologies, so that we never make claims of anything being 100% accurate or having zero doubt. But ask for evidence of physical universe that is truly objective, and suddenly (metaphysical) crickets chirping.

or

- that science rests fundamentally on faith. This isn't saying a particular scientific theory rests entirely and solely on faith. If being read as that, it is lack of comprehension. It is saying the observers' perception of ANY phenomenon rests fundamentally on faith. And once accepted, without question as in zero doubts that this is the case, without a philosophical reason to explore any doubts (which philosophers are consistently engaged in), that the rest of the endeavor will be a mixture of reason and faith. Likely propping up the reason portion so as to make sure no one is stuck on the fundamental faith at work.

Me, I'm constantly wondering what, if anything, science has to do with theism? Why does its points enter into the debate when it's aims are never truly being argued as a way to support or detract from a theistic position? And the only thing that makes sense as to why, is that many are under impression that science doesn't rest on faith, and is therefore discovering fundamentals about the nature of 'reality' when it is more accurately attempting to explore/understand the reality of 'nature.' And bypassing the whole faith proposition so as to get on with the work that scientists love to do.

Rituals, and all.

 

[Acim]

I have read the three post and cannot see how you have elaborate "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".
<snip>
Still haven't been clarify after reading your three post, then now you're making more straw man.

One assertion says you cannot see the elaboration, the other implies I haven't clarified it, thus asserting I am creating straw man. Have already brought up 3 posts where it was clarified. But seeing that you won't let this go, I'll restate it in this post, saying some to a lot of what was already stated and doing my best to clarify it.

A definition of god(s): an adored, admired, or influential person
*Not the only definition, and not the primary definition, but is a definition from (my) dictionary.

I would note that many believers in god(s) understand such a being to be highly influential in their lives. I think the adored/admired part is a given and understood by all. The primary thing that makes this definition different from others is that god here is a person, not some spiritual entity that is 'out of sight.' Though even that is debatable, and perhaps more accurate to say this definition is suggesting the person is with us now (alive) whereas primary definition generally assumes that Creator God is not with us right now in physical form, as a person. But is personal, has personhood to Him (or Her). All of which is debatable and not fully agreed upon by all believers in (Creator) God.

With this third tier definition, I am going with the notion that for some, god(s) are human beings that are alive right now. What all defines them accurately as god(s) would likely not be 100% agreed upon by all people who hold to this type of belief (that living humans can be/are gods). But the dictionary definition goes with definition of 'adored, admired or influential.' In this moment, that is all we have to work from. I'm open to that being added to or even taken away from, though might wish to dispute such additions/subtractions, and will comfortably resort to the fact that this is a dictionary definition of god(s).

Human parents are beings who are creators of other beings, their human children.
Human parents are observably influential in the raising of their children/creation.
Human parents may be, in many cases, arguably all cases, beings that are admired or adored by their creation (children).

Therefore, us who are observing this are plausibly observing a theistic relationship. A theistic relationship would be belief in existence of god or gods intervening in or sustaining a personal relation with creation.

As I said previously, "it kind of seems like we've set it up that even with definitions of god, we wouldn't even know it, if it presented itself to us."
By 'we've set it up' I mean we've set the plausible reality of God(s) up with definitions that even when observed, we don't know it as such. We can, just as well call it a non-theistic relationship, thereby denying that parents of children are a) creators of children, b) not influential, and c) neither adored or admired (in at least some cases). I feel capable of filtering it through this plausible denial, though do actually think it fits well with an observable theistic relationship.

Me, I have high degree of faith in fellow humans as gods. It is barely understood via the dictionary definitions. It is fairly well defined in my understanding, but for me personally, not a perfect understanding (I wish it was). I am clear on the idea that humans as Gods are not equal to Creator God, we did not create ourselves. Also fairly clear on idea that the reason we think we cannot see Creator God is because of how we (or perhaps more accurately, how I) filter reality in understanding God within Self / Others.

But all that is stuff to perhaps be elaborated on in another post, at another time.

I'm just glad once again to add to the discussion in what I fully believe to be reasonable fashion, despite the naysayers and those who toss around claims of straw man as if its the only retort they have.

 

[Sapiens]

.

NewGuyOnTheBlock and Sapiens:

Have you ever heard or used the phrase: “I have faith in you” from one person to another?

What is that? What does it mean?

.

It is an incredibly weak solely semantic red herring that wastes our time.

Bayesian probability as a framework provides much greater clarity with no loss of accuracy or precision.

...

A definition of god(s): an adored, admired, or influential person
*Not the only definition, and not the primary definition, but is a definition from (my) dictionary.

Stooping desperately to a third meaning, and one uncommonly used or recognized at that is nothing more that an attempt at a rather meaningless semantic argument that is unsupported by anything but your grasping at a semantic straw. Parents are not "gods" they are parents, when you have a perfectly good word for something and go searching for another with the clear intent of using an alternate unusual definition of that word, you have revealed that even you understand how weak your basic tenet is.

 

[Nefelie]

It is an incredibly weak solely semantic red herring that wastes our time.

Why? Because it's "inconvenient" to answer?

You do realize that the English language is still alive and therefore cannot be strictly “framed” in a dictionary, right?

Would you care to try again to answer to my question?

.

 

[ArtieE]

Why? Because it's "inconvenient" to answer?

No, it's because if you pick a definition that would define Justin Bieber to be an actual god we can only feel sorry for you. You see, when teenage girls say that Justin Bieber is a "god" they don't mean an actual god like Zeus or the Christian God.

 

[Nefelie]

No, it's because if you pick a definition that would define Justin Bieber to be an actual god we can only feel sorry for you. You see, when teenage girls say that Justin Bieber is a "god" they don't mean an actual god like Zeus or the Christian God.

Nice try.

Justin Bieber is "god" metaphorically, but is “I have faith in you” also a metaphor…?

I don’t know about you, but when I tell my kid that I have faith in her (that she can do this or that), I’m being 100% literal.

.

 

[Nefelie]

And, since you like dictionaries so much:

have faith in someone
to believe someone; to trust someone to do or be what is claimed. I have faith in you. I know you will try your best. We have faith in you and know you can do the job well.
The Free Dictionary
​

.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nice try.

Justin Bieber is "god" metaphorically, but is “I have faith in you” also a metaphor…?

I don’t know about you, but when I tell my kid that I have faith in her (that she can do this or that), I’m being 100% literal.

.

Two different meanings of faith.

Although I must say that any discussion that centers on the word "god" is nearly certain to lead to confusion and waste of time.

 

[ArtieE]

And, since you like dictionaries so much:

have faith in someone
to believe someone; to trust someone to do or be what is claimed. I have faith in you. I know you will try your best. We have faith in you and know you can do the job well.
The Free Dictionary
​

.

"Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration,revelation, or authority. The word faith usually refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence, while another position holds that it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.

Although the words faith and belief are sometimes erroneously conflated[citation needed]and used as synonyms, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as defined above."
http://www.wow.com/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

Simply see it this way: Faith is a belief that doesn't require any actual logical or rational reasoning or evidence supporting it. If you say to your kid "I have faith in you" what you are actually saying is "I have unconditional belief in you".

 

[ArtieE]

And, since you like dictionaries so much:

have faith in someone
to believe someone; to trust someone to do or be what is claimed. I have faith in you. I know you will try your best. We have faith in you and know you can do the job well.
The Free Dictionary
​

.

*leap of faith
Fig. acceptance of an idea or conclusion largely on faith. (*Typically: be ~; make ~; require~.) We had to make quite a leap of faith to accept his promise after the last time he let usdown."
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Guess why we say "leap of faith" instead of "leap of belief"?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Not accurate. That's how you are positioning my view so that you can then be seen as easily defeating what you think my position is.

That is because you continually juixtapose the primary definition of "faith" into my statement, "I have no faith". That is not the definition I am using. I am using the definition "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." That is also in the dictionary.

Thus, the breakdown in communication is not on my end of the discussion. You are hearing the word "faith' and imposing your own definition of "faith" (or the primary definition of "faith") instead of listening to what I am actually saying.

In this case, I am not trying to "defeat your position". I am trying ... and failing ... to help you reach an understanding of my position so that you can actually debate it.

So, I will try again.

The secondary definition of "faith" is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." That is the definition I am using. I state emphatically: "I am sure I am an atheist because I have no faith".

Let's pause for a moment and let that sink in. Ponder it for a bit, if you will. I say, "I have no 'belief, strong or otherwise, in god or the doctrines of religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof'". I did NOT state "I have no 'strong confidence in anything'".

Let's let that sink in a bit before we continue.

Has it sunk in yet? I assume that if you are reading this line, you have paused for a moment to let that sink in so that maybe we can continue.

That is my first position.

My second position is this:

Having "strong confidence" based on "empirical evidence" is not playing by the same rules as having "strong confidence" of a given thing based on past performance and behavior; and having "strong confidence" on a given thing based on subjective experiences, oral and written traditions, etc etc. Which is why the allegory I have regurgitated: When my car fails to start, I take it to a mechanic instead of deciding that tomorrow, it might work. As a former believer, when my prayers didn't achieve a desired result, I assumed my prayers were answered anyway (just with a "no" or not in the way I anticipated and yaddayaddayadda) and the next time I wanted a desired result, I prayed again. Yet even then, when my car failed to start, I didn't just hope or anticipate that tomorrow's result would be different -- I took it to a mechanic. So even as one who once had "faith", when I had "faith", I didn't apply the same rules This is why the "good" in "evidence" and "reason"; I have "good reason" to believe that I will fall while falling off a building or that our bodies are comprised of cells or etc. etc. due to the consistency of information and evidence pointing to these conclusions. I have no "good reason" to believe in spirit, soul, god, magic, etc. because of the inconsistency of the evidence; and most often, the empirical evidence is heavily weighed against this. This is not "faith"; or, again, to be specific again, not the same kind of "faith" employed by the religious. You can stop pretending that it is the same kind of faith; as the behaviors of the religious in taking their sick to doctors and their broken cars to mechanics betrays the fact that the religious, themselves, are not playing by the same rules in applying "faith" to inanimate objects, laws of physics, trust in their spouse or their belief in spirit, soul, god, metaphysics, etc. So having "faith" the you will fall if you lose your balance on the side of a cliff, or having "faith" that your spouse will remain faithful, or having "faith" that you have a spirit destined for another plane of blissful existence are utterly incomparable kinds of "faith"; and only one of those kinds of "faith" are applicable to my statement:

"I am sure I am an atheist and I have no faith".

I've never worked so hard in my life at getting such intelligent people to grasp such a very simple statement.

Sheesh.

 

[Acim]

Stooping desperately to a third meaning,

Citing a dictionary definition is not stooping desperately. Perhaps it is for you, but the 2nd definition in most dictionaries is the religious faith stipulation. Is that also desperate when entered into discussion on faith?

and one uncommonly used or recognized

I actually hear people mention that type of god often. Rock gods, sports gods and many other endeavors where talent reaches such a supreme level it is almost the de facto assertion. Thing is, it isn't objective. To some, Prince is a music god, to others he isn't worth listening to.

I used it because it is actually highly applicable to the parent/child relationship.

at that is nothing more that an attempt at a rather meaningless semantic argument that is unsupported by anything but your grasping at a semantic straw.

Lack of comprehension much?

Parents are not "gods" they are parents, when you have a perfectly good word for something and go searching for another with the clear intent of using an alternate unusual definition of that word, you have revealed that even you understand how weak your basic tenet is.

Parents are clearly gods by the definition.

Relying on religious faith as the only possible definition for faith, when dictionaries deem that 2nd tier, shows how very little certain people actually understand what actual faith entails.

 

[Acim]

No, it's because if you pick a definition that would define Justin Bieber to be an actual god we can only feel sorry for you. You see, when teenage girls say that Justin Bieber is a "god" they don't mean an actual god like Zeus or the Christian God.

That would be a non sequitur.

Or one would have to find definition for 'actual god' for it to make sense in the way you are stipulating. People who use this term are actually claiming this person/being is more influential to them than Zeus or Christian God, hence the Lennon controversial comment about him being more popular than Jesus, lasting longer in (mainstream) culture than Jesus.

The definition is: adored, admired or influential person. I see the influential part as being highly relevant to all definitions of god(s). Applicable to Christian God and Zeus. I already spelled this out before, but apparently bears repeating as some are attempting to take it down 30 notches because they dislike/disagree with the denotation.

 

[Willamena]

No, it's because if you pick a definition that would define Justin Bieber to be an actual god we can only feel sorry for you. You see, when teenage girls say that Justin Bieber is a "god" they don't mean an actual god like Zeus or the Christian God.

Faith doesn't make something a god. And what one has faith in doesn't change what faith means.

 

[Willamena]

"Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration,revelation, or authority. The word faith usually refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence, while another position holds that it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.

Although the words faith and belief are sometimes erroneously conflated[citation needed]and used as synonyms, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as defined above."
http://www.wow.com/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

Simply see it this way: Faith is a belief that doesn't require any actual logical or rational reasoning or evidence supporting it. If you say to your kid "I have faith in you" what you are actually saying is "I have unconditional belief in you".

It doesn't say that. It says that faith is held despite reason and evidence.

 

[Acim]

So, I will try again.

The secondary definition of "faith" is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." That is the definition I am using. I state emphatically: "I am sure I am an atheist because I have no faith".

Let's pause for a moment and let that sink in. Ponder it for a bit, if you will. I say, "I have no 'belief, strong or otherwise, in god or the doctrines of religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof'". I did NOT state "I have no 'strong confidence in anything'".

Let's let that sink in a bit before we continue.

Has it sunk in yet? I assume that if you are reading this line, you have paused for a moment to let that sink in so that maybe we can continue.

Before continuing, I would say in sinking in, the apprehension part is significant consideration for me on that definition. As one who was once agnostic, for many years, I didn't move to (strong) theism based on apprehension, nor lack of proof.

But I do recognize that it sure as heck seems like some theistic people hold this type of faith. A blind faith. One that when confronted with any sort of reasoning, they just resort to this notion that their beliefs allow them to hold faith in God without any need / desire to support that if confronted with anything that would seemingly detract from it. I would gather that such confrontations make them quite apprehensive, emotionally speaking.

In letting it sink in just a bit further, it does seemingly have implications for atheism to consider that apprehension. The 'I lack belief' sound bite position, not so much. But considering this is the particular belief (religious faith rather than primary definition of faith) would also mean atheists, like myself, don't have that apprehension. I truly believe, I am not the only theist like this. I can anticipate some debate points around this, but IMO, they would apply to atheists as well. I think both of us would fare well in such a debate, but depends on how all that is being framed/discussed.

That is my first position.

My second position is this:

Having "strong confidence" based on "empirical evidence" is not playing by the same rules as having "strong confidence" of a given thing based on past performance and behavior; and having "strong confidence" on a given thing based on subjective experiences, oral and written traditions, etc etc. Which is why the allegory I have regurgitated: When my car fails to start, I take it to a mechanic instead of deciding that tomorrow, it might work. As a former believer, when my prayers didn't achieve a desired result, I assumed my prayers were answered anyway (just with a "no" or not in the way I anticipated and yaddayaddayadda) and the next time I wanted a desired result, I prayed again. Yet even then, when my car failed to start, I didn't just hope or anticipate that tomorrow's result would be different -- I took it to a mechanic. So even as one who once had "faith", when I had "faith", I didn't apply the same rules This is why the "good" in "evidence" and "reason"; I have "good reason" to believe that I will fall while falling off a building or that our bodies are comprised of cells or etc. etc. due to the consistency of information and evidence pointing to these conclusions. I have no "good reason" to believe in spirit, soul, god, magic, etc. because of the inconsistency of the evidence; and most often, the empirical evidence is heavily weighed against this. This is not "faith"; or, again, to be specific again, not the same kind of "faith" employed by the religious. You can stop pretending that it is the same kind of faith; as the behaviors of the religious in taking their sick to doctors and their broken cars to mechanics betrays the fact that the religious, themselves, are not playing by the same rules in applying "faith" to inanimate objects, laws of physics, trust in their spouse or their belief in spirit, soul, god, metaphysics, etc. So having "faith" the you will fall if you lose your balance on the side of a cliff, or having "faith" that your spouse will remain faithful, or having "faith" that you have a spirit destined for another plane of blissful existence are utterly incomparable kinds of "faith"; and only one of those kinds of "faith" are applicable to my statement:

"I am sure I am an atheist and I have no faith".

I've never worked so hard in my life at getting such intelligent people to grasp such a very simple statement.

Sheesh.

I still see it as you actually stating, "I am sure I am an atheist and I have no RELIGIOUS faith."

Not up for dissecting your wall of text this time as I have previously already spoke to / refuted those points which do deal with actual (primary definition) faith.

 

[ArtieE]

It doesn't say that. It says that faith is held despite reason and evidence.

It says "belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence" and that covers my statement.

 

[Demonslayer]

Parents are clearly gods by the definition.

So the only people who aren't Gods are those who haven't had kids? There are a buttload of Gods on this planet. If there are billions of Gods, who cares about Gods at all? Your definition of God makes the term mundane.

I've got like 100 Gods living on my street.

This weekend I beat God at golf by 4 strokes. I'm awesome!