Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Kilgore Trout]

So you think there's a 50/50% chance either way? Not even so much as 51/49 towards atheism?

I don't have enough information to apply a probability either way. Do you understand that not knowing something doesn't imply that you think there is a 50/50 probability?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The best explanation would be that some human familiar with the English language wrote it. Nobody rational would suggest that a god wrote it would they?

so you pick ID over natural mechanism. - even though there is no evidence of intelligent agency

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Could be anything imaginable.
Your guess is as good (not quite) as mine.

so nothing testable then..

 

[1137]

I don't have enough information to apply a probability either way. Do you understand that not knowing something doesn't imply that you think there is a 50/50 probability?

So you're convinced 0% either way but don't find them equally likely? Just answer the question: do you find 0 or 1+ gods more likely? Literally any abstract thinker aware of religious philosophy has a position on this, either 0, +1, or a 50/50 chance either is true. How about you just answer the question already?

 

[Revoltingest]

so nothing testable then..

Not that I know of.
Maybe that'll change, eh.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So you're convinced 0% either way but don't find them equally likely? Just answer the question: do you find 0 or 1+ gods more likely? Literally any abstract thinker aware of religious philosophy has a position on this, either 0, +1, or a 50/50 chance either is true. How about you just answer the question already?

I did answer your question. I can only assume you don't understand how determining probabilities works.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Occam's razor wouldn't suggest any such thing. The only thing we know of that writes is human. The very existence of writing would be evidence that a human was there. We've never had any evidence that waves could randomly write messages. Thus the simplest explanation is that a human wrote that message.

The simplest explanation in one scenario is not always the simplest explanation in another.

But you concede it's possible, if the waves wash up enough random patterns, 4 discernible simple letters can be spelled eventually, that's the multiverse rationale after all

It's not a simple explanation, if the island is heavily guarded and monitored offshore, all lengths are gone to to prevent anyone ever setting foot there.

Change the analogy any way you like, how utterly certain would you have to be, that no human was ever there, before you'd accept the random action of the waves?

Can you be this sure of no God?

 

[Falvlun]

So you're convinced 0% either way but don't find them equally likely? Just answer the question: do you find 0 or 1+ gods more likely? Literally any abstract thinker aware of religious philosophy has a position on this, either 0, +1, or a 50/50 chance either is true. How about you just answer the question already?

An Agnostic, in the popular sense we all grew up knowing, not the fancy philosophical version, would be the 50/50 person. Someone who finds either position just as likely or unlikely. They do exist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not that I know of.
Maybe that'll change, eh.

Okay, but do you still think 'what' is more probable, even when currently untestable? Is there anything other than personal preference that leads you to this calculation of higher probability?

 

[ArtieE]

so you pick ID over natural mechanism. - even though there is no evidence of intelligent agency

LOL. See post 220.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

LOL. See post 220.

lots of love to you too!

 

[gnostic]

My beef is with the argument in the op, atheism pretending that it is simply the position of uncertainty. Sure we can be uncertain either way, that's what makes leaning either way a belief, not a certain claim (outside of strong/gnostic (a)theism). The original gumball argument pretends that uncertainty about odd vs even is the atheist position, but that's uncertainty, agnosticism. The only way to properly, non fallaciously use the example is full vs empty, because atheism is nor arguing over what gods exist, but that it's unlikely any of them do.

Atheism, by definition, is only focused on "belief", e.g. "I don't believe in god (or gods)", so it is not about "knowing", which are the focus of gnostic and agnostic positions.

But we are humans, so we are far more complex, so we are often cannot be defined by one definition or one label.

Hence, an atheist can be gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist. And the same can be applied to gnostic theist or agnostic theist.

I have no problem with atheists being gnostic or agnostic atheists, or with atheists being just "atheist". My problems are with your unfair and over-simplified analogy, and that you would call "atheists" liars, just because they don't fit into what "you" think any atheist should be.

And when atheists do respond to you, instead of learning from what their own positions are, you immediately tried to put the badge of "dishonesty" label on them, without considering what they have to say.

You say this...

I'm simply interested in honesty, honest positions and honest discussion.

...but given that you don't give consideration to what atheists have to honestly say or you ignoring what they are saying, then you are really not interested in honest discussion after all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, but do you still think 'what' is more probable, even when currently untestable? Is there anything other than personal preference that leads you to this calculation of higher probability?

No doubt personal preference plays a role in people's preferences.
I've no need to believe in deities, so I'm not drawn to them.
And since there's no evidence for them, I don't believe in them, ie, I'm ignorant.

 

[Falvlun]

But you concede it's possible, if the waves wash up enough random patterns, 4 discernible simple letters can be spelled eventually, that's the multiverse rationale after all

It's not a simple explanation, if the island is heavily guarded and monitored offshore, all lengths are gone to to prevent anyone ever setting foot there.

Change the analogy any way you like, how utterly certain would you have to be, that no human was ever there, before you'd accept the random action of the waves?

Can you be this sure of no God?

Just wanted to point out that "naturalistic mechanism" isn't always the answer to Occam's Razor.

As for your question, I think if there was writing found on Mars, then I would be utterly certain that a human didn't write it. Then my belief in aliens would get a pretty hefty boost.

 

[viole]

I am indeed an a-fariest, I believe that there are no fairies in the universe. I'm also agnosticism in that I can't know whether there are or not with absolute certainty, which is exactly why it's a belief. Thank you for the good example in support of my point

And that is exactly where the problem lies. The false dichotomy between being dead sure and believing.

Not being sure, does not entail belief. Knowing something, for instance, does not entail believing in what we know and neither being sure of what we know.

For instance, I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. I also know that apples fall down when they leave their tree and don't ever fly away to the moon. I do not believe it. I know it. Yet, I am not 100% sure that this is the case. I never checked all apples, after all.

Same with god. My level of knowledge that He does not exist does not require belief. I know HE does not exist, in the same way I know there are no violations of the apple falling to the ground scenario.

Am I absolutely certain about my knowledge? Nope.

But being agnostic about God existence would be as odd as being agnostic about the existence of apples flying to the moon when they are ripe. At least from my vantage point.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

There's no such thing as gnostic atheists.

Why not?

If agnostic atheist is possible, then isn't it possible to be gnostic atheist?

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, but do you still think 'what' is more probable, even when currently untestable? Is there anything other than personal preference that leads you to this calculation of higher probability?

We're covering old ground now.
I just don't see good reason to believe in gods.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just wanted to point out that "naturalistic mechanism" isn't always the answer to Occam's Razor.

As for your question, I think if there was writing found on Mars, then I would be utterly certain that a human didn't write it. Then my belief in aliens would get a pretty hefty boost.

I'd agree there, we live in a world with the phenomena of both natural mechanisms and creative intelligence. Which one we apply as the simplest explanation depends on the frame of reference right?,
and we simply don't have one for how universes are 'usually' created.

So invoking the possibility of ID is not an extra assumption, but forbidding it is adding an extra unfounded restriction

 

[1137]

I did answer your question. I can only assume you don't understand how determining probabilities works.

Well, as you apparently don't lean towards a godless universe, in philosophical terms you are simply not an atheist. Now I get why atheists pretend they're agnostic, but why is an agnostic pretending he's atheist?

 

[1137]

Atheism, by definition, is only focused on "belief", e.g. "I don't believe in god (or gods)", so it is not about "knowing", which are the focus of gnostic and agnostic positions.

But we are humans, so we are far more complex, so we are often cannot be defined by one definition or one label.

Hence, an atheist can be gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist. And the same can be applied to gnostic theist or agnostic theist.

I have no problem with atheists being gnostic or agnostic atheists, or with atheists being just "atheist". My problems are with your unfair and over-simplified analogy, and that you would call "atheists" liars, just because they don't fit into what "you" think any atheist should be.

And when atheists do respond to you, instead of learning from what their own positions are, you immediately tried to put the badge of "dishonesty" label on them, without considering what they have to say.

You say this...


...but given that you don't give consideration to what atheists have to honestly say or you ignoring what they are saying, then you are really not interested in honest discussion after all.

I can't call a dishonest position dishonest? If I post about evolution on a creationism forum, and all the creationist go nuts telling me how I'm wrong, does that really show that evolution is wrong? This is exactly what you're saying here.