Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Guy Threepwood]

So, you truly have no concept of evolution at all huh? I don't mean this to sound rude, its hard to tell over the internet sometimes. However if you dont know the origins of dogs are wolves, and they evolved from wolves, then I am assuming you think pugs were running about, and survived, for around 60 million years? Just, truly think about that for a moment. Have you never heard of interbreeding and how that changes characteristics of an animal like a dog? I find it very odd someone could not believe in basic evolution when its there for literally anyone to see during this day and age.

Then you may wish to lend your superior understanding of evolution to this guy, and point out where he goofed up.

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

I would also love to know what this extraordinary evidence you have for God is. It should be better than me being able to go to a dog show and examine each dogs lineage, and seeing with my own eyes how they changed up til this point.

The best kind, personal experience!

I can go to an old car show and see the same thing; similar designs, shared traits, even redundant vestigial features, and if the model T is the oldest car they have, I might be tempted to declare that the common ancestor of all cars. In either case, we are speculating are we not? It's okay to consider the subject of evolution, and be honest, and say 'we don't know' isn't it?

 

[Falvlun]

That would be true. UNTIL someone comes along and argues that biological evolution is just a belief and therefore no different than creationism.

It's still a belief, even then. At that point, you explain the differences in reasoning, the scientific method, and the importance of evidence.

Are you suggesting that someone should believe in something which hasn't been defined? Now that's silly.

Not that they should, but that they could.

If you are ignorant about XYZ, is it not possible for you to have beliefs about XYZ that you don't know about? If you have no concept of XYZ, how can you make any claims whatsoever about what you do or don't believe regarding XYZ?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't see how you can assume that. A person can have a list of things they consider gods and not-gods without necessarily having the conceptual framework to tie everything together.

You're right. People could have lists of things with no idea what the overarching theme is.

But these people would not be able to add a god or not-god to either list unless they receive that information from someone else.

They wouldn't be able to reject anything claimed to be a god by someone, unless someone else has already told them that that thing is a not-god.

But then what? They have the same thing in both lists, a logical impossibility. How would they choose which list the thing actually belongs in? Without a general concept, they wouldn't have anyway to determine it themselves.

I can't say what you've been talking about, but when I talk about gods, I'm only talking about a discrete set of things. I can't speak to any conceptual framework that links them together (and that you'd need to reject "gods" as an entire category). Why is Mercury a god but Gabriel isn't? I have no idea - that's just the way it is.

A perfect definition is not necessary for a general framework. Individual exceptions happen all the time in just about everything. Why shouldn't gods be the same?

Nobody has ever suggested to me that a pencil is a god. Why they haven't done that... you'd have to ask them.

Pencils are gods. Your move.

And likewise, anyone who does not have a god belief is an atheist.

This has nothing to do with what you responded to was about. You stated "If "god" has an objective definition, then either:

- pantheists are mistaken atheists, or
- atheists are mistaken monotheists (and classical monotheists are mistaken polytheists).

Which is it?"

My response boiled down to "neither, because pantheists can define the universe as god, but atheists need not accept their definition."

I know them, but as a discrete - and incomplete - set. You said that "god" is meaningful and you seem to disagree with me when I say that I can only define the concept "god" with a list of gods... so have at it: describe this concept.

It's been described to you before.

 

[Blackdog22]

Then you may wish to lend your superior understanding of evolution to this guy, and point out where he goofed up.

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable




The best kind, personal experience!

I can go to an old car show and see the same thing; similar designs, shared traits, even redundant vestigial features, and if the model T is the oldest car they have, I might be tempted to declare that the common ancestor of all cars. In either case, we are speculating are we not? It's okay to consider the subject of evolution, and be honest, and say 'we don't know' isn't it?

That article isn't debunking evolution from wolves, its debunking the idea that wolves were domesticated to turn into dogs, but they both likely shared a common ancestor they would of evolved from. Its just further discussing its origins as science learns more about its genetic makeup and lineage. My position however was on the basics of evolution. Right at this moment dogs are being bred with differences to their makeup. They are being perfected and changed as breed standards change. The first black man who ever slept with a chinese women was also a part of evolution. They produced a child that was different to what was known before, it was a change. The kid wasn't quite black, nor quite Chinese, he was a mix, he was different, there was change. You truly dont believe in that though? You don't believe things can change in anyway whatsoever? I find this hard to believe. Because that is all it takes to begin to believe in evolution on some level, from there you can look at extraordinary ways things can change. Just check out fruit flies for example, they have some very interesting findings you can go and see for yourself right at this moment if you so desire.

 

[Blackdog22]

The best kind, personal experience!

I can go to an old car show and see the same thing; similar designs, shared traits, even redundant vestigial features, and if the model T is the oldest car they have, I might be tempted to declare that the common ancestor of all cars. In either case, we are speculating are we not? It's okay to consider the subject of evolution, and be honest, and say 'we don't know' isn't it?

Personal experience I can't say much on. If something happened, that verified your ideas of what exists out in the nether, then that is something just for you. I will say however it isn't very compelling, not that I am saying you think it should be to anyone but yourself. The problem with personal experience is every Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Mormon, Scientologist, Greek Mythologist, Satanist, Hindu, Bahai', Spiritualist, Wiccan, etc, etc, etc all of then. Every single last one ive ever spoken too has had personal experience. I mean looking at this objectively, what exactly do you think is happening here? Is everyone crazy but you? How do you determine that? Are they not just as human as you? If they are capable of error then how aren't you? Doesn't this seem more like evidence that this is part of the human condition and has no effect on reality or the truth of anything? I dunno, it definitely doesn't spell "truth" out to me, but when being objective, how can it?

As to the cars, evolution does exist in cars, I mean, they change from year to year. You will get commercials about "The Next Evolution of the Mazda!!" This is indeed still evolution, its things changing. It isn't evolution in the natural sense, but it is an evolution. This is all that is needed for you say "I believe in evolution."

Now, if we want to discuss whether evolution brought about everything we see around us, that is another discussion entirely, but that has no bearing whether evolution, at its core, exists.

 

[ArtieE]

There are "standard charts?" Which standards committee put these charts out? No, wait, you're just talking about other people's opinions that you prefer.

OK, show me then where this chart is wrong?

 

[ArtieE]

We can go around in circles on this one ArtieE. You and I view it differently. I understand what you are saying, I think you are incorrect. This does not logically follow. If you evaluate the proposition "god does not exist" as not true you are accepting it is false.

Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god does not exist" to be not true. They haven't evaluated the proposition "god does not exist" to be true.

Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be not true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be false.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be not true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be false.

Weak atheists haven't taken a stand on whether any of the propositions are true, not true or false!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Then you may wish to lend your superior understanding of evolution to this guy, and point out where he goofed up.

Freedman AH, et al. Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genetics 10(1):e1004016. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Press release from the University of Chicago.

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

You might want to more closely examine your sources.

"Based on their analysis, the team concluded that dogs and wolves parted evolutionary paths sometime between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago."

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god does not exist" to be not true. They haven't evaluated the proposition "god does not exist" to be true.

Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be not true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god exists" to be false.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be not true.
Weak atheists haven't evaluated the proposition "god doesn't exist" to be false.

Weak atheists haven't taken a stand on whether any of the propositions are true, not true or false!

And yet, the question is one of belief. No type of atheists believe in deities, so that means they do not believe in deities. That is not a fence sit, that's a default to 'no'.

 

[ArtieE]

You cannot combine 3+1 or 3+2.

1 is "I believe that gods exist"
2 is "I believe that gods don't exist."
3 is "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I do not believe that gods don't exist."

They are mutually exclusive.

1 & 2 could then be split into gnostic/agnostic categories. But that isn't necessary to do up front.

Now you have changed the list from the original one I responded to.

 

[ArtieE]

And yet, the question is one of belief. No type of atheists believe in deities, so that means they do not believe in deities. That is not a fence sit, that's a default to 'no'.

It's a default to "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist". Which means sitting on the fence not having jumped down to the side of "I believe gods exist" or the other side "I believe gods don't exist".

 

[ArtieE]

I've tried for years to explain that contradiction, to no avail.

No wonder, since there is no contradiction.

 

[ArtieE]

1. Sure I have, we are at 5 so far. Do you expect an exhaustive list?

I must have missed something... here is a list of the things I need to believe to be a strong atheist. My "belief system".

1. I need to believe that gods don't exist.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Can you fill out the rest I need to believe to be a strong atheist?

 

[Falvlun]

Now you have changed the list from the original one I responded to.

I apologize. I just wanted to explain what "yes, I do" and "no, I don't" meant. I think 3 stayed the same.

Do you have any criticism of the revised list?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It's a default to "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist". Which means sitting on the fence not having jumped down to the side of "I believe gods exist" or the other side "I believe gods don't exist".

Belief is a binary. One believes, or one does not.

 

[ArtieE]

I apologize. I just wanted to explain what "yes, I do" and "no, I don't" meant. I think 3 stayed the same.

Do you have any criticism of the revised list?

Your revised list was:

1 is "I believe that gods exist"
2 is "I believe that gods don't exist."
3 is "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I do not believe that gods don't exist."

This list is correct.

1. Theist.
2. Strong atheist.
3. Weak atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Belief is a binary. One believes, or one does not.

1. I believe gods exist.
2. I don't believe gods exist.

1. I believe gods exist.
2. I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. (Fence sitter).
3. I believe gods don't exist.

 

[Falvlun]

Your revised list was:

1 is "I believe that gods exist"
2 is "I believe that gods don't exist."
3 is "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I do not believe that gods don't exist."

This list is correct.

1. Theist.
2. Strong atheist.
3. Weak atheist.

Hey, common ground! That's great.

We just disagree on what to call the 3 positions.

In the spirit of compromise, i could agree to your terminology... if the 3 labels stayed distinct. The problem, as I see it, is that inevitably 2&3 get collapsed into one label: atheist.

 

[ArtieE]

Hey, common ground! That's great.

We just disagree on what to call the 3 positions.

In the spirit of compromise, i could agree to your terminology... if the 3 labels stayed distinct. The problem, as I see it, is that inevitably 2&3 get collapsed into one label: atheist.

That's no problem. Strong atheists are just a subset of all atheists.

 

[Falvlun]

That's no problem. Strong atheists are just a subset of all atheists.

...And the inevitable lumping together of 2&3

Let me ask you this, Artie. What makes #3, objectively speaking, atheist and not theist? 3 has just as much in common with the theist as it does with your strong atheist. Could not the theists say "anyone who doesn't believe that gods don't exist is a weak theist"?

That's why I think a neutral word is better suited for #3.