Nontheist

[Kfox]

No, if I am subjectively certain, then I don't have to doubt if it is an objective fact, because the standard is that I am subjectively certain. All truth requires, is that I am subjectively certain as that is the end justification for truth and knowledge.
I.e. I have objective knowledge, that I am XY, because I am subjectively certain of that and thus it is true and can't be doubted.

You are XY? I suspect you are responding to the wrong thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are not reading what it says. It's not about truth and false. It's about believe and not believe. That is a dichotomy.

One defintion of belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
But true or false are not standalone words, because they connect to knowledge and thus there are 3 factors and not just 2.

 

[Kfox]

Whether you are skeptical or suspend judgment doesn't matter. Either you believe or not believe.
Or in the case Nakosis is formulating: Either you do not believe or you do not not-believe.

It's all based on the difference between not believing vs claiming something is false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are XY? I suspect you are responding to the wrong thread.

Yeah, you use different standadrs, depending on what is at play. I just notice it.
In fact the other thread exists in another universe and is only true for another you.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, useful is in your mind and only have first person subjective meaning.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

You don't even understand that useful as useful is not science.

What? This is incoherent, and your one sentense surely doesn't explain anything, as usual. More vague and tricky language.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? This is incoherent, and your one sentense surely doesn't explain anything, as usual. More vague and tricky language.

Yeah, you can see as see the bold one. You never subjectively make first person evaluations of what is useful. That is how speical you are.

 

[F1fan]

I don't believe in the divine because it's way too ideal. I'm not exactly promoting anything. Just stating my convictions.

Your convictions lack evidence. So why hold them, and why repeat them over and over to a thread where others require evidence for any alternative views? That you offer no evidence, but keep repeating your insistance that an intelligence is behind evolution smacks of promotion, not argumentation. You have been vresented serious problems with your belief of intelligence guiding evolution and instead of offering evidence that these problems are explained as intelligent you avoid them. I suggest the intelligence you claim can't be very smart since there are many instances of negative evolutionary consequences. To my mind the intelligence is absurd because what you are claiming is intelligent would be on the higher range of human abilities, but many results of evolution would be very foolish mistakes, so the lack of consistency is fatal. You cite limitations of the material as the reason things are as they are, but this still doesn't explain why there are faults in dna, and many orgnanisms that cause death to humans and other animals. The instability of orrganisms over the many millions of years is a negative strike, too, because if an intelligence is guiding evolution there must be some goal, and frankly what is that goal? Most species have gone extinct and are dead ends, why?

Not only is the claim of an intelligence lacking evidence, and makes no sense, it causes more problems than natural evolution.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, you can see as see the bold one. You never subjectively make first person evaluations of what is useful. That is how speical you are.

You are mired in your way of thinking. It isn't useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are mired in your way of thinking. It isn't useful.

Yeah, the joke is that you have no objective evidence for the bold. So do yourself a favor. Either learn the limit of evidence or put me one ignore. Because it won't be the last time you claim something without evidence as long as you can't check yourself as for if you claim something without evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Whether you are skeptical or suspend judgment doesn't matter. Either you believe or not believe.
Or in the case Nakosis is formulating: Either you do not believe or you do not not-believe.

Let's note that there are theists who will incorrectly describe non-belief as a belief itself. Some will say "You believe in the non-existence of God" which is misleading and absurd. They frame the concept as "the non-existance of God" and that is believed true. But this isn't the concept theists use, it's "the existance of God", and it is this concept that is judged true or rejected. No one believes in the non-existance of anything, we frame issues in the affirmative, do things exist. Do believers ever say "I don;t believe in the non-existance of God"? Never. But some will try to use this form of language to force atheists into a judgment they didn;t make. Of course this only sabotages their belief, because if atheists have a belief and it is wrong, then theists who have beliefs could be wrong as well, because none of us are dealing with evidence, only traditions of religious belief.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, the joke is that you have no objective evidence for the bold. So do yourself a favor. Either learn the limit of evidence or put me one ignore. Because it won't be the last time you claim something without evidence as long as you can't check yourself as for if you claim something without evidence.

False, your posts offer us plenty of evidence of how your thinking and views get distracted and mired down rabbit holes. That they are your posts could explain why you don't understand that your way of thinking is often self-sabotage. You seem to like the confusion, as if you are focused on your finger pointing at the moon, and can't get past that it is your finger, and how you can't see the moon because your finguer is in the way. Most of us prefer to use our cognitive tools to understand what is true about how things are despite our limitations.

 

[AppieB]

One defintion of belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
But true or false are not standalone words, because they connect to knowledge and thus there are 3 factors and not just 2.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The definition is irrelevant. Either you believe or not believe in a god.
Sure, you can say that you are not convinced that the statement "god exists" is false. But that doesn't negate the fact that you either believe or not believe a god exists.

 

[AppieB]

It's all based on the difference between not believing vs claiming something is false.

There was no mentioning about "claiming something is false". You added something that is irrelevant to my response. Read the first post again please and my response.

 

[Windwalker]

If it had foresight why does it need to adapt? Static would suggest an intelliegnce got it right from the start. That systems have to adapt suggests a design that needs fixing.

I don't agree with the logic here. It seems you assume the goal of creation is a static design, one the perhaps has us front and center and free from all changes, which entails the pains of growth in order to endure. You see my point is, all these notions of an Intelligent Designer start with this presumption of a world that would be ideal to our species, with our ideas of what ideal should look like. It is nothing short of this: "How I would do it if I were God."

But suppose the purpose of creation is the proliferation of Life itself into a continual every changing myriad of diverse forms for the sake of the knowledge of existence for the sake of, say, joy?

Now all of a sudden, what we see fits better with that premise. Now humans are not the purpose of creation and our satisfaction with ourselves as the center of the universe. Now humans are a brilliant and important and unique form, amongst a myriad of other brilliant and important and unique forms of this singular Divine creative outpouring into form, for Its own sake?

Now, like those leaves on the tree for that season, we get to soak in the rays of the sun and feed nutrients into the Divine body we are attached to. The purpose of the tree is not the leaves, but the tree itself. Now, an adaptive system makes more sense, than a static tree made of immobile, unchanging stone.

But of course we know that the dynamics in natural systems is driven by entropy.

Or Love.

Cancer and birth defects are creative, I guess. They came about from a divine intelligence according to non-factual thinking.

Yin and Yang. A dynamic system seeks to right itself through imbalances. Any dynamic system is not smooth and flawless. Again, you are imaging what you as God would do, presuming God should "think" like the human being in its own self-interest would think. That's the flaw, and the error of logic. "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence".

 

[Windwalker]

Since I didn't say anything about the human species, I'll take it that you either didn't read the post fully or simply weren't able to come up with a counter argument which made any sense.

My words you quoted were "species-centric". Not, human-centric. My saying that was in response to your argument that an ID getting it right 0.01% of the time, because of species extinction, is in fact assuming the goal of creation is for a single species to "make it".

That makes it a 'species-centric' view of creation, and humans of course imagine themselves as that all-important pinnacle of creation itself, the apple of God's eye, so to speak. Underlying your argument, I can hear that basic premise behind it.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm saying life is not finding a way in the overwhelmingly vast majority of the known universe. That is all.

How do you know it's not? I believe life is prolific throughout the cosmos, with countless seas of life throughout the universe. Not upon every single square inch of it, of course, not every planetary body or moon, but it is highly, highly unlikely it exists only here on earth. Do you believe earth is the only place where life evolves?

I believe we are part of a vast, almost infinite community of life, strewn through the cosmos like the stars in the sky. Hardly a feeble creation.

 

[F1fan]

I don't agree with the logic here. It seems you assume the goal of creation is a static design, one the perhaps has us front and center and free from all changes, which entails the pains of growth in order to endure.

No, I don't assume any goal at all. I don't assume a creation. I don't assume anything static, as we observe that nature isn't static at all. Don't confuse my criticisms of those who DO assume these things as my assumptions too. I'm illustrating the absurdity of such assumptions.

My criticism of those who claim guided evolution MUST explain all the consequences. They don't, they avoid them. Let's note the primary reason to claim guided evolution is to benefit humans as a special species, which of course is grounded in the tradition of Abrahamic religion. So how has guided evolution heped huamns, or any set of other organisms? I suggest bacteria much be God's favored life form. Humans are just another great living space for God's chosen. Look at flesh eating bacteria, magnificent. Heck, some bacteria kill humans, so how can it be that humans are special and bacteria are not? Sure humans have been successful in killing God's chosen with antibiotics, but the intelligence behind guided evolution has allowed bacteria the adaptive power to become resistance and once again kill humans more and more.

You see my point is, all these notions of an Intelligent Designer start with this presumption of a world that would be ideal to our species, with our ideas of what ideal should look like. It is nothing short of this: "How I would do it if I were God."

Right, this is clearly not the case. Humans get no special treatment by nature. Humans almost died off, with some 100,000 individuals at one point. We survived, and with our big brains we were able to give ourselves more advantages, mostly cooperation and tools. How does any human today end up thinking humans are special as a svecies? Bad religion. It's arrogant and appeals to the most insecure of minds. And look where this assumption leads, arrogant and unevidenced belief.

But suppose the purpose of creation is the proliferation of Life itself into a continual every changing myriad of diverse forms for the sake of the knowledge of existence for the sake of, say, joy?

Until your child is attacked by a lion and dragged off into the wild. Oh well, have more kids.

My point is your Logan's Run scenario isn't real or true in reality. In reality humans have to fight just like any other animal. That our big brain allowed us to gain more advantages helped, but hasn't eliminated risks. There was a news story last week of a retired guy building a cabin in woods somewhere, and he was attacked and killed by a bear as his neighbors watched. That's the risk of seeking joy. Yes, they killed the bear soon after.

Now all of a sudden, what we see fits better with that premise. Now humans are not the purpose of creation and our satisfaction with ourselves as the center of the universe. Now humans are a brilliant and important and unique form of this Divine creative outpouring into form, for its own sake?

How brilliant is it to assume such things when evidence doesn't support it? Your view is not supported by the observatives. It is little more than self-service to the ego. That sort of thing is warned about in Buddhism.

Now, like those leaves on the tree for that season, we get to soak in the rays of the sun and feed nutrients into the Divine body we are attached to. The purpose of the tree is not the leaves, but the tree itself. Now, an adaptive system makes more sense, than a static tree made of immobile, unchanging stone.

Careful if you are fair-skinned, skin cancer.

But why evolve leaves on trees so humans get shade, why not more caves? Why evolve humans with fair skin at all that are more at risk of the sun?

See how your idealistic and narrow thinking is highly flawed if you look at the whole picture? In science tests need to account for ALL the data, it doesn't get to pick just the confirming bits. That's called confirmation bias. You are guilty of this. Why?

Or Love.

Yin and Yang. A dynamic system seeks to right itself through imbalances. Any dynamic system is not smooth and flawless. Again, you are imaging what you as God would do, presuming God should "think" like the human being in its own self-interest would think. That's the flaw, and the error of logic. "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence".

Notice that the balance can be natural, but also what humans decide is a balance. Be careful to see the difference.

 

[AppieB]

Let's note that there are theists who will incorrectly describe non-belief as a belief itself. Some will say "You believe in the non-existence of God" which is misleading and absurd. They frame the concept as "the non-existance of God" and that is believed true. But this isn't the concept theists use, it's "the existance of God", and it is this concept that is judged true or rejected. No one believes in the non-existance of anything, we frame issues in the affirmative, do things exist. Do believers ever say "I don;t believe in the non-existance of God"? Never. But some will try to use this form of language to force atheists into a judgment they didn;t make. Of course this only sabotages their belief, because if atheists have a belief and it is wrong, then theists who have beliefs could be wrong as well, because none of us are dealing with evidence, only traditions of religious belief.

It baffles me that everyone seems to agree about the laws of logic but when talking about a (non)belief in a god, people 'loose their mind' and try to add all kinds of things that are not relevant in order to not be labeled as an atheist or theist. Suddenly there is a third option beside p and not p.
There is an 'angst' to identify with either side and wanting to be as neutral as possible. You don't have to identify as an atheist or a theist. You can have an open mind and be skeptical. When you don't believe in a god that doesn't necessary mean you believe an god doesn't exists. People don't seem to get that.

 

[lukethethird]

Who cares what we call it? God is just a word.

Then why the big hue and cry over atheists and science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False, your posts offer us plenty of evidence of how your thinking and views get distracted and mired down rabbit holes. That they are your posts could explain why you don't understand that your way of thinking is often self-sabotage. You seem to like the confusion, as if you are focused on your finger pointing at the moon, and can't get past that it is your finger, and how you can't see the moon because your finguer is in the way. Most of us prefer to use our cognitive tools to understand what is true about how things are despite our limitations.

Yeah, I am in fact down a literal rabbit hole. But how can you observe that? Oh, you have remote viewing abilities. Yeah, that checks out.
Just as you can see as see useful. I can't see useful using my 5 external senses, but you clealy have special external senses.

So when you point to useful, what do you see?
I mean I can describe what I see, when I look at the moon. Can you describe, what you see, when you look at useful?

You are confusing internal experince with external experince and treat useful as the same as seeing the moon, since that is the same kind of external sensory experince that is used for evidence in both cases accoridng to you. I do get that. But you don't.