Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[IndigoChild5559]

Only in terms of survival. Which is not necessarily the same for wheter or not it's accurate.

For example, someone that "intuitively" flees when he hears a noise in the bushes because what if it is a dangerous predator?

Objectively their chances of surviving a dangerous predator attack is better then the one who stands around to collect more data to see if it really is a predator. When it turns out to be a dangerous predator indeed, the one who stands around to collect more data will be the one turning into said predator's lunch - the "intuitive runner" will live to tell the tale.

The vast majority of the time though, the "intuitive runner" will run away with the wrong conclusion. The majority of the time, the noise will be just the wind, a harmless rodent, a harmless bird, a branch falling, etc.

When we ponder the questions of what does and doesn't exist (like gods), the objective is to find accurate answers. Not just trying to survive to see the next day.

If you want accurate answers, then "intuitition" (or "common sense" for that matter) will simply not be sufficient. More often then not, your intuition or common sense will simply lead to false conclusions when it concerns the unknown and the out-of-every-day human experience.

This is why intuition and common sense would lead us to concluding the very opposite of what Einstein showed with relativity or what quantum mechanics is all about.

Our brains that deal with macroscopic medium sized, medium weight objects that travel at sub-sound speed, simply isn't capable of "intuitively" comprehending the world of the extremely small, the extremely heavy or ten folds of sound speed - let alone the speed of light.

Considering how gods are always defined, it would be extremely arrogant to say that our "intuitive brain" would be a good fit to draw accurate conclusions concerning that subject. If anything, the realms that a god reside in, would be even more bizar that what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole.



Nobody is denying the important role of intuition.
What we are pointing out, is that inuition simply isn't a proper tool when the objective is getting to accurate answers. Inuition gets you to useful answers, where "useful" points to "increasing survival chances".

And as I showed earlier, a method where you are wrong more often then not, will actually increase your survival chances whereas the method where you'll get accurate answers, will only result in lower survival chances.

Don't confuse the two.

If you wait to gather accurate answers, you will already be dead from the attacker in the bush, if there is one. LOL I was gonna say, the person with the heightened sense of fight or flight would certainly survive a scary movie. LOL

When we talk about these kinds of responses, we have to generalize over huge populations. Intuition certainly doesn't always work. It is highly dysfunctional in some people, even practically non-existant. Some people have highly developed, almost psychic intuition (no I don't believe in psychics). But most people are at the top of the bell shaped curve which means most of he time it's going to work and some of the time its not (and let's hope they don't die when it let's them down).

All I'm saying is that your intuition is MUCH better at determining if this new guy who just sat down next to you on the park bench is a danger to you, than analysis is. You have millions of years of evolution that has heightened your unconscious awareness into all sorts of body language and tone of voice, that conscious analysis just misses.

 

[lukethethird]

Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

After I beat someone up I don't usually ask them what their affiliation is, so logically I have no idea who the weakest are, but I suspect it's the agnostics.

 

[Tiberius]

No problem!

Any time!

Let me know when you are capable of an actual discussion instead of just wasting my time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

oops

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem you seem unwilling to face is that you aren't making an argument for your position when you compare gods and fairies.

I just explained, in the very post you are replying to, that it is not gods that are being compared to fairies.
It is the lack of objective evidence in support of them that is being compared.

So, you think your debate opponent wouldn't understand your position if you simply stated that you don't see any supporting objective evidence?

I don't think that. I know that from experience.
It happens extremely frequently. More specifically, it is oftenly misunderstood what is meant by objective evidence. And then such comparisions come in handy. Theists that make these mistakes understand very well why the evidence for fairies is insufficient to accept the existance of fairies. And there is evidence for fairies. Just not objective evidence.

Sure they do and IMO they have a valid complaint.

It would be valid if they were right. But they aren't. As I've explained twice now.

I mean... I'm the one making the point. I think I know what I mean by the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm. I've thought about making a thread titled something like "Comparing theism to pink unicorns makes you sound like an idiot" for quite some time. I haven't created that thread for a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that I suspect the point would be lost on the audience that most needs to understand it. It's likely that some non-theists are incapable of understanding why this is an invalid comparison, and no amount of analogies will resolve that.

No amount of misunderstanding of the comparision will resolve that either.
I've explained twice now, and others have also, how it's not gods that are being compared to fairies, but the type of evidence that is offered in support of it.

On that note, I'd like to introduce you to typical polytheistic gods: they are the ground you walk on and the air you are breathing. Of course, we know there's no evidence for the air we breathe or the ground we walk on. That's silly talk.

There is evidence for the ground we walk on and the air we breath.
The claim is not that these things exist.
The claim is that these things are "more" then just air and ground. That they are gods.
Is there evidence for the claim that the air and the ground are gods and not just air and ground?

There's lots of subjective evidence (stories and dreams and visions and revelations and such - the same type of evidence for... hmmm, dare I say it?). Objective evidence, not so much.

 

[PureX]

How does that outlook work when it's time to breathe in?

The "outlook" (perception), and the "breath" (phenomena) are one and the same, and yet they are not. An experience, for a human, is it's perception, ... and yet it is not. This paradox is created by us, within us, by our metaphysical design. We cannot avoid it, but we can at least acknowledge it.

 

[PureX]

I just explained, in the very post you are replying to, that it is not gods that are being compared to fairies.
It is the lack of objective evidence in support of them that is being compared.

But what kind of fool demands objective evidence for fairies, or gods? Neither has ever been proposed as objective phenomena by anyone. They are mythical characterizations of the mysteries of our existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Frankly, I don't believe that for one minute as I'm quite certain many personal experiences that you have had have shaped your life in at least some respects.

I don't care about personal experiences when it comes to learning about objective reality.
Like when somebody claims to have been abducted by aliens and had weird sex experiments performed on them. I don't care about that testimony. No amount of words is going to be sufficient to accept these claims.

Show me something else. Alien DNA. Evidence that these experiments took place. Some tool you snatched of the space ship. Anything other then "you just gotta believe me!".

That's what I mean when I'm saying I don't care about personal experience in this particular context.

But I am also quite aware of the fact that not all one may know or come to understand is going to be based on just objective evidence, and your posts reflect that you don't either as you've jumped to conclusions based on nothing but your own bias, such as what one can read in your last post alone.

Confusing method with outcome.

The irony here with you is that you never got around to even asking me what my personal experience (actually experiences) was, and yet you drew conclusions that they were phony anyway.

I have never once called anyone's personal experiences phony. I have no reason to doubt people's sincerity a priori. I always assume people are sincere unless they give me reasons not to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are talking about things like Einstein intuiting the next level of physics. He of course THEN went and proved his insight with math.

First, you act as if he came up with it out of the blue through "intuition". That is off course not true at all.
Intuition alone will never lead you to counter-intuitive conclusions.

Secondly, you acknowledge also that intuition alone isn't enough at all. Since he went on to demonstrate his idea objectively.

Many times, too, there simply isn't time to check -- you have to make a quick decision, and it's either trust your gut or stand back and let life mow you down

But you'll still be basing your quick decision on objective data, mostly. If you don't, you'ld wonder of in the land of superstition.

For example, assuming the noise in the bushes is a dangerous predator, is based on the objective facts that such predators exists, that they might hunt humans and that they hide in the bushes.

Where intuition / common sense fails, is when there are variables or circumstances that you are unaware of or don't understand.

Facts lead Einstein to his conclusions. Not his intuition.
And the reason he knew there was stuff to discover, was because Newton's model didn't work for everything. It was clear there was something missing and Einstein set out to find out what. And he solved it not by sitting in a corner just thinking about it - but by doing the work, gathering the data and analysing it. You don't just dream up working counter-intuitive models out of the blue.

But getting back to the question, yes we are talking about real life objective things like who is the best employee to promote

No, that's also subjective, based on a subjective definition of what "best" means in that context.

, should I quit my job and go into business for myself, or which strategy should I have my team use next when half time is over. I'm not saying intuition is perfect for such questions -- I'm simply saying it's a wiser strategy in those situations than analysis.

None of your examples come close to what is being talked about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what kind of fool demands objective evidence for fairies, or gods?

The "fool" that likes to believe as many accurate things as possible and the least false things as possible.
The "fool" that doesn't just take people's word for it when it comes to near magical claims about reality.
The "fool" that isn't gullible enough to "just believe" outlandish claims for insufficient reasons.

In short, the "fool" that cares about being rationally justified in holding the beliefs that (s)he does.

Neither has ever been proposed as objective phenomena by anyone.

....

"Miracles" are claims about objective reality. About objectively existing supernatural entities actually doing things in objective reality.
"God exists" is a claim about objective reality.
"Jesus rose from the dead" is a claim about objective reality.
"god flooded the world" is a claim about objective reality.
"god created the world" is a claim about objective reality.

They are mythical characterizations of the mysteries of our existence.

I agree they are mythical.
Many many many believers, do not.
In fact.... to acknowledge them as mythical would make you an unbeliever. Aka atheist.

 

[blü 2]

Let me know when you are capable of an actual discussion instead of just wasting my time.

I dare say it wasn't a complete waste of time. I dare say you might pause next time you're about to assert that your certainty about X is perfect.

But whether you do or not, live long and prosper \\//.

 

[blü 2]

The "outlook" (perception), and the "breath" (phenomena) are one and the same

You seek to isolate the perception from your / our ability to comprehend what's going on.

I see no basis for that. Yes, we'll never be able to make absolute statements about reality, yes, we'll make mistakes of perception ─ and so on ─ but meanwhile if you step in front of the wrong bus, it'll kill you.

And meanwhile our reasoned exploration of reality leads to our improved understanding of it again and again ─ error by error, correction by correction, discovery by discovery.

And you, like everyone else, are the beneficiary of that ─ safer cars, better understanding of Mars, modern vaccines, healthier foods, a very long list.

 

[Tiberius]

I dare say it wasn't a complete waste of time. I dare say you might pause next time you're about to assert that your certainty about X is perfect.

But whether you do or not, live long and prosper \\//.

I've often found that when someone quibbles over the words rather than addressing the argument, it's because they CAN'T address the argument.

 

[Audie]

But what kind of fool demands objective evidence for fairies, or gods? Neither has ever been proposed as objective phenomena by anyone. They are mythical characterizations of the mysteries of our existence.

The bible has "god" showing up to
give unmistskeable physical proof.

 

[blü 2]

I've often found that when someone quibbles over the words rather than addressing the argument, it's because they CAN'T address the argument.

I wasn't arguing about the argument. I was arguing about purported absolute statements.

Remind me of the argument you refer to and if I disagree I'll happily address it.

 

[Polymath257]

But what kind of fool demands objective evidence for fairies, or gods? Neither has ever been proposed as objective phenomena by anyone. They are mythical characterizations of the mysteries of our existence.

Actually, both have been proposed as objective phenomena. That is sort of the point here, in my mind.

 

[Audie]

No, it just means that most of what they had learned got lost in the transmission from them to us. For example, Ezekiel sees a vision. I don't think for one second that what is written in scripture does justice to what he experienced. I think it is absolutely hopeless the way that people try to figure out what he was talking about. They just aren't going to have his experience.

Most of Israel's prophets basically say something like this "You sinful Israel, God says he is going to discipline you for your idolatry and heck you can't even imagine what is going to happen. But THEN he is going to bring you back and restore you and bless you and the wolf will lie down with the lamb..."

That's a kind of lattice upon which they hang imagery. And the imagery is the attempt to put into words what they really saw and experienced. But can any of the bad crap that they say really put into words the chilling feeling they got when they realized that Israel was in for some consequences? Or does any of their "beating swords into plowshares" do justice to the beatific vision?


It's been a while since I've read anything. If my memory serves me right, yes. They found people who had specific behaviors (such as meditation or singing or chanting) that they used to induce mystical experiences, and had the machines on during the occurrence. But that seems to be in my mind very small and far away.

Okay, I googled, and found one such study using MRI and Carmelite nuns having mystical experiences.
https://institutpsychoneuro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Beauregard2006-Carmelites-fmri.pdf

The really big thing in my brain, meaning it would be more recent and a larger study, was one in which they tested Tibetan monks meditating and Franciscan nuns and an even Muslims doing their own kind of meditation and compared the differences to a baseline and to each other (not all the religions got the same result).

I don't have an opinion formed yet on the imaging patterns formed. I find it curious, but I'm still looking for significant patterns. Some of the things reported are just stupidness, like "While praying, the language centers of catholic nuns lit up." well DUH. Other things seem part of the discipline of meditation. I'm more curious to see what studies of PASSIVE experiences show, such as the link I gave you. We need many many more of these done, to see if results are replicated. Then we can begin drawing conclusions.

You seem to have already drawn the conclusion that
the prophets were getting messages from god.

The mental exercises and / or excesses that
divers persons have indulged in with "religious
experience" as a goal will produce some results
re brain waves. So will eating chocolate.

And this is all very well and sometimes good fun
to investigate. You seem to me to be splitting out
from among other sorts of brain activity certain
ones to call religious and investing them with
unrealistic significance.

So it seems to me. If you delete the supernatural
from any of it, do you still find anything of great
importance?

 

[Audie]

We are talking about things like Einstein intuiting the next level of physics. He of course THEN went and proved his insight with math. I do similar. I'll have an ah ha moment, and then I'll see if I can reach the same conclusion using reason. If I have both intuition and reason on my side, I'll tilt any windmill. But I find that the intuition comes first and fast. Many times, too, there simply isn't time to check -- you have to make a quick decision, and it's either trust your gut or stand back and let life mow you down. But getting back to the question, yes we are talking about real life objective things like who is the best employee to promote, should I quit my job and go into business for myself, or which strategy should I have my team use next when half time is over. I'm not saying intuition is perfect for such questions -- I'm simply saying it's a wiser strategy in those situations than analysis.

Einstein, your grandmother, and you would have
little success with intuition if you did not all have
a lot of experience and thought going in, knowing
most of the answer before the question came up.

 

[Quintessence]

There is evidence for the ground we walk on and the air we breath.
The claim is not that these things exist.
The claim is that these things are "more" then just air and ground. That they are gods.
Is there evidence for the claim that the air and the ground are gods and not just air and ground?

I think you misunderstand polytheistic and pantheistic theologies, and possibly what it means to engage in the process of deification. I don't believe that various aspects of reality are anything other than what they are. Deification designates you feel something is worthy of worship. It doesn't change the nature of the thing you deify at all. What it does change is how you regard it and your relationship with it. It's like any other honorific title that way. Consider your relationship to someone you label your "father" versus someone you label your "friend." In both cases, the relational label does not change who that person is underneath. They are who they are. It is not a claim that the person is something "more." It is something that indicates a particular sort of relationship or regard you have towards that person. It is the same with the gods.

This, of course, means "evidence" is entirely besides the point. When we decide our relationship with someone warrants the label "friend," whether or not some outsider agrees and sees sufficient evidence of that is irrelevant. That person is your friend whether or not someone else honors that relationship. It is the same with the gods. Someones gods are their gods, full stop. My course is to respect what people deify and take them at their word on it, unless I have very good reason to suspect they are lying to me about their relationships. And folks do lie about it sometimes, or use the word "god" in an informal sense without meaning to indicate a deep relationship of reverence.