quote:

Originally posted by mongeone Can you prove it doesnt exist? No, you cant (unless you are the most amazing philosopher to have ever existed). Therefore it is a leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as a god.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The onus lies upon the person making the claim to give supporting evidence of that claim. The burden is never upon the other person to attempt to prove a negative.

But why talk about burden of proof, when the subject matter is belief? If something is backed up by a proof then we have knowledge - if it is backed up by a scientific proof then we have a scientific fact. Believing in a deity is something else.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Are you willing to accept that possibility of multiple gods and goddesses?

Yes - I'm willing to accept the possibility. I do not attribute a high degree of belief in them, but I'd acknowledge their potential existence.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Remember, aetheism is not the belief that there is no God but a rejection of the belief that there is a God

How does that differ from being a agnostic then

quote:

Originally posted by occrider but how many people can you find who are strong atheists?

I would say that PVD & T[]C is in that category.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No it doesn't. Knowing that something you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel probably doesn't exist is surely one of the primary foundations of a sane mind. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist - why should this admission constitute a leap of faith?

Assuming that you are speaking from a pure science viewpoint, then your statement is totally correct (borderlining analytical). The very definition of "existing" according to science is that the object in question can be seen, heard, etc. But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

Assuming instead that you are speaking from a religious point of view, then your argument about "a sane mind" looses its appeal, as that is a scientific (medical) notion. If you believe that the soundness of a "sane" mind is an self-evident truth, then I would beg to differ. Such a conviction in itself is IMO a great leap of faith.

people who don't know the definition of "liberal"

The worst things about Australia:

• Racism and Xenophobia. Despite the common belief that our society is multicultural, i still see and hear racism everywhere i go, and it is truly saddening. Australia's treatment of the indigenous population (both historically and today) is particularly shameful.
  
  
• The treatment of asylum seekers. In my opinion, locking up women and children in detention centres in the middle of the desert for extended periods is unacceptable.
  
  
• John Howard and the current government.
  
  
• Increasing Americanisation of society and our culture. The pervasiveness of a globally homogeneous brand culture is worrying. ***I just read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein - BRILLIANT!**
  
  
• The poor state of football on a national scale. At the moment we have no national league and the administration of the game has been terrible. At the same time, soccer is the biggest sport in Australia on an amateur level. Why can't we make it work?
  
  
• Cost and availability of vinyl!
  
  
  
  

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic How does that differ from being a agnostic then

Weak agnosticism is neither the rejection nor the acceptance of theism or atheism. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. Furthermore the possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. Therefore if God were an easter bunny, the atheist would reject the belief in the existence of the easter bunny (probably due to lack of sufficient evidence proving his existence) while the agnostic would say that he doesn't know whether the bunny exists nor is he saying that other people cannot know of its existence. Strong agnosticism is the philosophy whereby knowledge of the Gods are impossible and therefore we can never ever prove nor disprove his existence. I think that strong agnostics are confused individuals, however, since they're adopting a self-refuting philosophy.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Weak agnosticism is neither the rejection nor the acceptance of theism or atheism. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. Furthermore the possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. Therefore if God were an easter bunny, the atheist would reject the belief in the existence of the easter bunny (probably due to lack of sufficient evidence proving his existence) while the agnostic would say that he doesn't know whether the bunny exists nor is he saying that other people cannot know of its existence. Strong agnosticism is the philosophy whereby knowledge of the Gods are impossible and therefore we can never ever prove nor disprove his existence. I think that strong agnostics are confused individuals, however, since they're adopting a self-refuting philosophy.

So how about someone who believes that knowledge of a potential God's intentions is impossible to obtain? I thought I was a strong agnostic, but I do see your point about meta-knowledge is also knowledge, and that by your definition it is logically impossible to be a strong agnostic.

Furthermore, I would like to know what you mean by the atheist rejecting the belief in God: Do you mean that he chooses not to believe in God or that he finds the belief in God logically flawed, and therefore is opposed to those who believe?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by trancaholic
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
but how many people can you find who are strong atheists?

I would say that PVD & T[]C is in that category.
--------

why? how do you know that they are ones?

Last edited by mr.anderson on Aug-24-2004 at 17:29

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic So how about someone who believes that knowledge of a potential God's intentions is impossible to obtain? I thought I was a strong agnostic, but I do see your point about meta-knowledge is also knowledge, and that by your definition it is logically impossible to be a strong agnostic.

That would be a strong agnostic imo ...

quote:

Furthermore, I would like to know what you mean by the atheist rejecting the belief in God: Do you mean that he chooses not to believe in God or that he finds the belief in God logically flawed, and therefore is opposed to those who believe?

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily denote being rational. While one would hope the decision was made with some kind of rationale, the definition of atheism solely consists of the rejection of the belief in God. So similar to theists, I'm certain atheists are atheists for any number of reasons rational or irrational.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic But why talk about burden of proof, when the subject matter is belief? If something is backed up by a proof then we have knowledge - if it is backed up by a scientific proof then we have a scientific fact. Believing in a deity is something else.

Why do you insist on making a distinction between belief in a deity and other sorts of belief? If I'd say that I believe in invisible pink unicornes, you would think that I'm either joking or that I'm a total wacko. So why believe in things for whom there is not even the slightest hint of their existance? Basically you can believe in anything, but a belief in any idea without a possibility of a rational explanation is not based on common sense and logic, infact it is based on absolutely nothing.

quote:

Yes - I'm willing to accept the possibility. I do not attribute a high degree of belief in them, but I'd acknowledge their potential existence.

How can you be willing to accept that possibility if every group of believers claims that their god or a congregation of gods are the only ones out there, and that all the others are false idols?

quote:

Assuming that you are speaking from a pure science viewpoint, then your statement is totally correct (borderlining analytical). The very definition of "existing" according to science is that the object in question can be seen, heard, etc. But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

How does belief become equivalent to knowledge?

quote:

Assuming instead that you are speaking from a religious point of view, then your argument about "a sane mind" looses its appeal, as that is a scientific (medical) notion. If you believe that the soundness of a "sane" mind is an self-evident truth, then I would beg to differ. Such a conviction in itself is IMO a great leap of faith.

In other words, religion is a tool which enables you to come up with any possible nonsense you can think of and claim it to be as valid (or even more valid) than any other proposal, including those based on observed facts. Believing in self-evident truths is one of the characteristics of a sane mind. Nobody is saying that there aren't truths that are not self evident, but they should not be considered believable until there is even a slightest hint of their existance.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Why do you insist on making a distinction between belief in a deity and other sorts of belief? If I'd say that I believe in invisible pink unicornes, you would think that I'm either joking or that I'm a total wacko. So why believe in things for whom there is not even the slightest hint of their existance? Basically you can believe in anything, but a belief in any idea without a possibility of a rational explanation is not based on common sense and logic, infact it is based on absolutely nothing.

I don't understand what other sorts of belief I have distinguished from the belief in a deity? I distinguish belief from knowledge.
Of course I would say that you are a wacko, if you said you believed in pink unicorns. That would be a scientific label, though. Your belief is a belief and seeing it as such I could find no quarrel with you having it. i might not share it, but I'd acknowledge the possibility of me being wrong and pink unicorns really existing.
However, when you come up with this deliberately ridiculous example, you must understand that there is quite a difference between this and the beliefs of religious people. There are litterally millions of people who claim to have spoken to "God" (whomever he might be). Similarly, there are lots of accounts of "miracles" happening. So even from the scientific/empirical point of view, there's a distinction between God and pink unicorns.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 How can you be willing to accept that possibility if every group of believers claims that their god or a congregation of gods are the only ones out there, and that all the others are false idols?

I'm willing to accept that either one of the beliefs might be correct. That's not the same as accepting that all of them could be correct at once.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 How does belief become equivalent to knowledge?

Bad choice of language I guess. My point is that, according to the scientific definition of existence, the existence of anything can be verified or rejected. Hence, any belief can in principle be converted into either knowledge (via verification) or negative knowledge (via rejection).

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 In other words, religion is a tool which enables you to come up with any possible nonsense you can think of and claim it to be as valid (or even more valid) than any other proposal, including those based on observed facts.

Not any possible nonsense. Only nonsense which do not conflict with your own observations.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Believing in self-evident truths is one of the characteristics of a sane mind.

Which means that you acknowledge that "self-evident truths" are beliefs? My initial point.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That would be a strong agnostic imo ...

You just insulted me, right?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Being an atheist doesn't necessarily denote being rational. While one would hope the decision was made with some kind of rationale, the definition of atheism solely consists of the rejection of the belief in God. So similar to theists, I'm certain atheists are atheists for any number of reasons rational or irrational.

The more this is elaborated upon, the more difficult I find it to see what differentiates a rejection of a belief and a belief in its negation? Maybe I really am a confused individual

YEAH YEAH YEAH!!!

DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE!!!

WOOHOO WOOHOO WOOHOO!!!



>JM<

I know you're kinda debating everyone at once here, trancaholic, so sorry for adding to your workload, but on what you said before....

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Assuming that you are speaking from a pure science viewpoint, then your statement is totally correct (borderlining analytical). The very definition of "existing" according to science is that the object in question can be seen, heard, etc. But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

I wasn't necessarily coming from a strictly scientific persepctive, but yes, I was coming from some sort of epistemological / empirical angle (two philosophical doctrines, of course, that are integral to the scientific method). Basically, it would be my contention, that we can only become aware of other beings through sensory input: flawed though they may be, our senses are our only gateway to the world of "other" beings. We can "conceive" of other beings without employing our senses (which would involve the manipulation of Kantian, synthetic a priori postulates I guess) but we cannot comprehend actual being - beyond that of our own - without them.

Now you'd be quite right in arguing that some things lay beyond our immediate senses, because - quite obviously - they do. The atom, for instance, exists in a physical capacity far too small for us to comprehend directly via our senses, but their existence can still be detected empirically. Even before we had the machinery to be able to do this, though, the physical nature of the universe as we understood it necessitated the existence of such a particle - like many other things in the history of astronomy and physics (such as Neptune, Pluto, black-holes etc.), the existence of the atom was logically derived from pre-existing empirical knowledge. So beings need not necessarily even be directly accessible to the senses, but its influences on other modes of being must be accessible in such a way before we can - with any confidence - postulate its existence.

Now with regards to the God question, there are two ways of looking at it - either its a statement of subjective inclination that is not intended as an ontological statement (the existence of any given mode of being) or it's a statement of professed objective knowledge, that is intended as an ontological statement.

Now you said:

quote:

But with that approach the very concept of belief becomes equivalent to knowledge, and the whole issue is a non-issue.

I believe that what you're trying to say here is that belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive, in the sense that it is impossible to equate statements of belief with statements of knowledge? If so, then I agree to an extent. Referring back to what I wrote earlier, I would deign belief as corresponding to the first way of looking at the "God question" (the statement of a subjective inclination) whereas knowledge would correspond to the second method (the statement of an objective ontology). However, with regards to the God question, statements of belief and statements of fact do cross over and they cannot be so easily separated. For instance, mongeone (the person I originally responded to) said:

quote:

To beleive that there isn`t a God takes just as big a step in faith as to believe that there is a God.

Note that his statement invokes belief, but at the same time it invokes "is-ness" which also makes it an ontological issue and thus - in some way - a question of not merely belief but (according to my previous definitions) knowledge as well. And it is at this point that the religious mind must understand that it cannot have it both ways. It is quite welcome to profess a belief in anything it wishes and it would be quite right to suggest that there is no possible way of invalidating this belief (due its essential and inexorable subjectivity). However, the second this belief transcends mere subjective inclination and an attempt is made to postulate being of some sort, then the religious mind can no longer hide behind the claim that it was a statement of "belief". As soon as an ontological claim (or even a mere inclination) is invoked, then I - or anyone else - is quite welcome to employ any empirical, epistemological or ontological method to either validate or invalidate these claims. The point at which mere "belief" becomes open to objective scrutiny, is the point at which it claims insight into some supposedly objective truth.

So this is why, to get to the point, whenever someone hints at the possibility of an existent God, us skeptics rush in demanding scientific evidence.

quote:

Assuming instead that you are speaking from a religious point of view, then your argument about "a sane mind" looses its appeal, as that is a scientific (medical) notion. If you believe that the soundness of a "sane" mind is an self-evident truth, then I would beg to differ. Such a conviction in itself is IMO a great leap of faith.

Heh, yes well played. Sanity is, unfortunately, most definitely in the eye of the beholder.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/