|
Post by fretslider on Jul 22, 2010 7:11:33 GMT -5
Oh dear joe, surely even you know that one does not set out to prove a negative. It is incumbent on you - the 'believer' - to prove your case that god is not fictitious.
You can believe what you will, just don't expect everybody else to be taken in by it.
You insist on referring to atheists as bigots, but has it not occurred to you that you are just as bigoted, if not more so, in your belief in a god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 7:32:05 GMT -5
Fret, I am not sure that you are correct in your evaluation of Joseph's position.
He at least PROFESSES to be an atheist.
I am disheartened to see that you - like Joseph - continue to find it difficult to distinguish between OPINIONS and FACTS.
It is an opinion that 'one does not set out to prove a negative' and one that frankly is NOT supported by the facts.
Leaving aside the questions of verifiability and Popper's notion of falsifiability,.the history of science is FULL of examples where negatives HAVE been proved.
It is also bizarre in the extreme, Joseph, to claim that NOT believing in the existence of God is NOT in itself a belief.
I think this subject deserves a separate thread so I will post one in the proper place.
(I apologise for confusing Joseph with Liberaljoe. Obviously they DO take different positions!)
What I said still stands, though!
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 8:31:56 GMT -5
Oh dear joe, surely even you know that one does not set out to prove a negative. It is incumbent on you - the 'believer' - to prove your case that god is not fictitious. You can believe what you will, just don't expect everybody else to be taken in by it. You insist on referring to atheists as bigots, but has it not occurred to you that you are just as bigoted, if not more so, in your belief in a god. I would consider it elementary that if someone states that something is fictitious, then they have overwhlming evidence that such is the case, otherwise it is simply hot air. I do not insist on referring to atheists as bigots. My point is this Atheists may or may not be right Christians may ofr may not be right If they both conemptuously dismiss the view of the other, then they are both bigots Some atheist (and Christians ) are bigots, some accept the others viewpoint without agreeing with it and are not bigots Agnostics cannot be bigots in this manner. As far as proving a negative is concerned, take science before James Clerk Maxwell made his stuning analysis Some scientists said that the it was necessary that the universe contained a substance called the aether that allowed light waves to travel through just as water allows water waves to pass thriugh Others said ther is no such thing, but could not prove that there is no such thing - the negative could not be proved Then Maxwell did som mathematical analysis on the results of some Farady experiments. This showed that electromagnetic waves propagate naturally and independently through a vacuum without the need for any substance. Light waves are em waves and that negated the idea of the 'aether'. The negative was proved and the concept of the aether was abandoned forever Indeed science could be defined as the continuous process of trying to disprove assertion (hypothoses). In other word science is a a continuing attempt to proiove negatives.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 22, 2010 8:58:35 GMT -5
Aside from your short essay on bigotry, which is merely your take on it, lets put you straight on HD.
One attempts through observation to falsify the null hypothesis, this has nothing to do with proving a negative.
Ho V Ha
Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Maxwell was not entirely correct, he missed the duality of light.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 9:53:29 GMT -5
Aside from your short essay on bigotry, which is merely your take on it, lets put you straight on HD. One attempts through observation to falsify the null hypothesis, this has nothing to do with proving a negative. Ho V Ha Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Maxwell was not entirely correct, he missed the duality of light. Could I gently suggest that you are talking out of a fundamental orifice? It was hypothesised that a thing called the aether existed It was proved that the aether did not exist. It is hypothesised that God exists it has yet to be proved that God does not exist. The integrity of the hypothesis for God's existence is intact. If people wish to believe th eopposite, then OK. That hypthesis also cannot be negated as there is no clinching evidence that God does exist Both are beliefs and open to the bigotry of certainty.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 22, 2010 10:19:34 GMT -5
Aside from your short essay on bigotry, which is merely your take on it, lets put you straight on HD. One attempts through observation to falsify the null hypothesis, this has nothing to do with proving a negative. Ho V Ha Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Maxwell was not entirely correct, he missed the duality of light. Could I gently suggest that you are talking out of a fundamental orifice? It was hypothesised that a thing called the aether existed It was proved that the aether did not exist. It is hypothesised that God exists it has yet to be proved that God does not exist. The integrity of the hypothesis for God's existence is intact. If people wish to believe th eopposite, then OK. That hypthesis also cannot be negated as there is no clinching evidence that God does exist Both are beliefs and open to the bigotry of certainty. Well, you do talk out of your arse, joe, and that is quite clear. You insist on misunderstanding HD to suit yourself, that's fine you have an audience of one: yourself. God is a figment of your imagination and in the absence of evidence will always be so. Ho: God does not exist Falsify that if you can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 10:29:07 GMT -5
It is also bizarre in the extreme, Joseph, to claim that NOT believing in the existence of God is NOT in itself a belief. You apparently have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word belief.I could reference a reputable dictionary for you, if I was certain you wouldn't reject it. A refusal to believe does not itself imply belief. Given any statement purported to be true, one has THREE choices, not two: 1. Accept the statement as true 2. Do not accept the statement as true without regard to its opposite 3. Reject the statement as true and accept its opposite I do not have to believe in the non-existence of "god" to reject the proposition that "god" exists. For example: It is purported that Fret owns a Ford Fiesta. I am asked whether or not I "believe" Fret owns a Ford Fiesta Reply #1: Yes, I believe he owns a Ford Fiesta Reply #2: No, I do not have any basis for such a belief, so no, I don't accept that belief Reply #3: I believe he does not own a Ford Fiesta. I not only reject the purported statement that he does own one, I am purporting the existence of something Fret owns that is NOT a Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 10:42:02 GMT -5
God is a figment of your imagination and in the absence of evidence will always be so. Ho: God does not exist Falsify that if you can. I canot falsify it; that is the very point I am attempting to make. Just as you cannot falsify my statement that God does exist. There is no proof for either proposition A person holding to either of those assertions is, in the absence of proof, asserting a belief. If, on the other hand, someone (quite rightly) asserts that there is no evidence for the existence of God or for the absence of God, therefore he does not know if either asertion is true, cannot be faulted That is the agnostic position; unassailable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 10:54:12 GMT -5
Is there any proof that God is fictitous? I will be fascinated to hear it. Your statements become more and more bigoted reinforcing the point I made about most atheists being bigots I wonder where I am coming from? Someone tells me you're an alcoholic. Should I accept that as true, pending proof that it's not? Someone tells me you're NOT an alcoholic. Should I accept that as true, pending negation of its opposite? Why do I have to believe one or the other? What about the third state of existence -- that you're neither an alcoholic or non-alcoholic absent evidence or either? Belief involves a trichotomy, not a dichotomy. There are three choices, not two.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 11:03:49 GMT -5
Is there any proof that God is fictitous? I will be fascinated to hear it. Your statements become more and more bigoted reinforcing the point I made about most atheists being bigots I wonder where I am coming from? Someone tells me you're an alcoholic. Should I accept that as true, pending proof that it's not? Someone tells me you're NOT an alcoholic. Should I accept that as true, pending negation of its opposite? Why do I have to believe one or the other? What about the third state of existence -- that you're neither an alcoholic or non-alcoholic absent evidence or either? Belief involves a trichotomy, not a dichotomy. There are three choices, not two. I agree. That is what I have been arguing In the God debate, the third position of the trichotomy is agnosticism. That is how I would classify you, but you seem to confuse atheism and agnosticism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 12:22:10 GMT -5
In the God debate, the third position of the trichotomy is agnosticism. That is how I would classify you, but you seem to confuse atheism and agnosticism. The differences between antitheism, atheism and agnosticism are subtle but important. The antitheist is convinced there is no god. To him either god exists or it doesn't, and he chooses the latter. The agnostic concedes god may exist, with or without proof. The existence or non-existence of god are equally credible to the agnostic. The atheist simply rejects one belief, i.e. that god exists, without addressing its opposite. That is the rational approach espoused by Sam Harris and others. Let's replace "god" with, say, Santa Claus. The anticlausist says "don't be ridiculous. There isn't any Santa Claus and furthermore, there can be no Santa Claus." The agnostic says "I don't see evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, but I can't rule him out." The aclausist says "if you posit the existence of Santa Claus, present your evidence. Until you do, I do not assent to your belief." The clausist replies to the aclausist thus: "So you're saying Santa Claus doesn't exist?" Aclausist: "No, you're saying that he does, and I'm saying I'm unconvinced he does. I do not need to believe Santa Claus CAN'T exist. I just assume for the sake of argument that he doesn't, absent proof that he does." Agnostics are prepared to embrace the irrational as true. Atheists are not.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 22, 2010 12:38:19 GMT -5
God is a figment of your imagination and in the absence of evidence will always be so. Ho: God does not exist Falsify that if you can. I canot falsify it; that is the very point I am attempting to make. Just as you cannot falsify my statement that God does exist. There is no proof for either proposition A person holding to either of those assertions is, in the absence of proof, asserting a belief. If, on the other hand, someone (quite rightly) asserts that there is no evidence for the existence of God or for the absence of God, therefore he does not know if either asertion is true, cannot be faulted That is the agnostic position; unassailable Exactly, joe. But in the absence of any evidence I accept the null hypothesis on the balance of probability until it is falsified and replaced by an alternative. That is a reasoned position, not one of blind faith. Many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. That is (on balance) is a false assertion.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 12:44:39 GMT -5
The atheist simply rejects one belief, i.e. that god exists, without addressing its opposite. That is the rational approach espoused by Sam Harris and others. It seems to me that atheists tie themselves in knots trying to reject the cooncept of God. Frankly I have never heard of an antitheist before now and quite frankly do not wish to. It sounds to me simply an invention in the atheist attempt to claim rationality. How can the atheist reject the existenc of God when there is no proof that God does not exist? Easy Invent the Antitheist! Adds credence to the convoluted definition of atheism. As language becomes more complicated , more tortuous, you can gurantee that someone, somewher, is seeking an out whilst trying to obliterate the tracks, leaving a trail of obfuscation behind them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 13:06:09 GMT -5
It seems to me that atheists tie themselves in knots trying to reject the concept of God. You haven't done your homework. I have never heard of an antitheist before now and quite frankly do not wish to. Now who's the bigot. It sounds to me simply an invention in the atheist attempt to claim rationality. The atheist merely insists on evidence. If you believe something without evidence, you are irrational. How can the atheist reject the existenc of God when there is no proof that God does not exist? You're confusing antitheism with atheism again. The atheist doesn't reject the existence of "god." The atheist rejects belief in the existence of god. That's not the same thing. As language becomes more complicated , more tortuous, you can gurantee that someone, somewher, is seeking an out whilst trying to obliterate the tracks, leaving a trail of obfuscation behind them Since you appear to be clueless, perhaps this can help: atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 22, 2010 14:22:57 GMT -5
The atheist merely insists on evidence. If you believe something without evidence, you are irrational. So does the agnostic merely insist on evidence So does the Christian merely insist on evidence And yes, belief in something without evidence may be irrational Christians say that they do have the evidence. Atheists simply do not accept that evidence. This occurs in science all the time where evidence is accepted by some and rejected by others AGW is the prime example of that. You're confusing antitheism with atheism again. No I am not. I do not accept that piece of sophistry The atheist doesn't reject the existence of "god." The atheist rejects belief in the existence of god. That's not the same thing. So you say Dawkins, a man whose intellect I have the highest regard for, and who is a self declared professional atheist, firmly states that he rejects the existence of God I wish you bloody atheists would get together and make up your minds! It is like the schisms that occured in early Christinaity. Since you appear to be clueless, perhaps this can help Now this is a prime example of atheist arrogance - the very bigotry that is encountered time after time. If someone disagrees with the atheist they are 'deluded fools, 'clueless', 'idiods' etc. Try some self-discipline
|
|