South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 11, 2019, 15:34:26 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Steve on 702

 (Read 23148 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #105 on: September 15, 2010, 09:47:33 AM »

I've built up this mental image (illusion?) of Teleo; but there are some missing parts: tell me Teleo, seeing the nature of the arguments your involved in, why do you continuously post stuff here? Are you a masochist, maybe a sadist (inflicting pain on others for the pleasure it gives you)? Maybe you should attend a SITP so that some of us can get to know you, and vice versa!  Evil
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #106 on: September 15, 2010, 09:57:12 AM »

Yes, and many (most?) do not even have a proper understanding of what they think they don't believe in.

Understanding something either requires that there is evidence to assess, hypotheses to weigh up related to that evidence, etc., or we are talking about "understanding" someone's conception of something which is constructed out of wishful thinking, fantasy, etc. So, you and I might not agree on our understanding of what a unicorn is, but this wouldn't matter because we (hopefully) agree that unicorns don't exist. Atheists don't think that god exists, and furthermore don't think that god is an interesting/useful hypothesis for explanation of the first sort. You can, of course, write a book about unicorns, and fill it with ambiguous and contradictory statements, then claim that only you have access to a proper understanding of what a unicorn is. You might even want to claim that it exists, on the basis of the "evidence" in that book.

For god, all you have is that book, and the reinforcement of millions of people who share your delusions. It doesn't matter whether we don't understand it the same way you do (regardless of who is "right", according to the texts), because sharing your understanding will not make the proposition any more interesting, or any more plausible. That's what we understand, and what you seem to miss.
Several problems Jacques.
1) You keep wanting to think of, or treat God as some sort of hypothesis or theory. Your scientism is preventing you from doing otherwise I guess.
2) You desperately try and portray the classical conception of God as something constructed out of wishful thinking/fantasy and then compare it to unicorns and then expect other to think the classical conception of God is analogous to the conception of unicorns. Do you see the problems? I hope so.
3) Is reality not evidence enough, irrespective of any book. Granted of course that you and i see reality from a different point of view. The problem is, people like you chuck words like "delusional" to those who do not share your view of reality. Again, do you see the problems?
4) If someone does not have a proper understanding of someone else's beliefs, don't you think it is better for that person to actually find out what they believe before making straw men arguments about those beliefs?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #107 on: September 15, 2010, 10:03:29 AM »

1) Anybody who thinks/believes God is a physical being is de facto mentally unstable.
NOBODY, except theists think / believes God is physical (or not). We agree that theists are mentally unstable with respects to gods.
Quote
2) Your mentality prevents you from seeing you are wrong and the validity of the analogy.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Unless you are able to provide the definition / description and the evidence which supports your notion.
1) Gee, Stevo certainly thought of God as some physical being and even believed it for a while Evil.
2) Ah, there is that mentality again that prevents you from understanding and comparing the mentality of fundamentalist creationists (FC) vs sceptical crackpots (SC).
I would certainly classify these two statements as SC and and FC respectively.

1) I don't think god exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine God to be.
2) I don't think evolution exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine evolution to be.

Reality itself being evidence for evolution and God for many theists of course.
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #108 on: September 15, 2010, 10:07:24 AM »

Several problems Jacques.
1) You keep wanting to think of, or treat God as some sort of hypothesis or theory. Your scientism is preventing you from doing otherwise I guess.
2) You desperately try and portray the classical conception of God as something constructed out of wishful thinking/fantasy and then compare it to unicorns and then expect other to think the classical conception of God is analogous to the conception of unicorns. Do you see the problems? I hope so.
3) Is reality not evidence enough, irrespective of any book. Granted of course that you and i see reality from a different point of view. The problem is, people like you chuck words like "delusional" to those who do not share your view of reality. Again, do you see the problems?
4) If someone does not have a proper understanding of someone else's beliefs, don't you think it is better for that person to actually find out what they believe before making straw men arguments about those beliefs?
1) You are wrong - very few people here have any desire to 'think' of god or treat him as anything, because he does not exist. The god of the christian bible, the god you dreamed up, the god Zeus, none of them exist.
2) Wrong again - I don't think Jacques tries to portray any 'conception of god' There is no problem with comparing belief in your christian god of the bible to unicorns or a flying spaghetti monster. None of them are real. We have no evidence to suggest that they are real.
3) Reality is evidence of a lot of things, but not of god.
4) No. I don't have to 'understand' what a 4 year old kid perceives the easter bunny to be in order to know that the easter bunny does not exist. Does the kid think the easter bunny is white? Grey? Long- or short eared? Who gives a crap? the bunny is not real...
Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #109 on: September 15, 2010, 10:11:53 AM »

Several problems Jacques.
1) You keep wanting to think of, or treat God as some sort of hypothesis or theory. Your scientism is preventing you from doing otherwise I guess.
2) You desperately try and portray the classical conception of God as something constructed out of wishful thinking/fantasy and then compare it to unicorns and then expect other to think the classical conception of God is analogous to the conception of unicorns. Do you see the problems? I hope so.
3) Is reality not evidence enough, irrespective of any book. Granted of course that you and i see reality from a different point of view. The problem is, people like you chuck words like "delusional" to those who do not share your view of reality. Again, do you see the problems?
4) If someone does not have a proper understanding of someone else's beliefs, don't you think it is better for that person to actually find out what they believe before making straw men arguments about those beliefs?


Problems for you, perhaps.
1. Ad hominem won't help you here. I agree scientism can be a problem, in the same way as any dogma. But asking for evidence is not (necessarily) scientism: http://synapses.co.za/evidence-necessarily-scientism/
2. Nope. They both have no method of empirical validation, and both appeal to tradition for any force they have.
3. Reality is plenty of evidence, but not for god. And even if it was, we'd still want to know "which god", and why should we care?
4. You presume too much about how much I know or don't know. I intended to become a priest at one point, and know quite a bit about your beliefs.

So, in short, thanks for confirming that it's a waste of time to engage with you further.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #110 on: September 15, 2010, 10:22:38 AM »

Several problems Jacques.
1) You keep wanting to think of, or treat God as some sort of hypothesis or theory. Your scientism is preventing you from doing otherwise I guess.
2) You desperately try and portray the classical conception of God as something constructed out of wishful thinking/fantasy and then compare it to unicorns and then expect other to think the classical conception of God is analogous to the conception of unicorns. Do you see the problems? I hope so.
3) Is reality not evidence enough, irrespective of any book. Granted of course that you and i see reality from a different point of view. The problem is, people like you chuck words like "delusional" to those who do not share your view of reality. Again, do you see the problems?
4) If someone does not have a proper understanding of someone else's beliefs, don't you think it is better for that person to actually find out what they believe before making straw men arguments about those beliefs?


Problems for you, perhaps.
1. Ad hominem won't help you here. I agree scientism can be a problem, in the same way as any dogma. But asking for evidence is not (necessarily) scientism: http://synapses.co.za/evidence-necessarily-scientism/
2. Nope. They both have no method of empirical validation, and both appeal to tradition for any force they have.
3. Reality is plenty of evidence, but not for god. And even if it was, we'd still want to know "which god", and why should we care?
4. You presume too much about how much I know or don't know. I intended to become a priest at one point, and know quite a bit about your beliefs.

So, in short, thanks for confirming that it's a waste of time to engage with you further.

1) I should probably point out that ad hominems like telling me I am delusional won't help you either. And like I said, reality is evidence enough not?
2) Again, scientism is the problem. And one appeals to reality, philosophy, theology, metaphysics and religion, the other not.
3) For the theist, reality is obviously enough evidence for God. Your rejection is not surprising. As to which God, well, the classical conception of God (classical theism) not limited to any particular religion, although it is shared by the Abrahamic religions as well as Aristotelians and Platonists that are theists.
4) So, did you believe God is a physical being and do you think the proper, traditional, classical conception of God is God as a physical being?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 12:44:41 PM by Teleological » Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #111 on: September 15, 2010, 10:55:09 AM »

1) Gee, Stevo certainly thought of God as some physical being and even believed it for a while Evil.
gee, reading impaired much?
Quote
1) I don't think god exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine God to be.
2) I don't think evolution exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine evolution to be.
But I can demonstrate evolution to you and I can support it with evidence. So much that even a dumbass like yourself accept it as fact and accept the theory as the best model we have of explaining the fact.

You are free, still, to demonstrate God and provide the evidence for it. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges and your analogy is an epic fail.
Quote
Reality itself being evidence for evolution and God for many theists of course.
No. Just. no. Reality itself is evidence only for itself. We observe evolution. We don't observe God. Anywhere. Except in the deluded minds of a primate species on the third rock from our sun.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #112 on: September 15, 2010, 10:58:01 AM »

If you don't accept reality as evidence for God (or against God for that matter), so be it.
Logged
Lilli
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 435



Lelani Stolp
« Reply #113 on: September 15, 2010, 11:10:05 AM »

If you don't accept reality as evidence for God (or against God for that matter), so be it.
I have to agree with pretty much everything Cyghost says above.
Teleological - reality is not evidence for or against god. Reality does not prove god, because there is nothing real (existing in our perceived and perceivable reality) that suggests the existence of god. Nobody is interested in evidence against the existence of god. The burden of proof for god rests on theists, if they choose to keep arguing this point and trying to convince me and other non-believers.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #114 on: September 15, 2010, 11:17:31 AM »

If you don't accept reality as evidence for God (or against God for that matter), so be it.
Reality is most certainly not evidence against God. But it is ludicrous to accept it as evidence for God, so no, I don't accept it. So it is.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #115 on: September 15, 2010, 11:18:42 AM »

If you don't accept reality as evidence for God (or against God for that matter), so be it.
I have to agree with pretty much everything Cyghost says above.
Teleological - reality is not evidence for or against god. Reality does not prove god, because there is nothing real (existing in our perceived and perceivable reality) that suggests the existence of god. Nobody is interested in evidence against the existence of god. The burden of proof for god rests on theists, if they choose to keep arguing this point and trying to convince me and other non-believers.
Ever heard of the evidential problem of Evil? It relies on evidence, albeit reality as well, or someone's interpretation thereof. Obviously I disagree with the bolded part as I see reality as evidence for God. Telling me I am delusional is nothing but a sad ad hominem employed by new atheists that have run out of arguments. And after seeing how many times straw men versions of the cosmological argument(s) ("everything has a cause" for example, I am still looking for an example of a person that actually defended that straw men version) have been knocked down, unsurprising really.

Reality is most certainly not evidence against God. But it is ludicrous to accept it as evidence for God, so no, I don't accept it. So it is.
For posterity's sake.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Online Online

Posts: 3128



« Reply #116 on: September 15, 2010, 11:19:56 AM »

If I walk in the wilderness, and find a peach tree, say. (any tree would do, really).

I can say, "oh, a seed must've been blown by the wind/eaten by a bird/rolled downhill/wtfe... and landed here, resulting in this tree".
Or I can say: "This proves someone came here and planted this tree!".

You're saying the latter, when the existence of the tree says absolutely nothing about the existence of that person who supposedly planted the tree. Sure the person may exist, but using the tree as proof is just folly, and you should know that. (and, imho, the other explanation is much simpler, and much more probable to be correct)
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #117 on: September 15, 2010, 11:21:13 AM »

Using the tree as evidence though... and what about an argument or two, or five?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #118 on: September 15, 2010, 11:32:43 AM »

Using the tree as evidence though... and what about an argument or two, or five?
You just missed it. An analogy that actually works. Must be why you didn't get it?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #119 on: September 15, 2010, 11:38:34 AM »

The analogy has the potential to work even better if actual arguments with more information is given. You knew that of course.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.716 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 11, 2019, 20:25:18 PM
Privacy Policy