Posts: 132
Threads: 1
Joined: January 28, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm
(February 9, 2015 at 3:38 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Well, I don't necessarily say that "absence of the evidence for a god is the evidence of its absence." I say "the hypothesis has failed every one of the thousands of times it's been proposed, so I'm calling it disproven." (1)
It's the simple arithmetic of science. Every god-myth ends up being torn to shreds. (2)Just as surely as I can state with certainty that there are no magical fairies and unicorns on Earth, I can state with certainty there is no god, there are no gods, (3)never have been, but who knows, maybe we'll make a quantum-processor-based All-Brain that we used to transcend and become the Machine-God with? That'd be pretty boss...
Despite what every delustionist claims, the bible's been disproven with hearty gusto by science in many, many ways. (4) They can try to square the circle all they want; doesn't change the fact that anyone NOT trying to kid themselves can see the reality of its logical failings. It and the Torah, and the Talmud, and the Quran. All of them. Bunk, baseless, fiction.
In the field of science, a hypothesis is considered null and void and incorrect if it is disproven ONCE. (5)
The god-myth hypotheses have been disproven far more times than that.(6)
Why, therefore, lend any credence or weight to any other possible variations of the exact same fucking hypothesis? The same one that in all its forms comes up invalid over and over and over again?
You can't say you put weight into trusting in science to provide you with the closest thing to truth you can hope for outside of math, and then say you give some credence to another possible future iteration (or iterations) in this endlessly-disproven series of hypotheses. Those two statements are simply not compatible. The scientific method has demonstrated this clearly enough.(7)
Am I actually wrong in saying this? Because I could have sworn that when we talk about creationism and intelligent design, we all agree; the latter is just another attempt at bringing the former hypothesis back around again for another go, despite the former being disproven.(8) Yet somehow, it comes to this subject, where the amount of times it's been disproven numbers in the tens of thousands, and suddenly half the forum is hemming and hawwing and shuffling their feet and shrugging and going "well, MAYBE another version of the hypothesis will be right, we just can't know for certain..."
WHY?
As far as the definition of a god goes by ad populum, one simply does not exist. I know this, because science [aided in many other cases of this ridiculous failure of a hypothesis series by the simple passage of time and geological exploration] has demonstrated it as clearly as it has demonstrated the process of evolution, the progress of climate change, and the secrets of the atom. (9) And just as clearly as it has demonstrated the total failure of creationism and intelligent design to be worthy of any consideration as having any basis in reality and facts.
1: How has the God hypothesis failed? If you could show this, you would actually have proof of atheism, which far as i can tell, no atheist in any debate has ever come up with.
2: Like what?
3: No because you have no grounds to liken God to Unicorns. Why would you posit unicorns as an explanation for any phenomena? Their postulation is entirely arbitrary, thats why you can dismiss the claim. God is different, he could be the explicator for all phenomena, and i'd argue, is the best explicator.
4: Like what? We can argue about evolution or dating methods if you like, or we can argue about whether or not things should be taken allegorically, literally, metaphorically etc.
5: To be disproven is an absolute. You never need to disprove something more than once. As far as i can tell, certainly science has never disproven God.
6: Like When?
7:Demonstrate why you cannot believe in God and science, in mind of the fact that science is the study of the natural realm, which exists inside of our universe, and God, being the creator of the universe, exists independent of it.
8: Like when?
9: Like when? Lol, i think you have a case of scientism. Science operated in the natural paradigm, God created the natural paradigm, he exists outside of it. You cannot disprove God through naturalism. the best explanation for naturalism, is God.
Posts: 23238
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 1:25 am
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 1:27 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 1: How has the God hypothesis failed? If you could show this, you would actually have proof of atheism, which far as i can tell, no atheist in any debate has ever come up with.
Firstly, it fails because it doesn't explain how imperfection can come from perfection.
Secondly, you're committing the excluded--middle fallacy. Disproving your god doesn't prove atheism, it only disproves your god.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 2: Like what?
Like Zeus, who obviously doesn't live on Mt Olympus. Like Thor, who obviously isn't bowling on the clouds over our heads. Like Vishnu, who doesn't actually preserve the Universe.
Like the god of the Bible, who obviously is not perfect, nor omnipotent.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 3: No because you have no grounds to liken God to Unicorns. Why would you posit unicorns as an explanation for any phenomena? Their postulation is entirely arbitrary, thats why you can dismiss the claim. God is different, he could be the explicator for all phenomena, and i'd argue, is the best explicator.
Not at all. Your god's existence doesn't explain evil. Your god's existence doesn't explain quasars. Your god's existence doesn't explain leukemia.
The only thing your god's existence in your head explains is why you're wrong -- to wit, because you have decided that blind faith is the life for you.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 4: Like what? We can argue about evolution or dating methods if you like, or we can argue about whether or not things should be taken allegorically, literally, metaphorically etc.
We could get simpler than that. I can prove that you worship an evil god.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 5: To be disproven is an absolute. You never need to disprove something more than once. As far as i can tell, certainly science has never disproven God.
You're making a logical error here.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 6: Like When?
Like when your Bible claimed that your god was good, yet also claimed he invented evil.
Yeah, like that when. Thanks for asking.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 7:Demonstrate why you cannot believe in God and science, in mind of the fact that science is the study of the natural realm, which exists inside of our universe, and God, being the creator of the universe, exists independent of it.
Because, science demands the ability to questions one's premises, while faith demands the unquestioning acceptance of dogma.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 8: Like when?
See the answer to 6) above.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 9: Like when? Lol, i think you have a case of scientism. Science operated in the natural paradigm, God created the natural paradigm, he exists outside of it. You cannot disprove God through naturalism. the best explanation for naturalism, is God.
Claiming that your god created the paradigm, a word I doubt you really understand, is not demonstrating the same thing.
If your god interacts with the material world, he must by definition leave evidence. If he doesn't, he is either nonexistent, or irrelevant. Or both.
You obviously don't know much about the topic of the thread, so you spew instead the object of your faith. No one here cares. This discussion is about why agnosticism is meaningful. Do you have any thoughts on that, or have you masters forgotten to program you for this contingency?
Begone, robot.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 2:11 am
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: You cannot disprove God through naturalism. the best explanation for naturalism, is God.
How do you know that God is the best explanation for naturalism? I thought naturalism excluded God anyway.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 2:19 am
God doesn't explain anything. It simply replaces the phrase "I don't know" with "God did it".
We are none the wiser after that amazing find and replace.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 3:08 am
In fact we're far worse off, since "goddidit" stymies all investigation into how. Or to put it another way: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 3:16 am
Good point. It's a pacifier for the brain.
It astounds me that people would rather have a wrong, stupid or meaningless answer than no answer.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 11:51 am
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 11:52 am by Whateverist.)
Of course it isn't that simple. They don't start off neutral, learn there is a god that explains everything and then opt in. It's almost always the case that they have been co-opted from birth, get used to having god around and then defend that notion wherever they find it threatened. It doesn't require a failure of intelligence to believe in god, but a fundamentalist belief most likely does whittle it down over time.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 12:05 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 12:05 pm by robvalue.)
Of course, you're right.
I suppose what I'm really amazed at is how well the brain fortifies this junk, so that when someone is presenting you with perfectly rational arguments you just shut down and won't entertain the idea for a second that you're mistaken.
As witnessed by the constant dishonesty of all apologetics.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Our capacity to rationalize is a testimonial to the power of evolution. Courage in one's convictions no doubt has survival value. That anyone should ever come to prefer the truth for its own sake rather than as a means to an end is surely only a byproduct of evolution, a happy accident. Of course confirmation bias lurks for us all.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 12:12 pm
I actively seek to police my own confirmation bias, but I'm not so naive as to think I'm totally successful.
Funnily enough, I asked my wife if I have any superstitions at all, in case there was any I hadn't noticed. She said she had never noticed any. Score! I must be a robot or I am nothing.
|
