Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[Epimethean]

"1) Well, I don't know that I'd call it "my" reasoning, since I don't think of myself as a Pragmatist. I think an agnostic in my hypothetical pill scenario would refuse to take the pill, or would otherwise bear out his indeterminacy in his actions.

2) Not sure what you mean by "faith status". Do you mean whether I consider them theists, weak atheists, strong atheists, or agnostics? Anyone who acts on a belief that some god exists is functionally a theist. They don't have to think of it as "god"; they don't have to conceive of it in the same way that I do. I'm not sure if there's a sharp delineation there."

What is the value of pragmatism to you as it applies to those who believe in gods other than the one in which you believe? If no sharp delineation exists, what criteria obtain by means of which you can assess the value of any god or gods other than your own?

[CliveStaples]

So I'm acting on a belief, which I lack and deny the existence of a god that I don't believe exists?

Oookk.........

Whatever floats your boat.

Well, think of it. Pragmatism says that the only beliefs that really matter are the ones that influence your actions, and that conversely your actions determine what your beliefs are. So a Pragmatist doesn't care about beliefs that don't influence actions. Thus, there is no Pragmatist distinction between two people who act in precisely the same manner in the same circumstances.

Alright, I state that it doesn't demonstrate the existence of god seeing as that argument can be applied to anything. Replace 'god' with any fictional character and it'll be as likely a non-explanation as 'god'. Now I'm actually expecting a theist to give reasons as to why and how it demonstrates that a god does exist. Got any?

But that's not true. Replace 'god' with a fictional character that's incapable of creating the universe, and the explanation no longer works. The character can't be material, otherwise he couldn't precede the universe, right?

I think your approach has some merit--the idea of finding equally-plausible explanatory alternatives to god--but I think you need to think it through more, tighten it up and make it more rigorous.

It'll raise questions and eyebrows but it wouldn't prove the existence of god (or your xtian god). I'd still keep to the don't know answer.

Really? So if the very best explanation is that God exists, and no other deity exists, and every other explanation is incredibly unlikely, you'd still refuse to accept that God probably exists?

Do you do this with any other explanatory entity? Like, if you saw a guy fall from the sky who could leap tall buildings in a single bound, could shoot heat beams from his eyes, and could run faster than a speeding bullet, and said he was from Krypton, that his name is Kal-El, and provided a sample of Kryptonite, and then flew you to the ruins of his planet, you'd refuse to believe that Superman exists?

That's actually a good analogy, because in that case, the best available explanation is that Superman exists, but would you really say, "Nah, I really don't know if Superman exists. I might just be hallucinating! Maybe I'm just a brain in a vat!"

It's a standard to first demonstrate that pixies (or in your case 'god') exists before it can be used to explain anything. It's a basic principle.

Um, no, it's not. What things are assumed and what must be shown depends on the audience of your proof. A mathematician writing in an academic journal might not bother to prove that the real numbers form an integral domain, even if that fact was necessary for a proof he wrote, because it would be 'common knowledge'.

---

What is the value of pragmatism to you as it applies to those who believe in gods other than the one in which you believe? If no sharp delineation exists, what criteria obtain by means of which you can assess the value of any god or gods other than your own?

I think that Pragmatism is an interesting philosophy. I don't know how convinced I am that it is the best way to understand the world.

A pragmatist would evaluate religious beliefs not by asking which ones are true, but by asking which ones produce the best results in living one's life. If living your life according to a set of beliefs B makes your life worse than living your life according to a set of beliefs B', then you should live according to B'.

That's according to Pragmatism, or at least my understanding of it. I'm a bit more Platonic/Existential than all that--I think I'd be more interested in having true beliefs, even if they made my life miserable and made me an asshole.

[Skepsis]

Well, think of it. Pragmatism says that the only beliefs that really matter are the ones that influence your actions, and that conversely your actions determine what your beliefs are. So a Pragmatist doesn't care about beliefs that don't influence actions. Thus, there is no Pragmatist distinction between two people who act in precisely the same manner in the same circumstances.

Would a person who had never heard of a concept act in a similar manner to a man who has heard of a concept, yet dismisses it for lack of evidence?
Because if that is the case, then your argument that, in effect, those that live life as if there were no God actively believe there to be no God is a non sequitur.

...your actions determine what your beliefs are.

What does lack of action mean? Did you read what would happen to you if you don't make your daily three post offereings to satiate my dragon? I feel sorry for you, dude. And your brain.

[CliveStaples]

Would a person who had never heard of a concept act in a similar manner to a man who has heard of a concept, yet dismisses it for lack of evidence?
Because if that is the case, then your argument that, in effect, those that live life as if there were no God actively believe there to be no God is a non sequitur.

I don't think you know what non sequitur means.

I don't know how a person who has never heard of a concept would act. There's not enough information to draw inferences about how he would act.

What does lack of action mean? Did you read what would happen to you if you don't make your daily three post offereings to satiate my dragon? I feel sorry for you, dude. And your brain.

I'm not sure what you're asking about. "Lack of action" probably means something like "failing to perform a particular action". I don't know, I don't think I used that phrase anywhere.

[Ace Otana]

Well, think of it. Pragmatism says that the only beliefs that really matter are the ones that influence your actions, and that conversely your actions determine what your beliefs are. So a Pragmatist doesn't care about beliefs that don't influence actions. Thus, there is no Pragmatist distinction between two people who act in precisely the same manner in the same circumstances.

If I were a very religious man, you could say I went to church, prayed and said grace based on my belief. However I lack belief. I'm not acting on a belief. I'm simply living the way I've always lived. Without religion. I lack belief and so it makes no sense to act on a belief (that isn't there).

But that's not true. Replace 'god' with a fictional character that's incapable of creating the universe, and the explanation no longer works.

How do you know god isn't another fictional character? As far as I'm concerned, he's just another crazy concept made up by man like many other made up characters. How do you know god exists? How do you know he created the universe? What gives god (a fictional character) any more merit than any other made up character.

Thing is, no matter what character you replace 'god' with, it's still just as likely. Because god like every other character has not be demonstrated to be anything more than a fictional character.

Really? So if the very best explanation is that God exists, and no other deity exists, and every other explanation is incredibly unlikely, you'd still refuse to accept that God probably exists?

Already consider the existence of god as possible, I've simply ruled it out. Thing is, god is not currently the best explanation we have.

Do you do this with any other explanatory entity?

Pretty much.

When I first heard of "the universe from nothing" I completely doubted it. Questioned it and thought it meant something else. It wasn't till I listened and learnt more about it that I now support the idea completely. You see, I can be swayed. If I generally don't know about something I'll study it. If it lacks credibility I'll question it deeply, and if it stands up and holds true and backs up everything, then I'll be convinced. I can be convinced, you just need to find a way to demonstrate that a god exists and I'll listen, and if the support is strong and stands up to public scrutiny, I'll believe you. I generally want to know what's true. What's real. If god does exist I can accept that, but from this point, I've seen nothing to come even close to suggest that such a being exists.

Like, if you saw a guy fall from the sky who could leap tall buildings in a single bound, could shoot heat beams from his eyes, and could run faster than a speeding bullet, and said he was from Krypton, that his name is Kal-El, and provided a sample of Kryptonite, and then flew you to the ruins of his planet, you'd refuse to believe that Superman exists?

I'd question my sanity and seek professional help. Of course if that did happen we could test, measure and verify what's happening. So yeah, I'd have to accept the data I'm being given, and seeing as it's all verifiable I'd have all the evidence required to support it.

Um, no, it's not.

Um yes it is. If you assert that X caused Y, you must first demonstrate X. You can state that X caused Y but because X hasn't been demonstrated to be real I could easily state that actually it was B that caused Y and it would be just as likely seeing as neither have been demonstrated to exist and cause Y. You can assign as many assumptions as you like and there'd be no change. They'd all be non-answers.

[Skepsis]

Would a person who had never heard of a concept act in a similar manner to a man who has heard of a concept, yet dismisses it for lack of evidence?
Because if that is the case, then your argument that, in effect, those that live life as if there were no God actively believe there to be no God is a non sequitur.

I don't think you know what non sequitur means.

I don't know how a person who has never heard of a concept would act. There's not enough information to draw inferences about how he would act.

What does lack of action mean? Did you read what would happen to you if you don't make your daily three post offereings to satiate my dragon? I feel sorry for you, dude. And your brain.

I'm not sure what you're asking about. "Lack of action" probably means something like "failing to perform a particular action". I don't know, I don't think I used that phrase anywhere.

Here is the problemo.
You have a hard time taking in the information, so I will use little words:
IF there is a man who believes affirmatively there to be no God, a man who simply doesn't believe there to be a God despite being introduced to the idea, and a silly man who just never heard of God, in the same room with all other factors the same, would they act identically regarding a God?
It DOES NOT FOLLOW that lack of action = affirmative disbelief.
You made the comment that prgmatism only regards those beliefs that inform your actions. That was why I asked what inaction means, as it appears your pragmatic views don't cover that facet of belief.

Respond to my analogy: Do you affirmatively disbelieve in my dragon or not? I would say you do, according to your pragmatism, because your daily tribute hasn't been made and the day is half over.

[CliveStaples]

Um yes it is. If you assert that X caused Y, you must first demonstrate X. You can state that X caused Y but because X hasn't been demonstrated to be real I could easily state that actually it was B that caused Y and it would be just as likely seeing as neither have been demonstrated to exist and cause Y. You can assign as many assumptions as you like and there'd be no change. They'd all be non-answers.

Consider this hypothetical:

The only person in the world who is capable of drawing a perfect circle is Mr. X, even though he has never drawn a circle. Suddenly, you come across a drawing of a perfect circle. Who drew it?

[Ace Otana]

Consider this hypothetical:

The only person in the world who is capable of drawing a perfect circle is Mr. X, even though he has never drawn a circle. Suddenly, you come across a drawing of a perfect circle. Who drew it?

Strawman argument.

The answer is - I don't know.
How do you know he's the only one who can draw a perfect circle? If I saw a perfect circle I'd think it was done by someone who had a tool or used a computer.
If it hasn't been demonstrated, how do you know it's true?

[Cyberman]

Especially as Mr X has never even drawn a circle. So how can the determination be made that he is the only person who can do so, since such a thing has never been demonstrated?

[Skepsis]

Consider this hypothetical:

The only person in the world who is capable of drawing a perfect circle is Mr. X, even though he has never drawn a circle. Suddenly, you come across a drawing of a perfect circle. Who drew it?

The other reason your hypothetical fails is because a perfect circle could form due to natural phenomina, or chance. After all, this is a large world we are talking about, right?