A View on Atheist

[Eternity]

So basically you defining a agnostic and a atheist? I'm trying to find the point here if there is one. If it's just a observation then I can't disagree though I do find it meaningless as they believe pretty much the same. The notion of difference shouldn't be showed.

[Ace Otana]

So basically you defining a agnostic and a atheist? I'm trying to find the point here if there is one. If it's just a observation then I can't disagree though I do find it meaningless as they believe pretty much the same. The notion of difference shouldn't be showed.

He's trying to redefine atheism. Failed he has.

He thinks that for someone to lack belief in a god or gods, it requires faith?
Simply put, an atheist is one who does not believe in a god, and putting agnostic in front of that is simply stating that not only do you lack belief in god but admit that god's existence is unknown/unknowable. He thinks this requires faith.
Yet it doesn't take faith to lack belief in anything else, this is where he engages special pleading and has even jumped to argument ad populum, which is a fallacious argument.

I think that about covers it.
Anyone want to add to this?

[Faith No More]

Diffidus:

I would certainly keep an open mind that someone could possibly guess a sequence of 10 numbers.

The probability of guessing that sequence is 10^10, or one in 10 billion. So even if we assigned a different ten digit sequence to every person on the planet earth, there is only a 66% chance that anyone alive would have the same sequence as the one I'm thinking of. In a court of law, they consider a matching DNA sample even at the odds of 1 in a million that the DNA in question could be someone else's besides the accused. If you were on a jury, would you allow someone to go free based on a 1 in a million chance they might be innocent? 1 in a billion? 1 in 10 billion?

Fundamentalism, for me, is a word that applies to someone who knows the answer even when the information to provide the answer is not available. In the case of Christians, they believe that God exists but they base it on pure faith and are not interested in facts. In the case of fundamentalist atheists, they believe that God does not exist and have closed their mind to the possibility even though they may actually be wrong.

I compared you to fundamentalists in the way that they think only their interpretation of the existence of God is the rational one.

I think that about covers it.
Anyone want to add to this?

He is also telling us that no matter how infinitely small the probability of a God existing is, we should keep an open mind about it, and are unenlightened if we don't.

[Ace Otana]

He is also telling us that no matter how infinitely small the probability of a God existing is, we should keep an open mind about it, and are unenlightened if we don't.

He also argued that because we don't have absolute knowledge/ 100% certainty of anything that we can't lack belief in it without faith. We can't be 100% certain of anything, which by his argument we can't believe or lack belief in ANYTHING without faith. This is a hugely fallacious argument. What makes it worse is that he argues that god is different simply because a lot of people believe in such a being(special pleading). He defends this point with an argument ad populum which in itself is a fallacious argument.

Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea.
Nine out of ten of my fellow congressmen favor the bill, therefore it is a good idea.

So yeah, his entire argument is so weak and fallacious, it cannot possibly stand.
His entire argument is fallacious that stands on other fallacious arguments. This all equals = FAIL!

[Faith No More]

So yeah, his entire argument is so weak and fallacious, it cannot possibly stand.
His entire argument is fallacious that stands on other fallacious arguments. This all equals = FAIL!

Which is fine for me, as I believe most religious beliefs are based on fallacious arguments, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs in this matter. If people want to base their life on faulty logic, it's fine with me as long as I'm not affected by it. What gets me is how smug he seems about his views, and the fact that he believes that anyone who doesn't see things the same way he does, just hasn't thought about it as hard as he has.

[Ace Otana]

What gets me is how smug he seems about his views, and the fact that he believes that anyone who doesn't see things the same way he does, just hasn't thought about it as hard as he has.

I think that was what bothered me the most. He was so damn sure of himself. Smug and thinking he'd figured it all out.
I couldn't give a damn if people stand on very fallacious beliefs. It's the smug side of it I guess.
Like when a Christian tells you with a very smug attitude that you're going to hell. They're so sure about it, that they come across as very smug. Just asking for someone to bring them down to earth really.

[diffidus]

Diffidus:

I would certainly keep an open mind that someone could possibly guess a sequence of 10 numbers.

The probability of guessing that sequence is 10^10, or one in 10 billion. So even if we assigned a different ten digit sequence to every person on the planet earth, there is only a 66% chance that anyone alive would have the same sequence as the one I'm thinking of. In a court of law, they consider a matching DNA sample even at the odds of 1 in a million that the DNA in question could be someone else's besides the accused. If you were on a jury, would you allow someone to go free based on a 1 in a million chance they might be innocent? 1 in a billion? 1 in 10 billion?

Fundamentalism, for me, is a word that applies to someone who knows the answer even when the information to provide the answer is not available. In the case of Christians, they believe that God exists but they base it on pure faith and are not interested in facts. In the case of fundamentalist atheists, they believe that God does not exist and have closed their mind to the possibility even though they may actually be wrong.

I compared you to fundamentalists in the way that they think only their interpretation of the existence of God is the rational one.

I think that about covers it.
Anyone want to add to this?

He is also telling us that no matter how infinitely small the probability of a God existing is, we should keep an open mind about it, and are unenlightened if we don't.

Diffidus:

Firstly, on a technical point, the probability of guessing 10 numbers in sequence is not 10^10. It is in fact 10!, which is equal to ~ 1 in 3.6 million. Following the rest of your argument this would mean at least one and likely two people on the planet would guess the correct sequence.

On the second point, it is true that I have said holding an open mind reflects the facts as they are, but I have never said that this means you are unenlightened if you don't. In fact, it is in the nature of an open mind to respect all peoples beliefs where that facts are not fully known.

This does not mean that I will not challenge views when the facts are known. For example, many Christians believe that the age of the earth is ~6500 years old. The evidence from the record of the rocks and carbon dating puts the age of the earth at ~ 4.5 billion years. Although there is some experimental uncertainty in the scientific measurements, it would be nowhere near enough to reconcile the differences. The Christian view is so far off the radar that it cannot possibly be correct. In this case we are able to test a view against empirical measurement and prove it to be fallacious using known experimental techniques.

But there are other types of question that are not accessible to current experimental measurements such: Does telepathy exist, the mystery of consciousness, are there more dimensions to space-time than four, is there a God? I keep an open mind on these type of questions and respect peoples beliefs about them.

[Violet]

On the second point, it is true that I have said holding an open mind reflects the facts as they are, but I have never said that this means you are unenlightened if you don't. In fact, it is in the nature of an open mind to respect all peoples beliefs where that facts are not fully known.

This does not mean that I will not challenge views when the facts are known. For example, many Christians believe that the age of the earth is ~6500 years old. The evidence from the record of the rocks and carbon dating puts the age of the earth at ~ 4.5 billion years. Although there is some experimental uncertainty in the scientific measurements, it would be nowhere near enough to reconcile the differences. The Christian view is so far off the radar that it cannot possibly be correct. In this case we are able to test a view against empirical measurement and prove it to be fallacious using known experimental techniques.

But there are other types of question that are not accessible to current experimental measurements such: Does telepathy exist, the mystery of consciousness, are there more dimensions to space-time than four, is there a God? I keep an open mind on these type of questions and respect peoples beliefs about them.

... *Aerzia ponders on her hungry empty stomach over whether or not this is worth devouring. On the one hand: she is hungry. On the other: this tripe looks to be gathering mold and unfit for consumption*...

I wonder how many hundred years it will take for humans to stop saying nonsense like this. We have a running pool throughout the galaxy, and the smart money puts it outside 4 centuries.

I'll give you a shortcut. Everything exists. Telepathy takes far more electricity than a human brain provides for. Consciousness is not a mystery but a state of being. Only those weirdo scientists give a damn how many dimensions are in 'this' 'universe', and them certainly not for practical application. There is no longer a 'God', as Larry is dead, and for my own safety I shall not say how (as the method used to kill him is the same method required to kill me).

[diffidus]

On the second point, it is true that I have said holding an open mind reflects the facts as they are, but I have never said that this means you are unenlightened if you don't. In fact, it is in the nature of an open mind to respect all peoples beliefs where that facts are not fully known.

This does not mean that I will not challenge views when the facts are known. For example, many Christians believe that the age of the earth is ~6500 years old. The evidence from the record of the rocks and carbon dating puts the age of the earth at ~ 4.5 billion years. Although there is some experimental uncertainty in the scientific measurements, it would be nowhere near enough to reconcile the differences. The Christian view is so far off the radar that it cannot possibly be correct. In this case we are able to test a view against empirical measurement and prove it to be fallacious using known experimental techniques.

But there are other types of question that are not accessible to current experimental measurements such: Does telepathy exist, the mystery of consciousness, are there more dimensions to space-time than four, is there a God? I keep an open mind on these type of questions and respect peoples beliefs about them.

... *Aerzia ponders on her hungry empty stomach over whether or not this is worth devouring. On the one hand: she is hungry. On the other: this tripe looks to be gathering mold and unfit for consumption*...

I wonder how many hundred years it will take for humans to stop saying nonsense like this. We have a running pool throughout the galaxy, and the smart money puts it outside 4 centuries.

I'll give you a shortcut. Everything exists. Telepathy takes far more electricity than a human brain provides for. Consciousness is not a mystery but a state of being. Only those weirdo scientists give a damn how many dimensions are in 'this' 'universe', and them certainly not for practical application. There is no longer a 'God', as Larry is dead, and for my own safety I shall not say how (as the method used to kill him is the same method required to kill me).

Diffidus:

Thank you for these considered answers. If I require any more information on subjects that have baffled the greatest minds that have existed throughout history, I now know who to ask!

[Faith No More]

Firstly, on a technical point, the probability of guessing 10 numbers in sequence is not 10^10. It is in fact 10!, which is equal to ~ 1 in 3.6 million. Following the rest of your argument this would mean at least one and likely two people on the planet would guess the correct sequence.

How did you come to 10! as the answer? For some reason, my memory seems to tell me you're correct, but in trying to look up the answer it I could only verify my calculation. The probability of you guessing one digit is 1/10. The probability of you guessing 2 digits is 1/10 * 1/10 both numbers is 1 in 100 or 1/10^2. The probability of you guessing 3 digits in a row is 1/10*1/10*1/10 or 1/10^3. Therefore the probability guessing a sequence of of digits is 1/10^n, where n is the number digits you have to guess in a row. So in trying to guess 10 digits correctly the probability is 1/10^10.

Regardless if the probability is 1 in 3.6 million or 1 in 10 billion, would you let someone accused of a crime go based on either of those odds, or would you say with certainty he/she is guilty?

On the second point, it is true that I have said holding an open mind reflects the facts as they are, but I have never said that this means you are unenlightened if you don't. In fact, it is in the nature of an open mind to respect all peoples beliefs where that facts are not fully known.

I never meant to say that you were doing it intentionally, but you have started two threads of a similar manner. In both of those you have inadvertently come off condescending towards anyone who believes differently.