Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
de_skudd

Why Be “Absolutely Relative"?

Recommended Posts

Another name for all or nothing reasoning is dichotomous reasoning. Sometimes it is also called black and white reasoning. One only sees things in extremes. This is considered by cognitive psychologists as a cognitive distortion. In reality there are numerous shades of gray and at least 16.5 million colors available on most computer displays by analogy bits of truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a cool testimony, Rico. What's interesting about the statement that helped you "Truth is knowable" is that you can put its own truthfulness to a quick test. The opposite is either true or false... "Truth is not knowable". If that statement is assumed true, it's false on its own grounds.

 

Apply the law of excluded middle and...

 

Truth IS knowable

This law doesn't apply ubiquitously to claims of knowledge. It's generally applied in math and even then is not widely accepted as a law. It is always acceptable to say "I don't know" when asked about claims of knowledge.

 

"Is truth knowable?"

 

"I don't know."

 

"Is it true that you don't know?"

 

"I don't know."

 

Is it possible that all truth is knowable? Sure. Is it possible that all truth is not knowable? Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This law doesn't apply ubiquitously to claims of knowledge. It's generally applied in math and even then is not widely accepted as a law. It is always acceptable to say "I don't know" when asked about claims of knowledge.

 

"Is truth knowable?"

 

"I don't know."

 

"Is it true that you don't know?"

 

"I don't know."

 

Is it possible that all truth is knowable? Sure. Is it possible that all truth is not knowable? Sure.

Are you sure about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I knew you were going to say that. Are you an agnostic or an atheist? If you are an atheist you obviously think truth is knowable, or you wouldn't have a belief. Why you ask? Well if you couldn't know the truth then why would you side with atheism? Do you just like the title? Doesn't make much sense, or is it that you will believe in anything just as long as it undercuts creation. Seems to be the case with most atheists. Funny thing is, the only evolving I see on this forum is the atheists ever evolving (or is that devolving?) beliefs to circumvent the truth any way they can.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I knew you were going to say that. Are you an agnostic or an atheist? If you are an atheist you obviously think truth is knowable, or you wouldn't have a belief. Why you ask? Well if you couldn't know the truth then why would you side with atheism? Do you just like the title? Doesn't make much sense, or is it that you will believe in anything just as long as it undercuts creation. Seems to be the case with most atheists. Funny thing is, the only evolving I see on this forum is the atheists ever evolving (or is that devolving?) beliefs to circumvent the truth any way they can.

I don't have a belief. I lack belief. And before you bring it up... because I've heard this a thousand times... and I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times... I don't have a belief that God does not exist. I lack the belief that God exists. I'm not claiming knowledge of God's non-existence. I'm doubting his existence based on a lack of evidence.

 

Is it possible (to know) God exists? I don't know. Do I believe he exists? I doubt it.

 

Agnostics actually believe it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. Atheists just accept that it's not likely based on the evidence but don't discount the possibility.

 

If you want to discuss epistemological definitions of knowledge vs. belief we can though I don't think it's necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a belief. I lack belief. And before you bring it up... because I've heard this a thousand times... and I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times... I don't have a belief that God does not exist. I lack the belief that God exists. I'm not claiming knowledge of God's non-existence. I'm doubting his existence based on a lack of evidence.

 

Then why don't you doubt the assumption "evolution did it" because there is "a lack of evidence" for that claim too.... Double standards much?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a belief. I lack belief. And before you bring it up... because I've heard this a thousand times... and I'm sure you've heard this a thousand times... I don't have a belief that God does not exist. I lack the belief that God exists.

I am a little confused here. What are you trying to say?

I'm not claiming knowledge of God's non-existence. I'm doubting his existence based on a lack of evidence.

There is no evidence for a creative act. There is no evidence that the telephone existed 5000 years ago. That's the nature of creativity. Nor does there need to be evidence for an uncreated being. Surely you can see the sense of that even if you only contemplate it as a definition?

 

Any psychologist will tell you that it is impossible not to have beliefs. If you are conscious which means the software in your brain is running, you have to think. You have to tell yourself what to believe. We talk to ourselves in simple declarative sentences most of the time. You telling yourself that you do not have a belief is like saying, "I am not saying what I am saying." "I don't have a belief," is a belief. Get real! This sentence is self-delusional nonsense. The only people that don't have beliefs are dead people. Do you really think we think you are dead? Why don't you pinch yourself and see if you respond?

 

Is it possible (to know) God exists? I don't know. Do I believe he exists? I doubt it.

let me see now. First you ask a question. And then you answer it. You make no claims that you have seriously looked for evidence whether he exists or not. You simply lean to your own understanding. . You can only pull out of your memory what you put in there or what you create from what is in your mind. I would say your disbelief in God is an act of pure negative creativity. I think negative creativity is an abuse of creativity.

 

Here is a question, you can ask yourself. "Do I believe it's possible for others to know something that I don't know?" Now be honest with yourself. A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

 

The evidence offered for God's existence is the whole universe. Now if you are going to be honest, what you need to do is to disapprove that there is any connection between the universe and God. Good luck with that. If you can't do that, the only valid belief you can have is you don't know one way or the other.

 

There is a pattern here symptomatic of lousy thinking by a very intelligent being--you. Not only can you think, but you can think about your thinking. That's what I think you need to do.

 

Look at these two sentences and think about them. "Do I think he exists? I doubt it." All you are doing here is telling yourself that you can determine who can and who cannot exist. I'm sure most of us doubt that you have that ability. I have issued a challenge to many people to take thought and cause me not to exist. I am still here. If you are going to be rational and honest you will have to admit you don't have the power to determine who can or can't exist. Be scientific, make something disappear by thinking it ou of existence. See if that works for you.

Report back to m. Okay?

 

Agnostics actually believe it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. Atheists just accept that it's not likely based on the evidence but don't discount the possibility.

 

A personal belief does not a reality make. If you tell yourself, "I don't think it's possible to know if God exist one way or the other,." guess what your mind will create over that self statement? You will believe what you tell yourself. Our thinking is not sacrosanct! Thinking about your thinking can help you avoid lousy logic. It's probably a good idea not to believe your own PR (public relations) lol smile.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible (to know) God exists? I don't know. Do I believe he exists? I doubt it.

 

Marmie, that is what an agnostic IS!

 

Someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists is an agnostic, and someone who doesn't have any doubts about his existance is either omnescient or is just fooling himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marmie, that is what an agnostic IS!

 

Someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists is an agnostic, and someone who doesn't have any doubts about his existance is either omnescient or is just fooling himself.

No, that's what an agnostic atheist is. Doesn't believe god(s) exist but doesn't claim to know they don't exist. See my helpful profile picture for more information...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's what an agnostic atheist is. Doesn't believe god(s) exist but doesn't claim to know they don't exist. See my helpful profile picture for more information...

 

The definition of agnostic atheist allows the atheist to escape the burden of proof for their claims, however it also debunks their creditability because whilst they claim to not believe in God, they admit they have no evidence for this. Essentially its admitting they are taking a leap of faith on atheism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of agnostic atheist allows the atheist to escape the burden of proof for their claims, however it also debunks their creditability because whilst they claim to not believe in God, they admit they have no evidence for this. Essentially its admitting they are taking a leap of faith on atheism.

 

The theist claims that there is a god. Nobody has presented evidence that convinces me this is the case. Therefore I do not believe in god(s). The agnostic atheist does not need evidence for no god(s), they just don't think the evidence for god(s) is convincing.

Or do you take a leap of faith in not believing in vampires? (I'm assuming you don't belive in vampires but forgive me if this isn't the case and replace vampires with something you don't believe in)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theist claims that there is a god. Nobody has presented evidence that convinces me this is the case. Therefore I do not believe in god(s). The agnostic atheist does not need evidence for no god(s), they just don't think the evidence for god(s) is convincing.

Or do you take a leap of faith in not believing in vampires? (I'm assuming you don't belive in vampires but forgive me if this isn't the case and replace vampires with something you don't believe in)

 

Sigh...

 

To not believe in something is to, in effect claim that it doesn't exist on what basis can you make this claim if you are not omniscient? (As Salsa alluded to). Do you think that your opinion of how convincing the evidence is affects the reality of the situation? Perhaps if students disapprove of bad results hard enough they can change those passes to high distinctions....

 

There is positive evidence against vampires, there have been no record of vampire attacks, people can inspect tombs in daytime and not find vampires sleeping in coffins, etc.

 

There is no such positive evidence against God, therefore you are using a false analogy, aka comparing apples with oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

 

To not believe in something is to, in effect claim that it doesn't exist on what basis can you make this claim if you are not omniscient? (As Salsa alluded to). Do you think that your opinion of how convincing the evidence is affects the reality of the situation? Perhaps if students disapprove of bad results hard enough they can change those passes to high distinctions....

 

There is positive evidence against vampires, there have been no record of vampire attacks, people can inspect tombs in daytime and not find vampires sleeping in coffins, etc.

 

There is no such positive evidence against God, therefore you are using a false analogy, aka comparing apples with oranges.

Sigh...

 

To not believe something is not the same as believing the opposite. Here is a good blog giving an explanation: http://mrozatheist.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/not-believing-in-something-does-not.html As you'll see, not believing your claim doesn't mean I believe the opposite of your claim, it just means that you are unconvincing and I don't believe your claim.

And it's got nothing to do with being omniscient...

 

As for vampires, not having convincing evidence that they exist is not the same as having positive evidence that they don't exist. You don't have positive evidence that they don't exist (looking in a few tombs isn't positive evidence, it just reinforces a lack of evidence). Can you prove that they can't exist?

Apples & apples.

(Oh, and there are records of attacks claimed to be by vampires).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agnostic atheist does not need evidence for no god(s).

 

Ok, but does that mean that the "regular" atheists DO need evidence of no god(s)?

 

 

they just don't think the evidence for god(s) is convincing

 

Again, what is the difference? Regular atheists don't think that the evidence for god(s) is convincing either.

 

Or do they? Hmmm.. perhaps they do.. but I think that would be a little confusing, don't you? laugh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

 

To not believe in something is to, in effect claim that it doesn't exist on what basis can you make this claim if you are not omniscient? (As Salsa alluded to). Do you think that your opinion of how convincing the evidence is affects the reality of the situation? Perhaps if students disapprove of bad results hard enough they can change those passes to high distinctions....

 

There is positive evidence against vampires, there have been no record of vampire attacks, people can inspect tombs in daytime and not find vampires sleeping in coffins, etc.

 

There is no such positive evidence against God, therefore you are using a false analogy, aka comparing apples with oranges.

 

 

To not believe in something is to, in effect claim that it doesn't exist...

You are confusing belief with knowledge. Knowledge applies to what we can demonstrate. Belief applies to what we cannot demonstrate.

 

on what basis can you make this claim if you are not omniscient?

Again, you are confusing belief (what we think to be true) with knowledge (what we know to be true). I am not claiming to be omniscient. I am doubting the existence of something that has not been proven. You're trying to accuse me of claiming something that I have never claimed when I have made it perfectly clear that I am not espousing knowledge about God's existence.

 

Do you think that your opinion of how convincing the evidence is affects the reality of the situation?

No. But you obviously do. You believe evolution to be false (not true) and you claim to know this based on your opinion of how convincing the evidence is.

 

Perhaps if students disapprove of bad results hard enough they can change those passes to high distinctions....

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

 

There is positive evidence against vampires, there have been no record of vampire attacks, people can inspect tombs in daytime and not find vampires sleeping in coffins, etc.

 

Wrong. Now you're claiming to be omniscient.

 

We don't base claims of knowledge on a lack of evidence. But you do. I believe there is a lack of evidence that God exists. This is not evidence against God's existence. It's merely a lack of evidence for his existence.

 

A lack of evidence simply reinforces belief. It does not affirm knowledge. To affirm knowledge we would need to be able to demonstrate vampires do not exist. But since we would need to be omniscient, like you, to do so, we find it more reasonable to simply lack belief in the existence of vampires.

 

Is this starting to make sense?

 

There is no such positive evidence against God, therefore you are using a false analogy, aka comparing apples with oranges.

Of course there isn't. We would need to be omniscient, like you, to make such a claim. That's why reasonable atheists don't claim that God does not exist. We simply lack the belief that he exists.

 

Here's a thought experiment to help demonstrate this:

 

I just bought a $1 soda and paid with a $20 bill. I have not emptied my pockets since leaving the store. Do I have $5 in my pocket?

 

Yes? No? Not sure? It's probably reasonable to believe I have $5 in my pocket based on the evidence but you cannot know that I do or do not have $5 in my pocket?

 

If you believe I have $5 in my pocket you're not claiming to know that I have $5 in my pocket. You're just making an educated guess based on the evidence. That's all us atheists are doing.

 

Do you know evolution is not true or do you believe evolution is not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but does that mean that the "regular" atheists DO need evidence of no god(s)?

 

 

 

Again, what is the difference? Regular atheists don't think that the evidence for god(s) is convincing either.

 

Or do they? Hmmm.. perhaps they do.. but I think that would be a little confusing, don't you? laugh.png

 

Ok, but does that mean that the "regular" atheists DO need evidence of no god(s)?

No.

 

What Jambobskiwobski is saying is that the default atheist position is that we lack a belief in God. Some atheists take it a step further and claim that God does not exist. Most don't.

 

Again, what is the difference? Regular atheists don't think that the evidence for god(s) is convincing either.

The difference is that some atheists claim to know that God does not exist while others just don't believe that he exists. But you can't just lump all atheists together and claim to know what they think based on what some of them believe. It's fallacious. What if I were to lump all Christians together and say that they all believe the Earth is old simply because most of them do? Would I be wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

What Jambobskiwobski is saying is that the default atheist position is that we lack a belief in God. Some atheists take it a step further and claim that God does not exist. Most don't.

 

The difference is that some atheists claim to know that God does not exist while others just don't believe that he exists. But you can't just lump all atheists together and claim to know what they think based on what some of them believe. It's fallacious. What if I were to lump all Christians together and say that they all believe the Earth is old simply because most of them do? Would I be wrong?

 

I didn't lump anyone together. Did I?

 

I was just asking what the diffence was. You "clarified" that by saying that athiests are agnostics ... except for those that are not. tongue.png

 

Is that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing belief with knowledge. Knowledge applies to what we can demonstrate. Belief applies to what we cannot demonstrate.

 

Belief is the underpinning of knowledge, I believe I have 2 arms... That is demonstrable AND is a belief....

 

Nope its a logical deduction. If God did exist then you would believe in him, therefore to not believe in God is to 'de facto' claim that God doesn't exist. Because if God did exist then you would believe, wouldn't you?

 

If atheism is also based on belief, then why do atheists complain about "faith of believers" since by your own admission atheists have faith as well...

 

 

Again, you are confusing belief (what we think to be true) with knowledge (what we know to be true). I am not claiming to be omniscient. I am doubting the existence of something that has not been proven. You're trying to accuse me of claiming something that I have never claimed when I have made it perfectly clear that I am not espousing knowledge about God's existence.

 

See above. To not believe in God is in effect to claim that God doesn't exist because if He did then you would believe in him.

 

Additionally if its unknown then you can always be a fence sitter, rather than an atheist.

 

No. But you obviously do. You believe evolution to be false (not true) and you claim to know this based on your opinion of how convincing the evidence is.

 

Sigh... If you actually READ my arguments against evolution you'd see that there is nothing based on opinion in there. Meanwhile we have you admitting that evolutionists assume (infer) "evolution did it" which IS an opinion based claim, since to assume something is based on the person's opinion.

 

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

 

Read what I was replying to.....

 

Wrong. Now you're claiming to be omniscient.

 

Was I? Or is this yet another of your false accusations? I suggest you post a quote of where I claimed such a thing.

 

In fact, having positive evidence against vampires is not claiming omniscience, (not sure how you can make that claim perhaps its used so you don't have to deal with the point I was making... proving yet again evolutionists reply with red herrings).

 

We have positive evidence against vampires meaning there is evidence for non-belief in vampires, thus making the non-belief rational. Can you say the same for atheism? Where is it's evidence?

 

We don't base claims of knowledge on a lack of evidence. But you do.

 

Where have I done this, I expect quotation or a full retraction.

 

Or is this yet ANOTHER false accusation made by you. You do realise that people can read my posts and see what you claim here is an utter lie?

 

I believe there is a lack of evidence that God exists. This is not evidence against God's existence. It's merely a lack of evidence for his existence.

 

And? So why not believe in God? What evidence do you have for this? We have positive evidence against vampires do you have the same for God? Or is your unbelief simply based on your opinion?

 

A lack of evidence simply reinforces belief. It does not affirm knowledge. To affirm knowledge we would need to be able to demonstrate vampires do not exist. But since we would need to be omniscient, like you, to do so, we find it more reasonable to simply lack belief in the existence of vampires.

 

Firstly you claimed that YOU believed that there was a lack of evidence, this is YOUR OPINION on the matter of evidence. Does this mean your opinion reinforces your belief?....

 

How can a lack of evidence reinforce belief? Oh you are claiming its evidence then... But before you claimed it wasn't evidence... Oh my yet another contradiction, (cognitive dissonance?)

 

Is this starting to make sense?

 

It might if you stopped contradicting yourself

 

Of course there isn't. We would need to be omniscient, like you, to make such a claim. That's why reasonable atheists don't claim that God does not exist. We simply lack the belief that he exists.

 

I never claimed to be omniscient please provide quotes where I have claimed that. If not I expect a retraction... (Another false accusation)...

 

Atheism by definition is the belief that there is no God, which as I demonstrated before is in effect claiming there is no God.

 

Here's a thought experiment to help demonstrate this:

 

I just bought a $1 soda and paid with a $20 bill. I have not emptied my pockets since leaving the store. Do I have $5 in my pocket?

 

Yes? No? Not sure? It's probably reasonable to believe I have $5 in my pocket based on the evidence but you cannot know that I do or do not have $5 in my pocket?

 

If you believe I have $5 in my pocket you're not claiming to know that I have $5 in my pocket. You're just making an educated guess based on the evidence. That's all us atheists are doing.

 

Sigh... If I claim "I believe you do not have a $5 note in your pocket" then I am in effect claiming that you do not....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

 

To not believe something is not the same as believing the opposite.

 

If I claim I do not believe in evolution then I am in effect claiming evolution doesn't exist.

 

 

 

This is the crux of his argument

 

Now let’s agree you’ve said, and with good reason, that you don’t believe me that the coin is heads. The nextarrow-10x10.png question is – does that mean you necessarily believe the coin is tails? Again the right response is - of course not. Nothing you have said indicates that you believe coin is tails. All you’ve said is what you do NOT believe, not what you do believe. Sound familiar?

 

All he does is demonstrate how not believing in one thing is not evidence for the opposite, however he didn't address what he was supposed to address whereby not believing in something is claiming that thing (not the opposite) doesn't exist... Essentially he has demonstrated how someone's non-belief cannot be used as evidence for atheism, that is it.

 

 

 

As you'll see, not believing your claim doesn't mean I believe the opposite of your claim,

 

I wasn't making that claim.... (Strawman)... I am saying claiming unbelief in God is in effect claiming God doesn't exist.

 

IF I was saying that unbelief in God is claiming atheism is true (which is illogical) THEN you can make such a statement.

 

As for vampires, not having convincing evidence that they exist is not the same as having positive evidence that they don't exist.

 

Yes that is the point, atheists unbelief is not positive evidence....

 

You don't have positive evidence that they don't exist (looking in a few tombs isn't positive evidence, it just reinforces a lack of evidence).

 

Having no reports of vampire attacks IS positive evidence.... If vampires were real we would expect to see some reports of vampire attacks, just like how if a 2nd moon was real we would expect to see a 2nd moon orbiting the Earth.

 

(Oh, and there are records of attacks claimed to be by vampires).

 

Produce them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

self-right·eous

 

adjective

adjective: self-righteous

1.

having or characterized by a certainty, esp. an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.

"self-righteous indignation and complacency"


synonyms: sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-satisfied, smug, priggish, complacent, pious, moralizing, preachy, superior, hypocritical; More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't base claims of knowledge on a lack of evidence. But you do. I believe there is a lack of evidence that God exists. This is not evidence against God's existence. It's merely a lack of evidence for his existence.

 

A lack of evidence simply reinforces belief.

 

Knowledge is based on belief, I believe in God therefore I think God exists.

I believe that "from nothing nothing comes" which means I can state with confidence that the results of my experiments are caused by the factors I influence in the experiment design.

I believe I have two arms and thus know that I have two arms

 

You cannot have knowledge without first having beliefs which are the foundation for knowledge. This is where you are confused, you think belief and knowledge are seperate when in fact they co-exist as two sides of a coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, can you give an example of positive evidence against vampires?

 

Please do not come up with a generalization fallacy or an argument from ignorance, since that are our arguments. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms