Debate with Strong Atheist

As per Strong Atheists request I've created a new thread, which is really a continuation of this older thread, but things were beginning to get a bit cluttered. I hope that this thread can continue on with the same debate without degenerating into a flame war.

Strong Atheist has asserted that he is 100% certain (as in: beyond a shadow of a doubt) that there is no God. Orrek and I disputed such a claim and say that no one can say they know anything with 100% certainty because by doing that, they would be professing to be omniscient. Since no one can be omniscient then we asserted that his argument is based on fallacious logic.

The goal of this thread is to form a debate between Strong Atheist and myself, I am taking the position of an Agnostic Theist - someone who asserts a belief in God but admits that he cannot prove the existence of God. I am then asking Strong Atheist to offer his compelling evidence against my arguments for God in an attempt to convince me of his beliefs. The goal of this exercise is to point out the fallacious logic in which is being argued by proving that his claims can never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, therefore he cannot say he is correct with 100% certainty and that he was arguing from a fallacious premise.

The only rule I'd like to place upon the debate is that no one call each other names, flame, or insult. It should be a debate back and forth discussing the various positions and facts.
---

BEGIN DEBATE:

I am not certain if there is a God or not, but I've come to believe that there is through various events in my life. When I was younger my mother was really sick and in the hospital, the doctors said she wouldn't make it. They couldn't even figure out what was wrong with her. Then somehow, some way - she got well and got better. She is still alive many years later today. My family believes it to be some type of miracle that we got by praying really hard. We believe in the power of sincere and honest prayer - that it can sometimes do strange things in someone's lives. We think there is some type of scientific reasoning behind it that people do not yet understand. I consider myself to be an Agnostic Theist and do not hold myself to any major religion although I just feel really strongly within my heart that there is a God of some type somewhere.

---

Alright, that's the start of my claims for the debate. Also I should make clear that I am not really arguing from my personal point of view, but rather from the point of view of an Agnostic Theist. I consider myself to be an Agnostic Atheist.

case in point- my friend's mother was in the hospital the week prior to Thanksgiving, in ICU, and doing poorly. The family (plus myself) maintained a round-the-clock presence in her hospital room, the daughter "honestly and sincerely" praying and crying and begging God to save her. The grandson (age 9) wrote down prayers to Jesus and read them aloud, sobbing, right there at the foot of her bed.

Did they just simply not pray as hard as your family did? Were their prayers not sincere? Or did God perhaps not like their family as much as He liked yours, despite their history and tradition of devout worship and church-going?

Or, are both of these incidents an example of the randomness of nature and our inability to control it simply by wanting to?

especially considering how many atheletes will credit the Almighty when they win, but never blame Him when they lose :)

if Jesus hadn't made me fumble!

Why do you assume that prayer is supposedly the only factor in such an occurance? Some things are inevitable, such as death. No amount of prayer or action can stop summer from changing into fall.

Why do you keep relating prayer to monotheism? Prayer does not have to be to "one god" or "the God". It can be as abstract as simply hoping that something happens.

Their prayers will of course make a difference and have an effect, as everything does, but perhaps not on the physical or easily palpable levels of existence.

Just some thoughts.

my reply is based on the OP, and the sentence: "My family believes it to be some type of miracle that we got by praying really hard"

but I was speaking in broader terms (as in what I think).

...and I am not saying that I am correct. Just that it is my family's belief based on our experience. However, can you deny the work of miracles? There are certainly things in this world that cannot be explained, perhaps it was simply your friend's mother's time to go.

sure we don't have full knowledge of everything under the sun, I admit that.


who or what determines someone's "time to go"? And if it's their "time" and you pray for them to live, God will thus ignore your prayers. The "time to go" rationale is merely used to spare God any blame for ignoring the pleas of His followers

...I never claimed that God was a deity that obeyed the whim of everyone who prayed, only that occasionally he listened. However, if one does not have knowledge of everything how can they disprove the existence of God?

I should note that I am not saying there is not evidence against his non-existence only that his existence cannot be disproved with absolute certainty. If one believes in miracles and sometimes "unexplainable" things happen, how then can someone say that it was not the work of a divine being?

I should also point out that I am not saying that it was the work of a divine being, that I acknowledge that I may be incorrect in believing it, but I am interested in knowing how you - or anyone else - could say that it was not?

The problem of evil is explained by Augustine as evil being nothing - all things come from God, God is good, so all things that come from Him are good, so the absence of good means evil is ultimately a form of nothing. Maimonidies argues that evil must be because it is part of human nature if we are to have senses one can not live a life free from pain if there is no pain(or evil). And for those that believe God acts in our life moment by moment, the logic is that God gives us free will, will not interfere with it, and if we as humans chose to do evil, then we will be justly punished, and if we chose to do what our nature intended us to, which is good, then we will be rewarded, and indeed that is how one earns heaven.

And Plagiarized from Kushner:

But why do bad things happen to good people? With free will God is not all-powerful, but is good, and does not cause the suffering. With free will the ordering of the universe is not complete: Some things are just circumstantial, and there is no point in looking for a reason for them. Some suffering is caused by the workings of natural law without moral judgment involved--natural law is blind, and God does not interfere with it. Suffering that is caused by the actions of evil people results again from free will allowing us to be human - and if we could not do evil, we would be less human. After our initial suffering we can make it worse by blaming ourselves, blaming those around us trying to help, or by blaming God. Free will also means God didn't cause our problems and can't fix them, and only give us the strength of character that we need to handle our misfortunes, if we are willing to accept it. We like Job must forgive God for not making a better world, reach out to the people around us, and go on living despite it all."

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

God created evil, and was perfectly capable of creating a universe without it, if he WANTED TO

He didn't want to

New International Version:

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Isaiah 45 : 7 - What does it mean? The word translated "evil" here is the Hebrew word ra'. A better translation in modern English is "calamity" or "disaster" or "woe," as this word is translated in this verse in more recent translations. Dr. Henry Morris points out: "God did not create light, for He is light. It was the primeval darkness which He created in order to have a division between day and night. 'Evil,' as used here, refers to evil of a physical nature (storms), not moral evil." See other uses of the words "light" and "evil" in the Bible: Gen. 1:4; Exo. 10:22; 31:2; Lam. 3:38.

:-)

"to have a division between day and night"

I think this is a good point.
Suppose that red was the only color that you saw,
that you only saw in monochromes of red.
Would you then even be aware that you were seing red?

Going further, suppose you only saw one color - the
same hue, saturation, and lightness - everywhere you looked.
Would you be aware that you were seeing anything?

A retired bishop of the Episcopal church. When his wife was sick with cancer, the entire diocese prayed for her. He imagined that if the janitor at one of those churches had a sick wife, the whole parish would pray for her and that would be it. Would God be swayed more by all the prayers for the bishop's wife than the fewer prayers for the janitor's wife?

I consider myself an agnostic. I've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural, but I'd consider it the height of arrogance to state that I was 100% positive there was no God.

How can we be 100% certain of anything? If we were, we'd be omniscient. If we were omniscient, then we'd be God. And if we were God, how could we be atheists.

But I've never seen a fairy, and neither has any other sane person, so it's probably safe to say they don't exist. And there's never been any evidence of God, so....

Most atheists don't claim 100% certainty. We just haven't seen any evidence, and until we have, we're going to assume that all this talk of God is just a bunch of rumors and conjecture.

There are too many athiests who say truly obnoxious things about people's faith. Not sayin you have here...:) I prefer "unproved."

Oh, I get it now.

:evilgrin:

prayer is simply asking God for stuff and if we ask hard enough, we just might get it.

After all, we wouldn't ask for it in the first place if we didn't deserve it, and so we should get it-- right?

Nope. Prayer is communication with God and asking for stuff is only the smallest part of it. God isn't Santa Clause and he is under no responsibility to give us what we want.

anything else - to communicate.

You and your friend have my sincerest sympathies.

I obviously don't know all the circumstances, and I will not pretend to know the answer. However, your friend should perhaps consider the possibility that God had a need for her mother to be in Heaven, perhaps to do some work or accomplish some purpose there. Or perhaps the result of her death will be some crucial consequence on Earth that we cannot fathom at this time, because it will not happen for another 500 years. Or maybe it will happen tomorrow.

All of these things are out of our hands. God is in charge and He makes things work out according to His plan. Often it is unfathomable to us. However, we can take comfort in the fact that God is just. Good will ultimately triumph over evil, and in Heaven, there are no tears.

Peace be with you.

Isn't it basically people who believe (in varying degrees and forms) in some representation of God as it was taught to them -vs- those who reject what was taught to them?

...it is a bit of both. It seems to me that the idea of "God" evolves throughout time each new generation putting a slightly different spin on it. If you look back at the original concepts of God - back to early Jewish beliefs - and then look forward into today you will see what I mean. The original concept of God has transformed dramatically, causing the upstart of two new world religions and a modified, yet still existing, form of the old - plus various sects of belief within each of the three.

I would argue that "God" is more or less a cultural phenomenon, evolving to suit the needs and attitude of the people at the time. However, that is completely beside the point of the thread. :P

people who fear death -vs- people who accept it

"Never was there a time
when I did not exist, or you,
or these kings; nor will there come
a time when we cease to be.

Just as, in this body, the Self
passes through childhood, youth,
and old age, so after death
it passes to another body."

Guess what that passage is from.

Sorry to bust your bubble about the fear of death in religions, but you are quite mistaken.

I'm not seeing how this passage proves me wrong. Looks like a claim to immortality to me

No, quite the opposite in fact.

is perhaps one of the best indicators of a fear of death.

The passage does not express a fear of death at all. Not a single bit.

Nice try, though.

It denies death. It claims that we don't die, we just go somewhere else.

and no. It doesn't deny death really, it simply states it is a part of a cycle, much like the seasons are to the Earth. This cycle does not ultimately affect the highest form of an individual, however.

And I do believe such a claim is correct. Simply look at the law of conservation of matter/energy and apply it to life and death, it is really the same.

Conservation of matter/energy applies only in the sense that your body, while alive, is converting energy from food into energy to survive. When the body dies, the intake of energy ceases, and the body decomposes. There is no part of the laws of thermodynamics that would imply we must necessarily have a "soul" or other component to our existence that survives the body upon death. In fact, it's quite the opposite. A conscious soul that can exist apart from the intake of any kind of measurable energy is violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Sorry, can't abuse science to back up your religious beliefs.

Yes, of course it applies in that sense, but the same idea and indeed the same mechanism is easily applied beyond that.

Conservation of matter/energy implies that matter/energy cannot cease to exist, but is manifest in or transfered to another form.

Applying this to what I have stated earlier, the individual soul cannot cease to exist, and is manifest in another form. Quite the same, actually. The same truths are pervasive throughout all levels of existence.

Please, don't be sorry.

Believe what you want about a soul, an afterlife, a god, whatever. Science does not support those beliefs. You do a great disservice both to science and your religion by insisting otherwise.

Science doesn't have a firm grip on what time *is* so you cannot say that "science does not support those beliefs." Science has nothing to say about those beliefs. In science "time" is no more and no less than a specific way of manipulating certain symbols that have a descriptive value to us. But for all we know the universe is flat and static. Past, present, and future may be a book already written, and in that case time does not exist as we presume to know it.

Time is probably built into our minds in such a way that we think we "know" what it is. Obviously this mental tool has been of some evolutionary value to our species, but to another sort of being, be it a god, a fungus, or something else, time might have a very different appearance.

There are many areas in which science directly conflicts with certain people's beliefs. The belief that the Biblical flood Noah survived covered the entire earth, killed off the dinosaurs, and created almost all of earths's geology is in clear conflict with the scientific evidence. The notion that some sort of human spirit might exisit beyond our very limited perceptions of time and space is not so farfetched.

In other words, science does not support them. Exactly my point. Your philosophical detour aside, you've simply reiterated my point. Thank you.

Science is a tool by which we accomplish and explain things. Science itself doesn't support anything. Within science a certain hypothesis might be supported by some evidence, but outside of science, and there is very much beyond the reach of our science, nothing is "supported." Things can only be "supported" by science when they are taken within the realm of science. At this time (if time such as we know it exists!) the metaphor of an immortal soul is outside the boundries of our science.

Saying "science has nothing to say about those beliefs" is not at all the same as saying "science does not support them."

Concepts like a soul, or an afterlife, or a god - if they exist, all exist outside the realm of the observable and repeatable. Science works by observation and repetition (experimentation). Science therefore cannot be used to support belief in these things.

You could be right in that science DOES have something to say about those beliefs. Namely, that they are false.

If I accept for discussion the original post's "conservation of matter/energy and apply it to life and death" then I am accepting it for discussion outside the realm of science. I can't drag the statement into the realm of science to prove it or disprove it one way or another. Simply putting the word "not" in front of something undefined has no meaning.

In the original post we are comparing one metaphor, "spiritual energy," to another metaphor, "matter/energy as defined by science." The metaphor of "spiritual energy" is not recognized within the realm of science. Therefore we can only continue the discussion outside the realm of science.

You might agree or disagree with the comparison of the two metaphors, but it has nothing to do with science.

and their misuse of a scientific principle. Glad that's settled.

I am simply applying the same truths of science to deeper aspects of existence. The FACT that you have not (and cannot) dispute this application is quite telling. Instead of actually participating in a discussion, you make statements that you do not support.

If you choose to see the world in a superficial way, that is your choice (and your loss).

Oh, and saying I do a disservice to anything is petty and pathetic. If you want to try a guilt trip with me, it won't work. Better luck next time.

We cannot detect that a "soul" has any energy or mass. Therefore, you cannot use a scientific law about energy and mass to describe it!

I am merely pointing out that you may choose to believe in whatever magic you want, but you cannot use science to try and give your beliefs an air of legitimacy.

is that because you cannot detect it, there can be nothing more. However, I never said it could be "detected" in such a manner. That is not my argument. My argument is that all forms of reality experience the same circumstances, physical or otherwise. Science is simply the study of the world around us, so if we take the knowledge we can find in that level of life, we can find deeper truths through this connection.

That's my view. If you disagree with me, that's fine.

(edited title)

I am saying, once again, that because the soul cannot be detected by any scientific means, that you cannot apply any scientific principles to justify belief in it.

This seems quite elementary, and if you can't grasp it, well, that's fine. You don't get to redefine science to misuse it.

thanks for clarifying.

I do think that one can apply such understanding to anything. Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. What phrase can sum up the history of human interaction better than that?

One of the greatest composers who ever lived was deaf. He could not detect sound through the same means as others, but he could still apply beautiful sound to the world.

I see nothing wrong with taking insight from one area and applying it to another. Perhaps, as the other poster was saying, it ceases to deal with science itself but becomes a simile or metaphor for another area. You can look at it that way as well, if you wish.

of summing up the history of human interaction.

What was the equal but opposite reaction when early white settlers massacred American Indians? Indians lost all their land, the white man got it all. By the way, he's still got it.

What's the equal but opposite reaction when someone is raped?

What's been the equal but opposite reaction of our monkey president invading Iraq?

Remember, we're talking equal but opposite. 2000 of our finest soldiers lost, but untold tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who never volunteered to die in a war.

Metaphor, sure, you can try. But you can't apply scientific principles to non-scientific ideas.

I beg to differ. First, remember that not everything is instantaneous. Second, I find it of great enjoyment that Natives are finding ways to steal white people's money.



Seriously though, justice comes. It simply takes time.

On one level, the victim does REACT to the raping. That is obvious. For the rapist, s/he will face consequences for their actions. Always. However, since that isn't a concrete example, I can't give a completely concrete answer.

The reaction of our invasion? The insurgency, for starters. How about those protests? The ire of much of the Arab world could count. A huge loss of money, status and other things.

I would like to remind you that a bike that gets hit by a Mack truck exerts equal and opposite force to the object that hit it. However, the mass and velocity (among other factors) of the objects also factor into the equation.

The people who were massacred two centuries ago - how exactly are they benefiting from casinos today?

A rapist will NOT always face consequences. Not all rapists are caught or convicted. Are you going to tell me that they are?

And again, the insurgency is not an equal but opposite force. Even though they manage to kill some of our troops, they take out far greater numbers of innocent Iraqis who have already suffered thanks to our occupation.

Your bicycle example is a perfect COUNTER-example to your thinking, oddly enough. It illustrates my examples far better than yours.

Again, a small object that is absolutely sent flying by a large object exerts equal and opposite force on the large object.

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/newtonLaw2.html
"Secondly, this acceleration is directly proportional to the force. For example, if you are pushing on an object, causing it to accelerate, and then you push, say, three times harder, the acceleration will be three times greater."

This means that a car that is hit by a freight train exerts equal and opposite force on the train. The mass and velocity of the train makes what seems to be a one-sided affair.

Not all rapists are caught or convicted, but perhaps they are the train in this case. That is looking at the mere superficiality.

My bicycle example actually paralells history quite well. It is an equal and opposite reaction, but one party may feel more damage than the other.

You, however, are not looking at the big picture. Wounds heal. We WILL leave Iraq. Numbers killed on one side versus the other is largely insignificant in this, because we WILL leave, they WILL have their country. THAT is an equal and opposite reaction.

Rapists DO face consequences. The most callous individual will have terrible things befall them (and if you don't agree with me, please read every Shakespeare play, ever).

Natives reacted to whites' invasions (and still are). Iraqis are reacting to our invasion (and, of course, still are). Victims react to rape. This proves my first point of scientific laws in action in history. However, Natives will build themselves a future, while the society of whites deteriorates; Iraqis will have their country, while the former invaders will be left with failure, death and loss; rape victims will find ways forward, while the rapist lives their terrible and disgusting existence. From injustice, there is justice. Always.

I refer you to these thinkers:

"Throughout the history of mankind there have been murderers and tyrants; and while it may seem momentarily that they have the upper hand, they have always fallen. Always." - Mahatma Gandhi

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else." - Malcolm X

You insist that every rapist will face consequences, and the "proof" you offer up is a work of fiction??? Excuse me?

Sorry but people escape from consequences for crimes every single day. If you cannot acknowledge that reality, I fail to see how any discussion with you could be different than :banghead:

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their gang of criminals will NEVER face consequences for their raping of Iraq. I can virtually guarantee it.

The fact that you would ignore the works of the greatest minds in history is telling. Tell me, you must cite the humanities only when it is convenient for you, no?

Anyway, there are repercussions for any action. This is obvious.

Are you serious? I said that you must look at things in a superficial way, and I was right. Not only must they live with what they have done, but it WILL come back to them, if physics is any indication. Your inability to look at the big picture hinders your grasp of these ideas.

I am saying you are misapplying thoughts in one area to an unrelated area.

"There are repercussions for any action" - aha, you've backed off. Even you see the problems with your original claim. So I finally did accomplish something in a discussion with you.

Now if we could address your nasty attitude toward atheism and insistence on putting us in a box constructed from your prejudice... Baby steps, baby steps...

namely my arguments.

Making connections does not make something invalid. Perhaps making a connection between literature and life is equally invalid to you?

How have I backed off of my previous statements? Repercussions are just one part of equal and opposite reactions in existence. In addition to repercussions, there is amelioration. Always.

Let me illustrate it for you....

What was the greatest world power in the 18th and 19th centuries? (hint: it's an island)

ON EDIT:

From a previous post of mine on the same thread:

"You, however, are not looking at the big picture. Wounds heal. We WILL leave Iraq. Numbers killed on one side versus the other is largely insignificant in this, because we WILL leave, they WILL have their country. THAT is an equal and opposite reaction.

Rapists DO face consequences. The most callous individual will have terrible things befall them (and if you don't agree with me, please read every Shakespeare play, ever).

Natives reacted to whites' invasions (and still are). Iraqis are reacting to our invasion (and, of course, still are). Victims react to rape. This proves my first point of scientific laws in action in history. However, Natives will build themselves a future, while the society of whites deteriorates; Iraqis will have their country, while the former invaders will be left with failure, death and loss; rape victims will find ways forward, while the rapist lives their terrible and disgusting existence. From injustice, there is justice. Always."

How is this in conflict with "every action has repercussions."? It is not. That was just one part of what I was saying, and additionally, the most obvious one, since you cannot see things in a non-superficial way. Furthermore, read the very next paragraph in the same post, as it deals with deeper aspects of this idea (the thing I supposedly "backed off of").

Nice try, but misrepresenting my statements won't work.

To prove your point, you cite Shakespeare???

Man, you have lost your marbles.

my marbles are there, you just can't bear to look at them.

Shakespeare was ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY. THAT WAS EVEN IN PARENTHESIS. The fact that you ignore all the other arguments I have made exposes your delusion.

Also, are you saying Shakespeare was an idiot? Have you ever read any play of his? How about his sonnets?

The fact that Shakespeare was even in your argument speaks volumes.

for playing dead in regards to my specific arguments and spouting more insipid comments.

The fact that you have not addressed my comments AT ALL speaks volumes. The fact that I mentioned literature does, but in a positive way. Fiction is, ultimately, about the world around us. Authors put experiences and insight into their works, and this connects to us (if it is good). The fact that Shakespeare has been taught in schools, universities and cherished by intellectuals speaks volumes. Think about that.

Oh, and let me guess, you will not address a single specific comment I made in this post. If this were a chess game, you would have been in checkmate 20 posts ago.

But I won't participate in this debate with you, where the ground rules are "literature is proof" and other such nonsense.

when you're in a chess match, you need to make moves. When you're in a discussion, you need to make points. You have not.

How are those "ground rules"? That was one example of many. You have not been able to debunk it, so it still stands, much to your frustration.

Are you done making a fool of yourself?

Once again, I posted points, you posted something completely unnecessary and irrational.

Pathetic. You really are the posterboy for ignorance.

:rofl:

that if you had made coherent arguments, I would have paid attention to them.

Look, we are approaching this from fundamentally different positions. You continue to cite fictional PLAYS as "proof". The works of Shakespeare are FICTION, dude. They didn't really happen. Do you understand? Can you comprehend the difference between FICTION and REALITY? It would be like me pointing to "Goodnight Moon" as proof that little bears really do sit on chairs.

Here in the REAL WORLD, criminals can and do escape consequences for their actions. Have you never seen the show Unsolved Mysteries? Hint: they're "unsolved" for a reason.

The rest of our disagreement stems from what exactly constitutes an "equal but opposite reaction." Personally I don't think it's very "equal" for untold tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis to have been slaughtered just so Shrubco could get their oil, and EVENTUALLY Iraq might just be able to stand on its own. We don't know that. They might just end up in worse straits under an Islamic theocracy. As compared to life under a secular dictator, it's hard to know which is worse.

And it is indeed backing off to simply say that actions have repercussions. That much is obvious - the negative repercussions of a rape are immediately felt by the victim. But the rapist might only have "positive" repercussions - his rage was released, his violence against women made him feel better. And if he gets away with it, that might just be all he ever feels.

And pointing to a written WORK OF FICTION isn't going to convince anyone otherwise.

you ARE ignoring my arguments, because you are addressing ONE of MANY examples. Quite telling, in fact.

Secondly, of course they didn't happen, but there is a great amount of knowledge displayed in those plays and sonnets. Are you saying all literature has no bearing on the world? OK, then make sure your kids don't read any fiction, because it might mess with their minds! :eyes: Get a clue. Shakespeare has been taught in schools by intellectuals for centuries for a reason, along with other works of fiction. That is because there is a real connection between the fiction that the author portrays, with its themes and characters and plots and what have you and reality (at least in good literature, anyway). The fact that you belittle the works of the greatest thinkers throughout history is pitiful.

On your allusion to Iraq: Again, it is like a bike and a truck, there is an equal and opposite reaction there. However, when we apply this to Iraq, we see that the people reacted to an invasion and are fighting a foreign occupying force. THAT is quite a strong reaction. It matters little how many on each side dies, but the reaction and final result is what matters.

Repercussions ON THE DOER OF THE CRIME. The rapist will find repercussions for his/her actions. That rage that is discharged will find its way back to the person that expressed it in a wrong action. What goes around comes around.... Does the fact that virtually every major crime figure has met a gruesome end (even Al Capone lived the rest of his life in oblivion)? Think about that for awhile.

OK, just make sure your children have no access to works of fiction, because they are obviously detrimental to our understanding of the world. :rofl:

Where did trotsky say people shouldn't ever read literature, or that literature should be banned in classrooms?? Nowhere.

What he said was, literature should not be used as proof in an argument based in reality. That makes perfect sense to everyone, except you.

that Shakespeare is not fit for an argument means that he does not appreciate the insight literature provides. If one denies insight of literature, one will not have a problem with seeing such works gone from society altogether.

Again, literature has great wisdom and connects to reality. Shakespeare is without a doubt one of the most celebrated writers by intellectuals everywhere. That should tell you something (it should tell you that you are wrong).

Literature is literature, it doesnt prove your point about social justice.

Geez, you are insane.

Why has it been taught in schools for centuries? Why is it uniformly lauded by intellectuals?

Why do you refuse to make an actual point. Saying something does not equal a point, you must back it up with logic.

I've heard people argue like you, namely little kids who don't get what they want. Pathetic....

You really enjoy twisting my words and saying I said things I didn't say, don't you???

Continue the rambling.

your statement "rape victims will find ways forward" is BULLSHIT.

http://www.cfoc.org/SexualViolence/

The Effects of Sexual Violence/Rape

* Many long-lasting physical symptoms and illnesses have been associated with sexual victimization including chronic pelvic pain; premenstrual syndrome; gastrointestinal disorders; and a variety of chronic pain disorders, including headache, back pain, and facial pain.

* Between 4% and 30% of rape victims contract sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

* A longitudinal study in the United States estimated that over 32,000 pregnancies result each year from rape in victims age 12 to 45 years.

* Sexual violence victims exhibit a variety of psychological symptoms that are similar to those of victims of other types of trauma, such as war and natural disaster.

* Immediate reactions to rape include shock, disbelief, denial, fear, confusion, anxiety, and withdrawal.

* Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are usually present immediately after a rape. Victims may experience emotional? detachment, sleep disturbances, and flashbacks. Approximately one third of rape victims have symptoms that continue for three months or become chronic.

* Rape victims often experience anxiety, guilt, nervousness, phobias, substance abuse, sleep disturbances, depression, alienation, and sexual dysfunction. They often distrust others and replay the assault in their minds, and are at increased risk of re-victimization.

* Women reporting forced sex are at significantly greater risk of depression and PTSD than those who have not been abused.

* Women with a history of sexual assault are more likely to attempt or commit suicide than other women. (Tell me THAT'S "moving forward." - trotsky)

* Rape can strain relationships because of its negative effect on the victim’s family, friends, and intimate partners.

* Victims of sexual violence are more likely than non-victims to engage in risky sexual behavior including having unprotected sex, having sex at an early age, having multiple sex partners, teen pregnancy, and trading sex for food, money, or other items. Some researchers view these consequences of sexual violence as vulnerability factors for future victimization.

* Rape victims are also more likely than non-victims to engage in other risky behavior, such as smoking cigarettes, overeating, drinking alcohol, and are not likely to use seat belts.


I find your callous view of the effects of rape revolting.

Again, your myopic view of the world restricts your ability to see the truth. Death is not the end of an individual or a relationship. Reactions against an action carry out over a very long time (see the Native Americans, who have had but a century to heal their wounds, while Britain has had about 10 centuries to do the same since the Norman invasions and 20 since the Romans), through many lifetimes, if need be.

Why can one conclude this? When one looks at science, it is supported by the law of conservation of mass/energy. Just as mass and energy does not cease to be and continues in another form, so do individuals.

I find your ignorant views on existence pathetic.

Can you go rant and rave in private now??

your overwhelming logic and numerous arguments are too much! :sarcasm:

Oh, wait...looks like you opted out of an argument, again. Did you even read my post? Care to address it? Didn't think so.

:rofl:

Your arguments aren't based in rational thought. They may make sense to you in your twisted mind, but to the rest of us they don't make any sense.

Shakespeare isn't proof of social justice.

While I have made many arguments.

Game. Set. Match.

Can I go now?

However, if you want to participate in honest discussion and intellectual discourse, please reply to my other posts in the other thread.

I've had enough of your fantasy world where Shakespeare's plays constitute evidence, and where you strongly BELIEVE, but have no real evidence, that misdeeds will eventually always be punished. Here in the real world, it just ain't so.

Because you and your esteemed colleague (aren't you embarrassed by him?) have offered very little evidence.

You have only tried to divert the subject to an afterthought of mine, and even then, you have not refuted the point.

Misdeeds are always eventually punished. It is simply the 2nd Law of Motion in another form of existence.

you have not addressed my statements at all.

The best you could come up with was an attempt to make me look like I'm backing off, when I never did. Again, read the next paragraph, that deals with other aspects of the idea, not just repercussions (which is also a part of it). Since you have not disputed my arguments (because you cannot dispute them), I must conclude that they are correct.

Resorting to claiming the incorrect about my arguments is in bad taste, and exposes how desperate you are in this discussion.

By the way, I have no "nasty attitude" toward atheism. That is simply a construct of your prejudice.

Please, learn to crawl before you talk to me about baby steps.

Considering my argument that the law "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is pervasive throughout all levels of existence, and considering the evidence I have put forth in support of this, do you agree or disagree, and how do you support your view?

Because so far, you've danced around the argument (and said I backed off when I didn't...that's dishonest). I'm giving you a fair chance to clarify what your views are.

there is no way you will ever comprehend an argument based in reality.

Sorry.

answer the question, and support your answer.

Literature was but one example of many from many fields, and it was in parenthesis, no less.

At least try to answer the question, because you are not making any real points. This does much to make your side of the argument look depleted and desperate.

...in your own twisted mind.

to everyone else, you look crazy.

Just FYI.

I know discussions are two-way streets, but this is one-way traffic.

You have yet to address my specific comments. Your inability to do so shows that you are incorrect.

I'm not addressing your specific points. They don't deserve to be addressed.

You are crazy.

Well, it's been an interesting discussion, to say the least. Looking back, I see no shred of logic or thought in your posts, only denial and delusion.

You are a posterboy for ignorance. Congratulations.

Apparently.

and since I actually address what you say, I'm not really talking to myself.

Also, this is a forum, which means that people can look at my thoughts without a reply.

Great. You don't fear death now that you have your faith and you believe you're going to live on in another form. Congratulations.

The point being made was that the fear of death is the driving force behind religions, and, beside tradition, the only reason why so many people become so involved in the first place.

people are afraid of death naturally. When people look at that, and look beyond it (as is done in that passage of the Gita), it is religion. This makes it so that there really is no fear of death in religion.

I don't disagree with you entirely, because death is probably the biggest question humans face (and there is nothing wrong with answering this). However, I most assuredly disagree with the originial statement.

same thing with various political issues. It is simply a disagreement on the topic of divinity.

However, there is a truth in everything, and that is (supposedly) the objective.

(about God growing up) and believe anyway?

:shrug:

An American child doesn't have to go to church to hear "under God." Even if you could find a remote village on an island, chances are they've got a belief system in some form of a God(s) and have taught it.

I didn't say "heard of a God". I said "got taught nothing". Parents never said a word. Didn't know a thing about it until Junior High, and didn't understand a word of what my friends told me about it then. They couldn't answer my questions and would get annoyed at me for asking. I had noone sit me down and give me lessons on God or anything like that (which is what I associate with teaching)

It always comes down to subjective feelings or early childhood training. Oh, sometimes they get quite poetic about the whole thing, but they invariably fail any test of proof.

As for atheists having to prove the nonexistence of god, well, who ever thought proving a negative had any place in a logical discussion?

Honestly, if you need to believe in a god, be my guest. If you need to believe in a purely mechanistic, materialistic universe, be my guest. Just be aware that this stuff ends at the surface of your skin, not under mine.

That if someone professed an absolute belief in God (as in proclaiming 100% certainty) then the burden of proof would be on them to prove God's existence. Conversely, if an Atheist claimed to be 100% certain that there was no God then the burden of proof is on him to prove God's non-existence. The point was that no one can be 100% certain about the existence or non-existence of God, that they can only base their beliefs and assumptions off their personal experiences and beliefs. It was also to point out that when you claim to be 100% certain about something, it ceases to be doubt and becomes faith.

which is why it has no place in any discussion based on logic.

Either you prove the existence of a god or gods, or you fail to.

It's as simple as that.

If the Agnostic Theist agrees that he or she may be incorrect, and the Atheist asserts that he or she is absolutely correct in his or her beliefs - then it is no longer up to the Theist to prove it.

After all, if the Atheist is correct as he or she claims to be, then there would be convincing evidence to end all existence in God, correct?

The fact of the matter is God, as a negative cannot be proven or disproved - so arguing that there is or isn't a God is a pointless matter to begin with.

There are negatives which can be proven.

First of all, there is evidence of divinity. Secondly, I fail to see why you reject something poetic. Great wisdom comes from poetry.

and that's what we are discussing. Poetry isn't proof.

However, if that's what you want to base your life on, poetry, I suppose there may be worse things. Greed comes to mind.

So I guess we should ignore Shakespeare's sonnets, the Canterbury Tales and other works.

Anyway, I never said anything about basing life off of poetry, but you should take a second look at that very art and see the worth that is in it.

Furthermore, there is proof of divinity.

And what is the evidence of it?

People would define "divinity" in different ways, but I would say it is that which is beyond mental or physical matter. It is the highest form of an individual, or the collective form of all things.

What evidence is there? Just look around. Every facet of the universe points to such a conclusion. Divinity does not have to be some deity in the sky, but includes all things. Firstly, matter is organized into structures that are not random, so this suggests a higher form of being to which it organizes in relation to. Secondly, there is a common being to all things, even on the physical level, since everything is really just different combinations of electrons, neutrons and protons in the end.

That's my definition. How would you define it? (and if you want more examples to debate, please say so)

I asked the question because, as you say, people define "divinity" differently. I wanted to know what your working definition is.

And I don't think pointing to the mundane and calling it evidence of divinity is valid.

I was commenting on the fact that similar discussions I've had have turned into utter flame-wars, and that I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened here (hence the "here we go"). It wasn't directed at you at all.

Anyway, I gave you my working definition. I would like to hear your own.

What may appear mundane is actually quite insightful, upon observation. Would you like to try to refute my specific examples?

edited title and first paragraph

Take snowflakes for instance. They are more complex than the materials that thy are comprised of. They have symmetry, one might think that they are designed. They are not random. But nature is not random. It is derived from the properties of its elements.

--IMM

OK, snowflakes. They are very complex and very diverse. However, no matter what you have, if you break it down to its most BASIC material, it is really all the same. It is not random at all (quite the opposite), but it is ultimately composed of the same basic building blocks, and that was my point. Animal cells may be common to all animals, but the beings they are a part of could not be more diverse.

Furthermore, with snowflakes; the fact that there are endless individual and distinct snowflakes that are otherwise no different, proves what I am saying. Every single different snowflake may be completely distinct, but it is still snow, just like any other snowflake.

Hopefully I got your point.

By the way, I totally agree that nature is not random. It creates objects and entities that are made for their purpose, for their environment. Everything has a reason.

Absolute proof is not required, there is plenty of evidence to
form a solid basis for a rational belief:
. biological structures exhibiting specific complexity
involving parts that function together towards a single
function that don't have another function. It is quite
obvious that evolution could not always happen in a
gradual way, contrary to what Darwin imagined. What good
is half of flight? What good would it do a fly to be able
to fly part of the way to a food source? When it comes down
to it, the central tenant of Darwinism is and has alway been
a stupid idea. Will it fall apart? Hell, it's never come together,
there's nothing to fall apart. Try actually specifying what all
those supposely "unguided gradual" beneficial mutations were and
then we'll see if there's something to fall apart. As of now, it
is, in IT speak, vaporware. How can I refute something that doesn't exist?
. evidence of preadaptions - this goes totally against Darwinism.
. consciousness, there is no reason to claim that consciousness
is material. For one thing, consciousness has a nonlocal character.
. qualia, e.g. the experience of red, which is not the same as
a particle of light of the corresponding wavelength.
. fine-tuning of the physical constants for life.
. and those 'subjective' but very real feelings and experiences
you flippantly dismiss.

Concsiousness is not local? There is evidence of that? Let's claim the Randi prize.

Flying is a poor example because there are intermediate steps. Consider "flying" squirrels or "flying" fish which kind of glide.

Gradual is subjective. Mutations are not gradual. Adaptations are the result of changes over a whole species, not a sudden change. It's as easy to say there are missing steps in natural history than to assert that something sprang into existence because there are gaps in the fossil record.

This sound like the ID point of view. Have you read Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker"? It more than amply refutes this stuff.

--IMM

Some of that book is interesting, but all in all, I was
expecting much more from him. My conclusion: Is that all
he's got? Him selecting some extremely simple 'biomorphs'
that have no moving parts? Vague, simple imagined scenarios?

Yes, what I presented comes from my ID point of view, which
doesn't place such incredible restrictions on how evolution
happens. It asks 'What does the actual evidence show?'
instead of imagining evidence.

Yes, there is evidence that consciousness is not local.
You see more than one of these letters at the same time.
Get a grip.

No, flying is a great example. What good would 'kind of
gliding' do for a fly? I'm not talking about squirrels
or fish. Do they fly? No. Gliding is not the same thing
as flying, and the mechanism is quite different.
Are you proposing that proto-flies glided? What do you
think they did, climb up trees and glide to the food source?

And consider Dawkins ridiculous scenario of the benefit of
proto-birds having a partial ability to fly. He claims it
would have helped them not break their necks when they fell
from ???. It is a stupid idea and not backed up by evidence.
Were they climbing up large plants and falling off? Falling
off of cliffs? Just what is he talking about?

Design in nature is instead readily observable. We
actually see specified complexity, we see many parts
without another function working together for a function.
Got evidence?

What exactly do you mean 'Gradual is subjective'?
It sounds like you are parroting Squawkins. He wrote
something like 'we have to be sophisticated
about what we mean by gradual', and then never does
say what he means. It's easy to see the mind games
being played here. What I think he was hinting at is that
he'll claim that no matter what the evidence, no matter
how sudden a genetic change is, he'll claim it is 'gradual'
(code for 'it wasn't guided by anything beyond our
understanding'). As if he understands enough to be able to
claim that. He goes so far is to say that even if a statue
of Mary waved to him (something far-fetched like that), he
would not think it was a miracle.

First you say mutations are not gradual, then you say
adaptations are not a sudden change. Hmmmm.

Actually, the evidence suggests that some adaptations were
quite sudden. For example, color vision. It has be suggested
that some parts of photochemicals were duplicated from
chemicals that had/have other functions. Perhaps so, but that
is not what Darwin had in mind at all. It in no way fits into
the Darwinian viewpoint. Sorry, but more than one step does not
equate to the ultra-gradualism Darwin imagined.

"to assert that something sprang into existence"

I was asserting no such thing. What I am NOT asserting is
that evolution has to be ultra-gradual, i.e. gradual
enough to be a crutch for the 'by Chance' assertion,
i.e. extremely gradual. I see no evidence that suggests that
evolution must proceed in such a gradual manner. The
insistance that it be so is merely based on unfounded assumptions
and is not science. Science starts with a neutral position and
goes where the evidence leads, contrary to Dawkins' perversion of
the meaning of science. This simple/random extremist viewpoint has
gotten in the way of science, it is anti-scienfic. For example,
in the study of cell structure. People assumed that the insides of
cells were simple and random. There is a lot of resistance to the
observable evidence that they had an extremely complex and ordered
internal structure. Eventually the resistance was overcome, but
the process of science was slowed down.

"there are gaps in the fossil record"

Yes, there are. And the ID point of view has no problem
with them, Darwinism's insistance of ultra-gradualism does.

Reading more than one letter at a time is proof that conciousness is not local? I don't get it. I have a number of senses. They feed information to my consciousness. What exactly do you mean by non-local?

Is the Designer still at work? Does evolution happen at all? Are apes (including humans) related? Do lions and tigers have a common ancestor?

Your answers to these will help me frame my response. Thanks.

--IMM

We are aware of a multitude of experiences all at the same time.
Somehow all these experiences, the signals of which span time and
space, are brought together into a whole. How can the purely
materialistic model of the mind explain this? How can the experience
of red be described in materialistic terms? I'm not referring to
what leads up to the experience.

"Is the Designer still at work?"

I'm not sure what you mean. By 'at work' do you mean some intervention
at a physical level after the initial life form(s)? I don't think that
is necessary for there to be design involved. Whether it was necessary
for, say, the formation of the first life form(s), I don't know.
Why "form(s)"? Because it is not at all clear that all life on earth
descended from a single life form, and that is the case with or without
design. If say, there was some preexisting "world" like an "RNA world"
that was conducive to life in one area in the world, why couldn't life
form multiple times independently in a similar way? Whether there was
any such "world", I don't think any of us know. It is likely we will
never know.

"Does evolution happen at all? Are apes (including humans) related?
Do lions and tigers have a common ancestor?"

I believe so. I think it is more elegant than one-step formation from clay,
and the fossil record and genetic similarities provides evidence for it.

A majority of the people (at least in the U.S.) who believe that evolution
occurs don't believe it is a purely unguided, materialistic process.

There is no PROOF either way. The belief in God is pure faith, nothing more. Even the belief in miracles is purely faith. Many things happen every day that cannot be explained. There is no proof these things are miracles and no proof they are not.

Good things happen to bad people too. I'm sure miracles, or unexplainable phenomena, are experienced by bad people as well.

There is no way out of this argument because Christians through the ages have found a faith based answer to everything. Which is one of the many reasons I left the church altogether.

One cannot argue - from either side - with absolute certainty. If they make the attempt they are doomed to failure from the very start of the debate. If both sides try and prove something with absolute certainty they will fall into a circular argument. If one side concedes that they may be incorrect and the other side continues to claim that they are correct and the argument continues, the other side is doomed to failure.

Simply put the burden of proof lays upon the shoulders of the one who makes the claim. You can only say, "based on my own personal experiences I have come to conclusion X". That is the point of this thread and its exercise - to prove that point.

However, where it becomes interesting is when both sides concede that they may be incorrect. That is when it comes down to the actual discussing of individual pieces of pro and con evidence.

You say the actions of the spiritual entity are undetectable from the results if there were no spiritual entity. So why would there be something that is in charge of nothing?

--IMM

same question

or is there a God that hates America ?

single events of any nature are not a proof.

but they hang out in their own realm of Samsara..this world of suffering/dissatisfaction.. the do have unimaginable powers in 'their' Realm, but lack the ability to use those powers to get themselves out of he cycle of birth, suffering, old age, sickness, death and karmic rebirth. this indicates they also lack the power to help us out of it either.

so even tho they are powerful they are impotent.. so to speak. I just really like that explanation.

it just ends a long long boring debate for me.. as a reformed fundie Freeper once exclaimed to me..

Praise Buddha! I found the TAO..!!! he really said that, and was so happy too. i really hope he figured it out along the way..but as long as it kept him happy it's OK.

When God talks to you, it's called paranoid schizophrenia.

What about the person who thinks he is God because when he prays he finds that he is talking to himself?

I apologize profusely. I will respond at length tomorrow night, Saturday.

:-)

Friends, right?

:toast:

They, the Lokians, need to define their god of Chance.
What exactly is Loki like? What is Loki?
How did Loki get there? By Chance?
How do you know that something occurs 'by Chance'?
(I'm referring to situations where there are no signs
of statistical chance, which is a different concept.
For example, in the case of preadaptations, which are
anti-Darwinian.)

You need to provide some definitions concerning and
details on all those unimaginable 'unguided' 'gradual'
beneficial 'mutations' that supposedly fill up the
huge gaps in the fossil record. What exactly do these
terms mean in scientific terms? Where is the physical
evidence for THEIR existence? Don't start talking about
bacteria mutating in a lab, there is no justification
for generalizing from that to macroevolution.

(Btw, I do *believe* in descent with modification.
Evolution as a concept predates Darwin. Evolution
and Darwinism are not the same thing.)

Nihilists need to define their god of Nothingness.
How is it that something that - by definition - doesn't
exist, exists anyway? How can something come from this
Nothing god?

The Multiverse believers need to define the Multiverse.
Is it simply a set of Universes? How did it get there?
What is the nature of the Multiverse? How do you know?
Does it even exist? How do you know?

How do you define an electron? Do you know exactly what
an electron is? Have you ever seen one? What is the
exact structure of an electron? How do you know?
Note that I'm not claiming they don't exist, we infer
their existence from actual physical evidence of their
effects. But what are they? We don't know, we only have
mental concepts about them. The same goes for matter and
energy.

Defining terms is the first thing to do when debating or trying to reach agreement.

so you can't really make a solid arguement for or against god. Ok i understand that one clearly.

A better debate would be where god cared or not.

and a longer time tonight. I agree to the ground rules as supplied by you:thumbsup: , with the exception of the point of trying to prove YOU wrong; I gave up years ago trying to convince ANYONE that they are wrong on any matter; now I just let them try to prove ME wrong. However (sigh), I will be willing to point out the major reason that I think Agnostic Atheists, strong atheists (as represented by me, at this time), and Theists disagree (fair enough?).

I will do all of this in three stages. Stage one is MY background; it is longer than your short post; sorry. Stage two deals with certainty and confidence. Stage three will point out what I see as the irreconcilable differences (based on premises) between Agnostic Atheists and strong atheists, and between atheists in general and Theists in general.

*************************************************************************
Stage 1
*************************************************************************

This is somewhat a repost from other threads, but I have combined it all here to make SURE that I am making myself completely clear. I became a strong atheist at an early age (~10), but did not solidify my reasoning on the subject till college. It was at this time, in undergad college, that I took up what was to become my undergrad major, philosophy. I was quickly introduced to a number of brain hurting concepts (such as the mind body problem, existence, where we get values/ethics from, etc.) that many people who have not taken philosophy/religion courses may not have thought about in depth. I know I did not give sufficient thought to these topics before college; I had my ideas on most of them, of course (though not all); but I had not been forced to clarify my reasoning for my stances. Philosophy forced that on me; a good thing.

In this process, I was VERY quickly (in intro, 101) introduced to the mathematician/philosopher René Descartes. He had come up with an interesting thought experiment; pretend that everything you know might be a lie. What can you determine to be true by thought alone? His reasoning was that we know that the input by which we get all of our information (our senses) can be inaccurate (hallucinations, drunken states, blurred vision, illusions of all types - you have not lived till you have gone to the science museum in Boston and felt gravity pulling you from the wrong direction, but I digress).

So he started with the premise that all of our sensory input our whole life could be lies. He postulated an evil demon feeding us misinformation; a modern equivalent would to be to think of yourself as Mr. Anderson in the Matrix - your whole early life was a lie supplied by a computer. Where, using thought alone, can we go from that dark point?

Descartes quickly came to the conclusion that he himself existed (the famous "I think, therefore I am" statement), for otherwise, WHO was doing all of this anguished wondering about existence and truth. He said it was self-evident that he existed, and he was right on this point. You, or I or anyone can prove TO THEMSELVES that they exist; after some thought about who is doing the thinking, it IS self evident.

Ok, he (for himself, I for myself, and you for yourself) is a given. What next? Unfortunately, Descarte next had to prove that God existed, and many other than myself have noticed that he used circular reasoning to do this; I am not getting into his reasoning here (look it up if you are interested).

As for myself, I thought some more and came up with two small, further conclusions. I exist; it is evident that I must exist SOMEWHERE, no matter how small, even if it is only as electrons in a computer program (it makes no sense that I exist, but exist in no place at all). Therefore, SPACE, no matter how small, exists. Lastly, I am doing this thinking and agonizing over time; the idea that my entire life could be a frozen instant of thinking/remembering/thinking/doing makes no sense at all). Therefore TIME exists.

At that point, I personally ran into a solid brick wall. No matter how much thought I gave to the subject, I could come up with no further proofs BY THINKING ALONE that anything else existed. The entire universe, and all of the people, things, and ideas in it, might have just been a fed to me by the Matrix; I could not PROVE otherwise by thought alone.

Where to go from there? Well, I could act like everything was a lie, and no one else was real, but then why get up every day, and interact with people at all? I am not built that way (solipsism is not a viable alternative to me), nor do I think that as a matter OF PRACTICE anyone can live that way, with the possible exception of the institutionalized insane. We all act like everyone and everything else is real.

Therefore (and the Theists are going to love this; enjoy:)) on the level of proof-by-thought-alone, I have to give up and take the universe, and everything in it, on faith (YES, I said the "F" word, and I am not ashamed of it). Having said that, I am going all the way (I am not one for half measures, generally). The ENTIRE UNIVERSE, including all the other people, is more or less (we can argue about how "solid" solid objects really are; for my purposes our macro senses perceive a macro truth) the way that it appears to be. Other people exist, and are much like me in the way that they act, think, and feel (they are NOT robots program to mimic me, they have feelings and thoughts directly analogous to mine).

Continuing, we all learn. We all start as infants, knowing nothing. Gradually, as we experience the world, we learn. We learn to crawl, and walk, and talk and then to read and write. We KNOW how to do these things; our nature (biology - genetics and makeup) and our nurture (experience) combine to help us form our views on what we know, and what is reasonable.


END STAGE 1.

*************************************************************************
Stage 2
*************************************************************************

Most of us use the words KNOW and CERTAIN and think that they mean something; they are not meaningless terms. We KNOW things, and are sometimes CERTAIN of things.

I personally come to know things through the totality of my experiences with the universe. There are three possibilities; let us examine each in turn, and then I will give one example (among DOZENS of others that I could provide if necessary, hint hint) that illustrates all three states.
If only SOME of my experiences lead me to think that something may be true or false, I am uncertain. If MOST of my experiences lead me to think that something may be true or may be false, then I am CONFIDENT that it is true or false as the case dictates. If ALL of my experiences lead me to the conclusion that something is true all false, then I am CERTAIN that it is true or false.

AN EXAMPLE (I can come up with MANY more):

A completely fair, monitored, and untampered-with political race is held (unlike our recent mess). Candidate A is running against candidate B. There are 10,000 people voting. The courts are not allowed to rule on the final count. All counting is final, and the winner may have to pay state and local taxes. No refunds. (sorry, I got carried away). The returns start to come in.

CASE 1:

With 4000 votes hand counted and triple checked, candidate A has 2100 votes and candidate B has 1900 votes. What can I conclude? There is not enough information; I am UNCERTAIN who will win.

CASE 2:

With 7000 votes hand counted and triple checked, candidate A has 4500 votes and candidate B has 2500 votes. I am CONFIDENT that candidate A will win.

CASE 3:

With 8000 votes hand counted and triple checked, candidate A has 5100 votes, and candidate B has 2900 votes. I am CERTAIN candidate A will win. 100% CERTAIN. Is ALL of the information in yet? NO. Am I CERTAIN candidate A will win? You betcha, 100% CERTAIN. HAVING ALL POSSIBLE INFORMATION FROM UNDER EVERY ROCK AND CREVICE IN THE UNIVERSE IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE DECISIONS, OR EVEN TO BE CERTAIN.

END STAGE 2.

************************************************************************
Stage 3
************************************************************************

In both math and philosophy courses logical (deductive) reasoning is taught. I am providing a quick overview, not to be condescending, but for the viewers who have not had a logic course.

Deductive arguments MUST have two parts, and frequently have a third. The two required parts are a premise or premises, and a conclusion. Optionally, there may be a middle or body part made up of accepted theorems. Two examples are as follows:

EXAMPLE 1:

A = B,
B = C,
A = C.

read A equals B (a premise), B equals C (another premise), THEREFORE A equals C (the conclusion).

EXAMPLE 2:

A NOT = B,
B = C,
A NOT = C.

read A NOT EQUAL to B (again, a premise), B equals C (another premise), THEREFORE A is NOT EQUAL to C (the conclusion).

Two arguments that are almost exactly the same in structure and syntax; they just have one premise that is different, and therefore the CONCLUSION is COMPLETELY the opposite.

One last thing to know; premises can not be questioned; it they are given, and outside the scope of the argument. Therefore, if you do not like A = B, or A NOT = B, there is nothing to do except disagree with the opponent about the choice of premises. If you agree with an opponents premises, and they know their logic, their conclusion will follow. If you disagree with some or all of their premises, then further argument/discussion is futile.

As I see it, Agnostic Atheists like Meldread and strong atheists like myself disagree on a fundamental premise. From my point of view, Agnostic Atheists have a PREMISE that you can not be certain of the non-existence of God. My PREMISE, as stated above, is that one CAN be CERTAIN about both positives and negatives. Therefore, our arguments would look like:

Agnostic Atheists:

1. You can not be CERTAIN of the non-existence of God because you personally do not have all the information in existence,

2. Therefore, while to the best of our knowledge there are no Gods, we can not conclude that there are no God(s).


Strong Atheist (mine, at any rate):

1. It is possible to be CERTAIN, given all my knowledge and experience, that there are no Gods.

2. Therefore, Gods do not exist.

Irreconcilable.

The differences between Theists in general and atheists in general also revolves (IMO) around a premise, but a different one than between Agnostic Atheists and strong atheists. Theists have as a premise that due to their knowledge and experiences, they have experienced God, or in some other fashion (reading, NDE's, talking, etc.) KNOW that God exists.
Atheists disagree that Theists have VALID proof of God. The argument seems to come up time after time as to what constitutes VALID proof; the two sides can never seem to agree. The fundamental disagreement results in the following argument:

Theist:

1. Due to all my life experiences and understanding of the universe, I have VALID proof that God exists,

2. Therefore, God exists.

Atheists:

1. Due to our life experiences and understanding of the universe, we see no VALID proof that God exists,

2. Therefore (God probably does not exist - Agnostic Atheists)
(God does not exist - strong atheists)

Irreconcilable, on the premise level, which is ok by me.

In the example you gave, you have the ability to be aware of all the variables that influence the conclusion (fair, monitored, untampered with, 10,000 voters, number of votes counted, and so on). Are you going to make the claim that your personal knowledge and experience rises to the level such that you can say you are aware of all the variables and their interactions that would help one determine the existence/non-existence of God?

to the best of my knowledge, all information points to no gods existing. But if you don't like that example, I have countless others that are different. I am CERTAIN the sun will rise in the East rather than the West tomorrow. Are you uncertain about this?


Got to go, will respond tonight, about 8-9 pm. TTFN.

BTW, I did not notice you disputing AS SOME DO, that it is possible to be CERTAIN of some things. My first example does make it clear, you seem to agree, that people can be CERTAIN of things.

to the best of my knowledge, all information points to no gods existing. But if you don't like that example, I have countless others that are different.

*sigh*
That's not certainty. That's strong confidence. If you were truly certain, you wouldn't use disclaimers like "to the best of my knowledge" or "all information points to." Instead, you hedge your bet, which is a clear indication of uncertainty. Certainty would empower you to say "there is no possibility that any god exists."

If you now wish to make that statement, then you must show why you are justified in making that statement.

I am CERTAIN the sun will rise in the East rather than the West tomorrow. Are you uncertain about this?

What if the Sun goes nova before dawn tomorrow? What if you find out that your concept of east/west is 180° incorrect? Are these probable outcomes? No, but they're not impossible, so you're not certain. You're strongly confident.

My sense is that you find the distinction to be purely semantic, but I do not. You are making declarations about absolutes, when you lack sufficient justification for such declarations.


It's not my intent to hijack this thread, but you're committing the same mistakes here that you made in our previous debate.

is that clear enough for you? As certain as I am that the sun will rise in the East in the morning, and yes I am certain of that too, despite your unending lists of impossible-events-that would turn ANY statement I make into an uncertain situation.

Certainty: as Fezzik said to Vizzini in the Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means what you think it means.":evilgrin: To put it in blunter terms, you are twisting CERTAIN (yuk, yuk) words in the English language out of all recognition of how a normal person would use them in everyday language.

I have given lucid and common definitions and examples of CERTAIN; now it is your turn. Admit it, you don't believe it is POSSIBLE to be CERTAIN of ANYTHING. Admit it. OR ..... come up with your own definition of certain, AND GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF BEING CERTAIN. But be warned, I can come up with impossible scenarios to make your certainty need an endless list of asterisk but but buts as easily as you ... :evilgrin: It's time to admit that that you don't believe that it is possible to be CERTAIN of ANYTHING, OR give your own definition. Put up or **** up time.

You need to either admit that you don't think it is possible to be certain about anything, or come up with your own definition of certain and an example NOW. If you dodge this question, or evade, or try to weasel out, the world will see what you are made of, and I will have won this war of wits.

the ones that you have read, you appear not to understand. As far as I know, I have dodged no question that you have asked of me. If you wish to maintain that accusation, please indicate which post of yours asked me a question that I didn't answer. Interestingly, you have flatly ignored several of my questions to you, so I caution that you're in no position to demand a response, much less to declare yourself to have "won" anything.

You also appear to be challenging me to make a statement that I have made several times already, and that makes no sense to me. However, if it will give you a feeling of peace, I will reiterate here.

I have no reason to conclude that it is possible to any material fact with certainty.

Is that clear enough for you? That is as "certain" a statement as I am able to make.

I will happily define certainty after you have done so. That's not weaseling, and it's not evading. I mentioned previously (I'll cite the link, if you need it) that you seem to want to be able to change the goalposts mid-game, and you appear to be doing the same here.

Give me your definition of certainty, and we can proceed.

one I might add that is probably close to how most NORMAL people use the word in EVERYDAY life. Again:

"I personally come to know things through the totality of my experiences with the universe. There are three possibilities; let us examine each in turn, and then I will give one example (among DOZENS of others that I could provide if necessary, hint hint) that illustrates all three states.
If only SOME of my experiences lead me to think that something may be true or false, I am uncertain. If MOST of my experiences lead me to think that something may be true or may be false, then I am CONFIDENT that it is true or false as the case dictates. If ALL of my experiences lead me to the conclusion that something is true all false, then I am CERTAIN that it is true or false."


to quote myself.

1. You : "I have no reason to conclude that it is possible to any material fact with certainty."

Fine. Then we are through here. You are certain of nothing, I am certain of a large number of things (see all my examples) as are all normal people. The word "certain" has a meaning normal people understand, when you take a normal word and bend it so out of shape that it can't be used, you are being intellectually dishonest, not to mention bankrupt.


2. You: "I will happily define certainty after you have done so."

I am not going to hold my breath on that promise. You have shown that you are quite capable of dishing it out, attacking others positive statements (Ok, ok, MY positive statements:P ) but you have shown a complete unwillingness, other than number 1. (above, which I acknowledge is a good step toward honesty) to post what you believe. So, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. There are words for people like that, that constantly attack but do not put down there own views, but I am barred from using them, both by Meldreads terms of the debate, and by D.U. rules ....:evilgrin:

To re-iterate, as far as I am concerned, we are through. You are certain of NOTHING. I understand that now. This is such a bizarre point of view, normal people will not agree with that premise. We are CERTAIN of many things. So we have reached the fundamental impasse based on premises that I talked about in my post above. Enjoy your twisted, unrecognizable definition of CERTAIN, and enjoy your day!:toast:

"If ALL of my experiences lead me to the conclusion that something is true all false, then I am CERTAIN that it is true or false."

That's a hugely arrogant statement to make. All of your experiences are, in the aggregate, an infinitessimal sample-size for just about every real-world example you've given. And when we apply your sample-size to the existence/nonexistence of God, then "all of your experiences" become even more farcically inadequate to the task.

You have a habit of declaring the will of the masses as it pertains to my argument, as if a majority vote has any bearing on reality. At best, you can claim that a majority of people share your definition of certainty, which (by your own explanation) merely makes it a synonym for "overwhelming confidence."

Since you've decided, in your 100% absolute without-a-doubt certainty, to abandon the argument, I don't care whether you respond or not. But for what it's worth, here is my definition of certainty:

Certainty is that state of awareness in which one's knowledge of an event is verifiably 100% consistent with reality and has 0% chance of being incorrect. You have given no example that even comes close to that definition, so you have not convinced me that you are "certain" of anything.


Believe me, I lost patience with you and your reluctance to answer direct questions about half a dozen posts ago, so I'm more than happy to leave it at that. Heck, you can even have the last word, if you care to reply. But I remind you that you still haven't cited the post in which, as you claim, I called you a liar. Perhaps you might use your reply might to give that citation or to withdraw the accusation.

You mention that you don't try to prove other people wrong and instead let them try to prove you wrong. However, it's clear from our exchange so far that you accept no argument that disproves your view. It's also clear that you worked with some vigor to demonstrate that I was wrong (that is, to prove wrong my argument that you were wrong). As before, I am certainly not calling you a liar, but your statement is strikingly inconsistent with apparent reality. Can you address this inconsistency?

At any rate, because extreme-case hypotheticals likewise have little intersection with reality, their value in debating questions of reality is comparitively small. It's simply the reverse formulation of reductio ad absurdim: "Let me posit the most outlandish of all possible examples, and if that example can be made to support my assertion, then my assertion is of value in all other examples." Sorry--I don't buy it.

Certainty about a hypothetical is meaningless because the hypothetical is itself uncertain.

In addition, there's a problem with your Case-3:

With 8000 votes hand counted and triple checked, candidate A has 5100 votes, and candidate B has 2900 votes. I am CERTAIN candidate A will win. 100% CERTAIN. Is ALL of the information in yet? NO. Am I CERTAIN candidate A will win? You betcha, 100% CERTAIN. HAVING ALL POSSIBLE INFORMATION FROM UNDER EVERY ROCK AND CREVICE IN THE UNIVERSE IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE DECISIONS, OR EVEN TO BE CERTAIN.

You aren't certain, though once again you believe that you are. Instead, you are strongly confident in your conclusion, but your information is still insufficient to justify certainty. You have not accounted for at least several other possibilities:

1. 3900 of Candidate A's votes are found to be fraudulent and must be thrown out
2. Candidate A is not actually eligible for the position and therefore is ineligible to win
3. All of the handcounters were secretly bribed/threatened/cajoled into skewing the vote-count
4. Each of the as-yet-uncounted votes is for Candidate B, and through a forgotten legal loophole, the last 2000 votes in a hand-count are given double-weight; Candidate B finishes with 6900 effective votes.
5. Candidate A confesses to some heinous crime and bows out of the race before all votes are counted
6. Candidate A gets cold feet and concedes his loss before the vote-count is revealed
7. Candidate B, in a fit of militarism, seizes control and declares the vote-count null and void
8. Final handcount reveals 12,000 votes in an election in which only 10,000 votes are cast--the results must be thrown out as fraudulent.
9. The current ruler declares Candidate B the winner by fiat; the votes are irrelevant
10. The entire polling station, including all votes, vote-counters, and candidates is destroyed by a meteor strike. All record of the count up to that point is destroyed, and no witnesses of the count survive to testify.

Now, I imagine (i.e., I am confident but not certain) that you'll cry foul and say that my 10 possibilities are of such remote likelihood that they can't be factored in. Not so! You declare a 100% certainty when you cannot; even a miniscule probability of any of the 10 possibilities makes a 100% certainty impossible. 99.99% perhaps, but you said 100%. No dice.

As before, you believe you are certain, and you declare that you are certain, but you are only very confident that Candidate A will win, and I admit that the justification for your confidence is pretty high. Your "certainty" re: God's nonexistence is substantially less strongly justified.

#59, #66, and ESPECIALLY #68. We are done; you have made (to you, not to me) CERTAIN a meaningless term, enjoy. Normal people think your twisting of it is ..... how shall I put this delicately ..... odd.:evilgrin:

It has more than one meaning, and that's a point to consider.
There's an important difference between irrefutable scientific certainty and being self-confident and cocksure. ;)

of many things, you can be uncertain of them if you wish... to be honest, most of the people arguing here about their purity of uncertainty don't seem to back it up in real life by always ACTING uncertain (see my examples, in this and the other thread, about stop lights, the sun rising, going to work/staying home, etc.):-)

"...most of the people arguing here about their purity of uncertainty don't seem to back it up in real life by always ACTING uncertain"

Why would they? They choose to act reasonably certain instead. eom!

ps: They don't sit motionless with anxiety over the minuscule uncertainty of a rising sun, working light switch, or their own beating heart. They exhibit useful, practical, living certainty. Philosophically, they will first admit and later argue the often slight, often profound unreliability of "knowledge". We can fool ourselves while having certainty that we will not be fooled. There's no doubt about that.

Those people with a pure concept of "certainty" are certain that the subject of God/s and the earthly manifestations of varyingly successful systems of human belief in God/s is worthy of objective analysis. It's at once the most extraordinarily transcendent concept possibly imagined and most vague. It requires extraordinary evidence, nay or yay.

Have you ever flipped a light switch and the light immediately blew out? Can you admit that you can't be absolutely certain that the next light switch you throw won't result in a blown bulb?
If so, consider the possibility that just as authentic knowledge of God/s existence is nowhere to be found, authentic knowledge that God/s don't exist is nowhere to be found.

time being uncertain about whether the light will come on ("Gee, I wonder if the light will come on when I flip this switch this time"), nor do I assume that it WON'T come on ("I am going to flip the switch, and the light won't come on!). On the contrary, I am CERTAIN that it will come on, till it does not and proves me wrong. Similarly, when god(s) show up, introduce him/her/itself, performs a few miracles, THEN I will admit that I am wrong about that, and not a second sooner. Till then, I am CERTAIN there is/are no god(s).

:evilgrin:

The light bulb is real, it has a finite life span. Yet we do turn the light switch on with certainty, not reasonable certainty as you suggest.

God, on the other hand, has no basis in reality, has never existed that we know of, so does not warrant even the same consideration as the light bulb, which did exist. So, if we can be certain that when we turn the light switch on that there will be light, we can be even more certain that God doesn't exist. Make sense? :)

"if we can be certain that when we turn the light switch on that there will be light..."

We can't be damn irrefutably certain! We cannot honestly claim to be certain of that when we all know damn well that light bulbs burn out.

We don't go around the room being "reasonably certain" or "irrefutably certain" as to whether the lights will work, we are just plain certain. True, we have learned that bulbs fail after a year or so, but we don't really anticipate or fear that moment. So we act certain that each time we flip the switch, the light will come on.

When crossing the road, we are certain that no cars are coming. If we're wrong, it may be fatal. Yet sometimes we are wrong.

In our practical life, we are certain about most things that we do, some having more severe consequences than others if we're wrong. But the common thread running through all of these decisions that we make is that there is a past history of evidence or experience to learn from. We know to look both ways, usually twice, when crossing the road. But there has never been previous evidence of the existence of god or gods, so we can be certain that none exist, until such a time when some evidence does exist. My argument is twofold, firstly that we are certain about many things in life without having to be "irrefutably certain", and secondly things that have no evidence for existence don't merit the same consideration as things that do exist in our natural world. Does that mean that we have to be "irrefutably certain" or have absolute proof that no god exists? Of course not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of this evidence, there is no need to consider the existence gods as a plausible idea, hence we can be certain that no god exists.

That's saying or believing that you're certain. If you acknowledge a chance, however slight, that X might not occur, then you are not certain that X will occur.

The two are quite distinct. Though it's a tiny distinction, when discussing absolutes, a tiny distinction is a big distinction.

Certain as it is commonly used means to be sure. It does not require proof or absolute certainty, unless it has a qualifier. I think that's where we're getting hung up. We can be certain that when we flip the light switch, the lights will come on without being absolutely, positively, 100% certain. In the etymology of the word, some decision is implied. Decisions generally require some inputs to help decide. If there is no evidence as in the case of God, then we may be certain that god does not exist, until such a time when evidence presents itself.



I think that no one is saying here that there is proof that no god exists, only that there are those who are sure or certain of it.

If, as some have suggested, "certain" means "absolutely 100% for sure," then my objection stands, and it's up to that person to convince his audience that his 100% absolute certainty is justified.

But if "certain" is merely a synonym for "strongly confident," then I have no problem with your stance. However, it then becomes a matter of rhetorical precision--if someone on either side of the certain/confident debate relies on equivocation (even when it results merely from refusing to give one's actual definition), then that person's contribution to the debate is sharply reduced.

We may require a different level of certainty when refering to the light switch then we do towards life and death situations like crossing traffic. Yet generally when we say we are certain, we do not require proof. We'd not get much done in life if that were the case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

In a similar way we can say we are certain that no gods exist without having 100% positive proof, in the same way that we might say that we are certain there are no pink unicorns or fairies. We cannot prove there are no fairies, but it's reasonable to say that we certain they don't exist. If I see some evidence of fairies, then I may change my mind, but until then, I choose to believe or know that they don't exist.

Also,consider that science assumes that something is false unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary evidence is required to support extraordinary claims, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of God.

Practically speaking, I think there are more than simply weak or strong atheists. There are those in between, who don't assert there are no gods, nor do they simply not believe in them. I fit somewhere in there, but closer to the side that asserts that they don't exist, but in a practical way, as I assert that fairies don't exist.

Orrex, this is the edge of our argument.
I mean, are we more certain that unicorns don't exist than we are that Gods don't exist?

edit: and why is the answer yes? ;)

Imagination and creativity are two reasons that come quickly to mind.

:evilgrin:

Thanks for identifying the "edge" of the argument. My answer is no, gods are no more likley to exist than any other magical creature.

Saved it to a Word document.

You say you are 100% certain and yet continuously use terminology to undermine what you say, such as "to the best of my knowledge". You are not saying "I am absolutely correct." Please clarify if you believe you are absolutely correct and that everyone who disagrees is absolutely incorrect, or if you are simply "confident" that you are correct based on the knowledge you currently possess. If it is the latter then we are in agreement, if it is the former I believe you are committing a logical fallacy.

---

Here is where we come into dispute. I am confident that there is no God, based on the evidence and my personal knowledge, but willingly admit that my knowledge is limited. I can't possibly know everything, and by definition if there is a God - wouldn't it be unknowable to creatures such as us with limited facilities? To judge the existence of God we only have the following tools: Hearing, Tasting, Touching, Smell, Seeing and our personal experience which is comprised of all of our knowledge.

We are extremely limited. I cannot perceive radio waves yet I know they are there because we have instruments which "see" and "hear" them for us. If I were to go back in time before the invention of radio and broadcast radio waves no one on the Planet Earth would know that they exist, and yet they surely would just as they do today.

This is the problem. Based on our five senses and our experiences which comprises our personal knowledge we can be confident that we are correct in our assumptions. However, we cannot be absolutely certain - in anything. Yes, in anything. Everything is simply an assumption based upon our previous knowledge.

We can only be positive about our claims. Look at a schizophrenic. That person hears voices. To them those voices are real and yet to us they are not. Look at every delusional person who has ever existed. Look at the world as a whole and its diversity of thought and opinions. Who is right and who is wrong?

We are limited by our perceptions. I do not believe it is silly to say that there is no reality, that there is only our perception of a reality. We may have shared experiences but when we walk away we may have two totally different ways of perceiving and interpreting the experience. Which is right and which is wrong? Which is valid and which is not? How can we, who are also limited, be the judge of that?

You must accept - and admit - that you could conceivably be wrong. After all, how do you know God isn't sitting right in front of you right now, but like a radio wave is unperceivable, and there is yet to be a tool developed to hear him?

that you are more reasonable in your approach then some. You do not JUST attack, you lay out your own views. I respect that:patriot: . Next, I am going to come to your first question last, ok?

1. You: "I can't possibly know everything, and by definition if there is a God - wouldn't it be unknowable to creatures such as us with limited facilities?"

Do we TRULY comprehend many things; how and why gravity WORKS (especially HOW), numbers greater than, oh 100,000, what TIME is, what SPACE is (it holds things, and separates them with itself, but nevertheless seems to be a THING that coexist "in the same space" with other objects - weird) etc? I would say that we can know things like this through our experiences, even if we can not completely comprehend them. I mean, we all EXPERIENCE gravity, and time, and space. Many people work with very huge and very small numbers on a daily basis, but I would argue that no one can TRULY COMPREHEND 1 billion; at one a second it would take you over THIRTY YEARS to count the numbers from 1 to 1,000,000,000. Yet people can work with, and yes, in our limited fashion, understand these things.

2. You: " You say you are 100% certain and yet continuously use terminology to undermine what you say, such as "to the best of my knowledge". You are not saying "I am absolutely correct." Please clarify if you believe you are absolutely correct and that everyone who disagrees is absolutely incorrect, or if you are simply "confident" that you are correct based on the knowledge you currently possess. If it is the latter then we are in agreement, if it is the former I believe you are committing a logical fallacy."

Clarifying: ME: "I personally come to know things through the totality of my experiences with the universe. There are three possibilities; let us examine each in turn, and then I will give one example (among DOZENS of others that I could provide if necessary, hint hint) that illustrates all three states.
If only SOME of my experiences lead me to think that something may be true or false, I am uncertain. If MOST of my experiences lead me to think that something may be true or may be false, then I am CONFIDENT that it is true or false as the case dictates. If ALL of my experiences lead me to the conclusion that something is true all false, then I am CERTAIN that it is true or false."

I see no contradiction. When I say "to the best of my knowledge", I mean that I have taken all my experiences into account, and have seen NO evidence of god, so that makes me (YES) CERTAIN there are no gods.

3. You: "However, we cannot be absolutely certain - in anything."

Look, you agree with another poster on this; I think you have destroyed what the word, as commonly used, means; indeed I think you have rendered it meaningless, by your own admission in that statement. However, you have done it in a much nicer and more thoughtful way than others, so I consider us parting on good terms.

For part we must. You and I have incompatible premises, as I explained in my original response to your thread. You start with the (strange, to me at least) notion that nothing can be certain; it is your premise, and as a premise I CAN NOT challenge it. I start with the EXACT opposite PREMISE; that we can be CERTAIN of many things (see my examples, in this and other posts and threads). Therefore, we quite naturally reach different conclusions.

You:
A = B,
B = C,
.: A = C

ME:

A NOT = B,
B = C,
.: A NOT = C.

This has happened rather fast, as I suspected it would; we hit the crux of our disagreement quickly, ie: certainty.

I bear you no ill will whatsoever, we part disagreeing about certainty, but we agree on other topics. Cheers!:toast:

I don't think it is necessary to attack anyone who differing opinions or views. It doesn't get anything accomplished and in the end only serves to divide us, cause hard feelings, and render any point that I end up trying to make muddled in an attack. (People rarely see beyond the attack to the point you are trying to make.)

On your first point, I agree. People rarely have the ability to comprehend large numbers. Proof of this is genocide or mass murder. People are much more capable of accepting it than if it is just a single person or a small group of people. I'd say if more than 10 people are killed Humans lose the ability to compassionately care about the deaths in the same way they would for than a single individual. You know the old saying, the death of one is a tragedy, the death of more than one is a statistic. It is an ironic thing about the Human mind, perhaps ironic and ugly at the same time.

However, that being said I still don't think the premise was answered at least not directly. If we lack the ability to perceive a God how do we know one doesn't exist?

On your second point, I have to ask if we truly disagree at all. You are saying you are certain that there is no God based on your experiences and the current evidence set before you. I am saying that I am confident that there is no God based on *my* experiences and the evidence put before me... I do not see the difference, really.

Of course, addressing your third point our conflict does come down to the word certain. Of course we both knew that before this thread started. I do not think our conflict is over the word directly, but rather how it is being used. I feel that you have used the word to say that in a sense there can be no opposing view - because you are correct. Yet, any rational person - based on all that I have said - has to acknowledge that anything they say can be incorrect. (After all, as I pointed out a schizophrenic person believes the voices they hear are real - how do we know for certain they are the insane ones and we are the sane? We judge them insane based on the fact that most of us do not hear voices and do not suffer their urges.)

Really, in the end I do not see how we truly disagree accept you seem unwilling to admit directly that you could possibly be wrong whereas I admit freely that I could be wrong. However, if I read what you are saying correctly it seems that we agree. I mean, I am certainly confident I am correct when I say I do not believe in God, but I know full well that I cannot prove it and that I may be wrong. If you give me a specific God (such as the God of Abraham, Zeus, every God that I've heard of up until present day) I am confident that they do not exist.

I think it may be important to understand the use of the word certain. Here is the word certain as according to dictionary.com. I take it when you say "certain" that you are using it as defined by 6a?

I should also point out that when I am talking about "God" I am not referring to a specific God but rather a generic "higher being" - which would include every known God plus the possibility of some unknown deity or higher power or higher powers which we would consider a God or Gods. I believe, by and large, every known deity can be sufficiently debunked to make it HIGHLY certain (although never completely) that they are unlikely to exist.

It is pleasant having this discussion with you, though I still do not think that we will agree on "certain" in the end; but that is cool too.


"However, that being said I still don't think the premise was answered at least not directly. If we lack the ability to perceive a God how do we know one doesn't exist?"

(I need to learn how to highlight/italicize people's posts so I do not have to use quotes! I also need to know how to underline and bold things, SO I DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT TO MAKE A POINT STRONGER)

The problem, from my point of view, is that the list of things-that-don't-exist is, quite literally, endless. I do not have the time or inclination to look at each one that someone may throw in my face and say "Hmm, for this specific reason, on the merits I can argue that it does not exist". I have thought about the whole god issue, and based on my knowledge and experiences I say that I am CERTAIN that NO GODS exist, just like Carl Sagan's dragon does not. You and Orrex, as I maintain, have distorted the commonly accept definition of "certain" to the point that it can not be used the way is was designed to be used. From my point of view, you are saying that one can NEVER be CERTAIN that gods don't exist, because we are not all-knowing; and ya never know, there may a god hiding under a rock on Pluto.

I approach the debate differently (think set theory). I am saying that the WHOLE SET of gods is invalid based on what I know, and I am as CERTAIN of that knowledge as I am that the sun will come up in the East tomorrow. Therefore, I do not HAVE to go around disproving each god, I deny the class as a whole.

"Yet, any rational person - based on all that I have said - has to acknowledge that anything they say can be incorrect."

Wonderful. So every statement has an asterisk with the infinite list of improbable things that could cause it to be wrong. You can live that way; I do not. I am CERTAIN till PROVED wrong.

"Really, in the end I do not see how we truly disagree accept you seem unwilling to admit directly that you could possibly be wrong,"

Almost correct (almost there!). I will not admit to being wrong till PROVED wrong, which in the case of gods will take some doing. Till then, I am CERTAIN and CERTAIN that I am RIGHT. Of course, the Theists say the same, but have the opposite conclusion. This bothers me not at all. One of us is wrong; but one of us is right, and therefore one of our CERTAINTIES is also TRUE.

I also honestly DO see your point and your premise; I just disagree. You want to appear to be "impartial", or "fair" by keeping the doubt (possibility) that despite overwhelming evidence, you could be wrong. I don't work that way. Overwhelming evidence makes me CERTAIN that I am RIGHT, till proved wrong. You are using the definition that I would call "confident", from the example in my original post to your OP (candidate A is ahead enough, and most of the votes have been counted, so I am CONFIDENT that candidate A will win).

I am not using definition 6a, I am using the stronger #3:

"Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable: What is certain is that every effect must have a cause."

This is what is TRULY meant by "certain"; this is the true synonym; and yes, in my mind, that level is reached on these issue. I REALLY, TRULY, LITERALLY, have no doubt in any corner of my mind that gods do not exist (see my fears/doubts thread for what I do doubt).

You and Orrex use "certain" the way I use "confident", which is ok. by me; we just disagree. Cheers!:toast:

"So every statement has an asterisk with the infinite list of improbable things that could cause it to be wrong."

Yes, technically this is true. I realize on it's face it seems totally silly, and I am not proposing that anyone should go around in life assuming that everything they believe is correct is actually false - or could be false - because that would be silly. Let me give a few examples:

I am going to go to bed tonight believing, being quite confident, that we have not made contact with Aliens from outer space. However, I may wake up tomorrow morning only to find that for the past two months the CIA has been picking up signals from an alien planet. I was wrong, but all the information I had before hand lead me to the conclusion that I could have been correct.

Another example is a risk I take every time I get into a car. I am confident that I am not going to be in a car crash based on my driving abilities or the driving abilities of the person I am riding with. I do not anticipate any such thing to happen. However, it can happen - I have to acknowledge it as a possibility even though it is unlikely to happen. The same could be said for riding an airliner or going on a cruise.

We make assumptions based on our previous knowledge and assume we are correct until proven otherwise. There is nothing wrong with that, but I still feel that one must acknowledge - and I believe you have acknowledged - that you could be proven wrong if evidence you have not yet encountered comes forward.

The problem I have is the issue of making a declaration. Yes, I am strongly confident that there is no "higher power" out there, but I am reluctant to make such a declaration both for diplomatic reasons, for the fact that there may come a time when I am forced to retract my statement, and for the issue of "faith".

When I say "faith" I do not mean it in the same term as one would use when applying to religion - but in how someone can form "faith" around a belief. In the case of the God issue I view it much like a scientist places "faith" that his hypotheses might be correct. In science the hypotheses is studied, tested, experimented - everything is done to try and prove it false. Often in science a scientist can become attached to his hypotheses and even when faced with evidence to the contrary is reluctant to let go. All and all it isn't bad unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The problem with the God issue is that there is really no way to "test" for the existence of a God. Especially if there is no God - it would be impossible, it is some what of a catch 22. If there is no God then there is no way to COMPLETELY disprove its existence, however if there is a God then you are forced to realize that it may simply be beyond our current understanding and ability to know how to "test". There is no way to prove the hypotheses and therefore one is forced to simply have "faith".

I am not willing to put "faith" into something like that, but I am willing to say that I am reasonably confident that based on the current evidence - without the ability to experiment - that I am correct, even though I know I cannot prove such correctness.

I believe the worst thing I could do to my mind is to become close-minded, because if I do that then I become no better than the Theist who refuses to examine his or her own beliefs.

---

You can make the bold and italics by using <b> and </b> for bold and <i> and </i> for italics. But instead of < use { (the non-curly brackets).

your thoughtful response.

I am going to go to bed tonight believing, being quite confident, that we have not made contact with Aliens from outer space. However, I may wake up tomorrow morning only to find that for the past two months the CIA has been picking up signals from an alien planet. I was wrong, but all the information I had before hand lead me to the conclusion that I could have been correct.

Another example is a risk I take every time I get into a car. I am confident that I am not going to be in a car crash based on my driving abilities or the driving abilities of the person I am riding with. I do not anticipate any such thing to happen. However, it can happen - I have to acknowledge it as a possibility even though it is unlikely to happen. The same could be said for riding an airliner or going on a cruise.

I agree with these statements. We agree on much. We disagree on the use of confident and certainty, which is ok with me.

I am glad that you brought up the close-minded issue. I know that my certainty on many subjects, not just god, is close-minded, and I do not have a problem with that. Am I open minded on the possibility that the Earth is flat? Not only no, but HELL no! Is there some remote possibility infinitely close to zero that someone will prove me wrong? I guess, but I don't lose sleep at night over the possibility. The same goes for the god issue. My mind is closed on many issues; to convince me on those issues would take extraordinary measures.

I think that many people have similarly closed minds on many issues (such as the Earth being flat, whether god exists or not etc.). I think that most would not be willing to admit it for fear of being accused of being close-minded, a pejorative. I don't mind being accused of that, I know that I am and do not view that as necessarily being a bad thing. Like many other attributes, whether it is bad or good depends on the circumstances. Whether something is brave or foolhardy, stingy or prudent, generous or spendthrift(y) depends on the circumstances. Same for being close-minded; it can be good or bad.

BTW, I am NOT accusing YOU of having a closed mind on anything, I am taking your word that you are your type of confidence and existential angst in everything you believe. That's cool; I just can't live that way.

Thank you very much, BTW, for trying to tell me how to do bold and italics. :yourock: . I am going to try them both in this post! Cheers!:toast:

Edited to add: IT WORKED! THANK YOU!:yourock:

If you want to figure out how to do more interesting stuff, when you create a new post look above where you type the subject. It says, "HTML use enabled. Use {} instead of <>. HTML lookup table", click the HTML lookup table and you'll have a list of everything you can do.

Onward to the meat of your post:

I do not think comparing the Earth to being flat is comparable to the God issue. I believe that, and I could be wrong, that using such a comparison is an act of engaging the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum which is Latin for "reduction to the absurd".

The reason I claim that it is fallacious logic is that you are constantly comparing the God issue to absurd examples - examples which can be tested and reasonably proven to be correct or false. Or you are comparing it to examples which have a high likelihood of being false. The difference however is that the God issue, unlike those examples cannot be tested - in fact if God does not exist then it is impossible to test and therefore impossible to prove.

We can test to see if the Earth is flat. We can examine it from outer space and physically look at it. We can use mathematics to figure out the Earth is round without even going into space (in fact that is how the Earth was first discovered to be round). We can have a hypotheses and come to a reasonably firm conclusion. We cannot do that with the idea of a higher being or power - at least not yet and perhaps not ever (if one does not exist).

At best all we have is circumstantial evidence that the Gods that we have yet thought of do not exist, rather than absolutely no God - a God we have yet to mentally conceive - does not exist.

What I would like to know is, if you cannot prove the non-existence of a higher power, how can you be so certain that a higher power that you have yet to conceive does not exist?

I do not think comparing the Earth to being flat is comparable to the God issue. I believe that, and I could be wrong, that using such a comparison is an act of engaging the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum which is Latin for "reduction to the absurd".

It has been 20 years since my intro to logic class; I have forgotten ALL the logical fallacies and their names, and since I just moved two months ago, my old burgundy Logic book is lost somewhere, so I am I am going to take your word for it. I will even take your word for

in fact if God does not exist then it is impossible to test and therefore impossible to prove.

though I seem to recall that some negatives (especially in math and science) CAN be proved. Lets suppose that you are right though, just for arguments sake.

At best all we have is circumstantial evidence that the Gods that we have yet thought of do not exist

IMO, the circumstantial evidence is not just strong, it is overwhelming to the point of PROOF, to me at least. Where I on a jury, and I had to decide that god(s) exist, or not, I would vote not. I suspect that we are about to differ on what constitutes PROOF, just like we do on CERTAINTY. PROVE that all of your experience to date have not been fed to you by a machine, ala The Matrix :evilgrin:. You can't, yet I reject that as a way to live, as explained in my response to your OP.

how can you be so certain that a higher power that you have yet to conceive does not exist?

I can be CERTAIN the way I can be certain that Santa is not real, or that any other imaginary thing you care to name is not real; we differ on certainty and what constitutes sufficient proof to BE certain. That is fine. You can always be just "confident", so as not to have someone attack you for lack of purity; I can not live that way. I am certain of most things at this time in my life, confident of a much smaller number, and uncertain about very few things. People can go ahead and attack me for lack of purity on my certainty, to which I respond "Fine, prove me wrong, and I will admit I was certain when I shouldn't have been".

Lastly, to be honest, and as I said before, I don't like your (and Orrex's) definition of "certainty"; reviewing your various arguments, you both seem to say (without being willing to admit) that under your definition, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be certain of anything.

EDITED: in fact, you says so directly in post 65:

However, we cannot be absolutely certain - in anything

so I take back the unwilling to admit part ... for you, not Orrex.

This renders the term meaningless. You obviously can live with the knowledge that you always have to (by your standard) qualify your statements ("The sun will PROBABLY rise in the East tomorrow, because the sun could blow up, or the Earth could be vaporized by a giant meteor, or, or, or). I can not live that way, I will positively assert (before it happens) "The sun WILL rise in the East tomorrow". Again, I live by the "prove me wrong" philosophy.

It is ok that we disagree here; our premises are different, and never the twain shall meet. Peace.:toast:

I thought I linked Reductio ad absurdum. Well, there is the link now. Also here is the link for most logical fallacies.


"IMO, the circumstantial evidence is not just strong, it is overwhelming to the point of PROOF, to me at least. Where I on a jury, and I had to decide that god(s) exist, or not, I would vote not."
The circumstantial evidence for the existence of all known current Gods, I would agree is rather overwhelming, and I too would vote the same way you would. However, we aren't really talking about them as opposed to God(s) in general. We have not yet conceived of everything that is possible.

"I can not live that way, I will positively assert (before it happens) "The sun WILL rise in the East tomorrow". Again, I live by the "prove me wrong" philosophy."
I would not encourage you to live that way, either. It is rather unproductive. As I stated before, though, the existence of a God(s) is not comparable to most other things, it is equivalent to your example of the Matrix. You cannot prove nor can you disprove that we are living in some type of simulation.

I understand you living by the "prove me wrong" philosophy, but I should point out that I have not made any claims - I do not disagree with your statement on it's face. In fact, I agree to a large extent, the difference is that you are the one making the claim to the non-existence of God. I don't understand what I would have to prove? In a nut shell that is where we part ways, you seem to act as if there is definitive proof to verify your claim. I agree with your claim, and say that your claim is highly likely, but also point out that your claim can never be proved to absolute certainty. After all, if your claim could be proved with absolute certainty there would be no Theists and there would be no debate. So in a sense you are choosing to place faith into something that may or may not be true - there is a lot of leeway to be incorrect.

You live by the "prove me wrong" philosophy, and I live by the "burden of proof lays on the shoulders of the one who makes the claim". It is very much like criminal court, and the burden of proof lays on the prosecutor to prove the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

What I would like to know is how you logically rationalize (your thought process) to the point of saying, 'There can be no higher power, ever, even one that has yet to be thought of.' I am trying to understand your reasoning, but every time I make the attempt it is like running into a brick wall - I simply can't find a way to logically do what you have done. …and frankly it is driving me nuts. :crazy: I want to understand how you have arrived to your conclusion, and I just can't figure it out.

the link the first time; I am just accepting that my examples thus far are indeed reductio.

you seem to act as if there is definitive proof to verify your claim.

your claim can never be proved to absolute certainty

What I would like to know is how you logically rationalize (your thought process) to the point of saying, 'There can be no higher power, ever, even one that has yet to be thought of.' I am trying to understand your reasoning, but every time I make the attempt it is like running into a brick wall - I simply can't find a way to logically do what you have done. …and frankly it is driving me nuts.

These three are all related. Do not strain your brain :pals:; we are coming at this from VERY different perspectives. I AM acting as if there is definitive proof, because to ME there IS; to you THERE IS NOT definitive proof. That is ok, we disagree on "proof". My proof is all of my experiences and knowledge; they show that ANY god(s) (using all the standard definitions of gods that I have ever heard). are inconsistent with this universe as I have experienced it. You use a (higher? - certainly DIFFERENT) standard of "proof" than I do, and that is cool.

***********************************************************************
These are some additional thoughts that I had on some of our cumulative posts. First, a (gentle) tease; you posted (in #65 of this thread):

However, we cannot be absolutely certain - in anything

How do you reconcile that with:

The reason I claim that it is fallacious logic is that you are constantly comparing the God issue to absurd examples - examples which can be tested and reasonably proven to be correct or false.

in post #83?

You do not HAVE to answer that, I am just being snarky. My sense of humor is SO going to get me in trouble here :evilgrin: .

Second, you do say that we can not be certain of anything. I AM interested if this is a PREMISE or not. If it is not, it should be proved, using any definition of "proof" that you like. If it is, here is how I see our current debate:

Meldread:

Premise 1: We can be absolutely CERTAIN of nothing.
Premise 2: So, while all of my experiences and knowledge currently show no gods to be existing, I can not be CERTAIN that there may be some that I have not conceived of, therefore

Conclusion .: I can not say with CERTAINTY that there are no gods; only with confidence.

A = B

B = C

A = C



Strong Atheist:

Premise 1: We CAN be Certain of things.
Premise 2: So, since all of my experiences and knowledge currently show no gods to be existing,

Conclusion .: I can say with CERTAINTY that there are no gods.

A NOT = B

B = C

A NOT = C

**********************************************************************

Don't sweat understanding our differences; also don't feel bad about being unable to convince me to do things your way; I am "stubborn", or set in my ways (because I think they are right, and I am comfortable with my reasoning). Peace!:toast:

:shrug:

I certainly couldn't take that position authentically for the simple reason as I'd feel like I am being dishonest with myself and others. I think it has to do with my (numerous) experiences with Fundamentalists - people who believe that they are absolutely correct and their authority on certain issues (or all issues) cannot be challenged. I consciously set about ensuring that I would not fall into the same trap that they have placed themselves in, and that I feel you placed yourself in.

Not to sound rude or condescending, but I do feel bad for you. Not in a condescending way but because I feel that you've closed your mind completely - it's one thing to take a position, it's another to completely embrace it and throw everything else out the window. It just feels like drinking poison, and instead of poisoning the body, it poisons your mind.

Ahh well, like I said if it makes you comfortable, keep it up I guess. Nice debating with you at least - I just wish we could have made more headway.

:toast:

P.S.


However, we cannot be absolutely certain - in anything

How do you reconcile that with:

The reason I claim that it is fallacious logic is that you are constantly comparing the God issue to absurd examples - examples which can be tested and reasonably proven to be correct or false.

There are two key words in each part. In the first statement the key word is "absolutely" and in the second is "reasonably". You can be reasonably certain/confident of something, just as it is reasonable to believe that aliens will not attack planet Earth while I sleep, but how can I ever be absolutely certain that it won't ever happen? I can't be. I can only be reasonably confident that it won't.

we are both comfortable where we are. :-). I am a stubborn close-minded person on MANY issues, you maintain constant openness (:scared:) on many if not all issues. Cool. I felt all along that we would end up here, so I am not disappointed; we just have different premises/outlooks on life, which is typical of people everywhere.:) .

On the P.S. : O.k. ! Peace!, and have a good day. I am sure we will meet and agree (or not as the case may be) in many future threads. :toast:

which is brighter than I am on the very rare occasions it chooses to show it, came up with one more thought. I hope you do not find this insulting, but it occurs to me that you require a level of "proof" from yourself to be certain that I require from others to prove me wrong about my certainty!

One has to take logic, for instance, on faith, and likely plenty of other premises we don't even consider because we cannot even conceive of them not being true.

To accept anything faith is required.

Thus "certainty" on the question of theism v. atheism does not make sense.

The faith one has that a chair will not collapse when you sit on it is considerably different than the faith one has that Jesus died for one's sins.

One is supported by direct physical evidence and experience with chairs and their ability to support weight.

The other is supported only by strong religious belief.

If you think those types of faith are equivalent (as some apparently do), you're sadly mistaken.

Essentially what you are saying is that one is the logical result of a number of premises you take on faith (the existence of the physical universe, your own existence, logic, empiricism, the truth of your experience, etc.), and the other is a premise taken directly on faith.

It's still ultimately based on faith.

Same word, completely different meanings.

One is taking an unsupported position in both cases.

Just throwing our hands up and saying "they're both the same" does nothing. In that regard, we may as well just let the Christian Scientists pray their kids to death because after all, one is taking an "unsupported position" that medical science could save them.

"Faith" in science and reason is different than religious faith, and while you may disagree vehemently, you are wrong.

You have shown nothing, you have not responded to a thing I said.

Behind any statement you make there are a number of unsupported premises you take on faith. I pointed them out to you earlier regarding the example you gave - your belief in the existence of the chair on which you are sitting.

I act according to the precepts I take on faith, not according to the precepts other people take on faith, so no, we should not "just let Christian scientist pray their kids to death."

because their faith is just as valid as yours. That's the trap you're setting. By equating trust in logic, reason, and science with religious faith, EVERYTHING is fair game. No one can judge another for an action, because you have to allow that their faith COULD be right.

I've responded to what you've said by showing how it leads to absurd and unworkable situations. Unless you have some way to declare some types of "faith" more grounded than others, you will inevitably end up in chaos.

Mine is faith in the truth, and theirs is not.

How do I know that? I take it on faith. That is what the term means.

You are looking at this through a strictly rationalist lens, which itself depends on faith, and thus according to itself is no more valid than anyone else's. I deny that logic and reason is the only road to truth, thus I escape the trap.

Anyway, your argument is not based on reason, but on comfort. You are saying that my argument does not work because it leads to conclusions you and I wouldn't like. One's liking or not liking for "chaos" has nothing to do with whether or not truth, as humans can understand it, is indeed chaotic.

So you think you have faith in the truth, and they do not.

I assure you, THEY think they have faith in the truth, and YOU do not.

There. You've reached an unworkable impasse. Religious faith cannot let you proceed.

Nevertheless, they are not. Me thinking that I am right is not "grounds" for my faith. My faith is self-justifying, it does not need grounds. Since their faith is contradictory to mine they are wrong.

Both of us have groundless faith in the premises ultimately behind the scientific method, and both of us lack groundless faith in the premises ultimately behind praying to God to heal one's child. Thus both of us hold that "science is right" and the position of the fundamentalists you refer to is wrong.

You are still not making an argument. That which is "unworkable" is not necessarily untrue. All that you claim, even if it were true, would only prove that there is a contradiction between what I hold philosophically here and my general political positions and behavior, not that the particular position I am arguing for here is false.

it's kind of hard to develop an argument.

Right now, all you say is basically "Everything's faith, but anything that contradicts MY faith is wrong."

All I did was point out how ridiculously unworkable any conflict becomes when every party involved can simply declare they're right, you're wrong, end of story. Tell me how politics can work in such a situation. Just tell me.

(Hint: the religious right is using your tactic right now.)

"Everything's faith, but anything that contradicts MY faith is wrong."

That is so, and the essence of the point I am making.

Political argumentation can still occur when the premises are agreed upon. Most people accept conventional morality, the truth of logic, the truth of their existence, the truth of the existence of the physical universe with which they interact, and so on. From these premises, arguments can be held, as long as the positions being advocated are the rational conclusions of such faith-based premises rather than postulates taken on faith themselves.

You see the problem, but I don't think you get it.

Conclude rationally all that you want from a faith-based premise that human beings are evil, depraved, and must be restrained from doing anything contrary to "god's word," those conclusions will still be horrible and wrong. And unless you admit that some kinds of "faith" are different and superior for operating here in the real world, there will be no way to achieve progress and fight the rabid fundies that currently run this country.

I simply do not think there is any purely rational basis for doing so. No faith is any more grounded than any other.

"I would say some faiths are preferable, yes."

"No faith is any more grounded than any other."

Tell me how, given your second statement, that your first statement is valid. After all, "preferable" is a judgment call, based on a "faith."

The tenets of the faith, independent of their grounds, do that.

If you allow that all faiths are equally grounded, then no one can be preferred, since any faith will always be preferred internally over other faiths. So essentially you're right back where you started.

I reject that. And the only measure you suggest - reason - is rejected by plenty of people, and being groundless is thus no superior to any other, according to the point of view that only it can lead to truth.

if we are to live together in societies and make laws that govern us all.

Your position puts the Christian Scientist, the 6-day creationist, the Branch Davidian, the Heaven's Gate cultist, the theoretical physicist, and the classical economist on the same footing, with equally valid viewpoints of "the truth."

certain accepted premises.

you have no way to argue a set of "certain accepted premises."

That's what I tried to tell you way back at the beginning of this subthread.

I deny that any faith has any more rational grounds than any other.