Why so necessary to do that ?

[PureX]

Yes, admittedly I have a bias against subjective evidence but I don't think it is blind. I have a bias against my own subjective evidence because of studies/testing I've read that shows the unreliability of the subjective experience. Lots of self-testing you can do that has convinced me that I can't rely on personal experience for the truth. So as long as nobody is making truth claims I've got no problem. Other than this is the truth of my experience which has no necessary relevance to any truth outside of that.

So I choose to be an atheist because the "truth" of God outside of personal experience cannot be resolved.

So, if you can't resolve the proposition, you reject it for being unresolved, and pretend that in doing so, you've resolved it.

Can you see why I think atheism is foolish?

 

[PureX]

That's a very elaborate and obfuscating way to say that the only thing one can do with a god claim is either "just believe it" or not.

Well, yes, we get to choose. That's one of the interesting things about an unresolved possibility. We get to choose what we do with it. We can trust in it's validity, or we can reject it's validity, according to our own subjective needs, desires, and self-delusions.

Your "defense" here of this god belief can be used completely unchanged to believe ANYTHING - including false things.

"Belief" has nothing to do with this conversation. Ya'll seem to be having great difficulty understanding this. The conversation is about a subjective choice to trust in the validity of a philosophical/theological proposition, or not to. "Belief" is just the biased presumption that we're right.

 

[PureX]

But it is NOT blind bias. It is well substantiated and justified bias. We know of way too many situations where subjective impressions are simply wrong. Take any optical illusion, for example. We *know* that our senses are geared to 'pickup' certain types of things, even if they don't exist. That is quite good reason to be cautious about subjective experiences as opposed to independently verified objective experiences.

We're 'wrong' about most things most of the time. Even when we think we're not. Being 'wrong' is an inevitable part of the human condition. The problem in not that we're wrong. It's that we refuse to admit it to ourselves.

Figuring out how something functions does not make us 'right'. Nor does it mean we know anything more than how something functions. Yet we adopt this arrogant attitude that because we figured out how something functions that we know what's real and true, and what isn't. And the theist proposition strips all that away, and forces us to face the unknown, and unknowable, without this delusion of knowing how it works, or why. And then to make a choice based on our own subjective natures. Which is far more true and honest to who we are and how we actually live our lives. I like this very much about theism.

 

[PureX]

And it is a universal, ongoing, subjective human experience that certain optical illusions happen. Even if you *know* the illusion is wrong, you still cannot see it otherwise.

So, yes, it should be logically considered. And after consideration, I saw the 'evidence' was tantamount to an optical illusion and worthless for actual truth claims.

Dude, it's ALL AN OPTICAL ILLUSION!

 

[chinu]

I think you don’t answer questions so you never have to be wrong.

Of course I don't answer when I don't find any appropriate answer. What a big deal it is.

I think you consider all religions identical so that none of them are wrong.

I myself told that many times on "RF". There's nothing new to discover in this.

I think your style is all about controlling who questions and answers so you don’t have to say anything specific which could be refuted

This is totally a wrong assumption. I have always respected honest replies, and have always tried to learn from honest replies, no matter who is the person. Yes, sometimes I fail to respond back. NOT respond back does not mean I have NOT learned.

Abusive Language -- I myself never use abusive language for anybody, and expect the same in return -- I simply ignore such people, and even try to ignore the one who give likes to any such posts/replies.

Over smartness -- I myself tend to be, and there are many on "RF" who tend to be. I don't find anything wrong in this. But, the problem starts when someone start loosing patience, and further start using an abusive language.

I don't try to say here that I have NEVER loose patience anytime, perhaps I would have loosed it countless times, but, simultaneously also try my level best NOT to loose. That because I believe that the one who loose patience get defeated by own internal self before anybody else defeat that person from an outside world.

At least, I can say that I have NEVER used an abusive language even if I may loose patience anytime.

but you can point your finger and laugh at other people’s ‘mistakes’.

No I don't like laughing on mistakes. I myself do countless mistakes. This is also a wrong assumption, or perhaps the misconception created by my avatar picture.

 

[Polymath257]

Dude, it's ALL AN OPTICAL ILLUSION!

I disagree.

 

[Polymath257]

We're 'wrong' about most things most of the time. Even when we think we're not. Being 'wrong' is an inevitable part of the human condition. The problem in not that we're wrong. It's that we refuse to admit it to ourselves.

And yes, by testing and requiring testable hypotheses, we can eliminate some of the wrongness.

Figuring out how something functions does not make us 'right'. Nor does it mean we know anything more than how something functions. Yet we adopt this arrogant attitude that because we figured out how something functions that we know what's real and true, and what isn't.

And again, I disagree. A thing is how it interacts (functions). So if we understand how things function, we understand all that is possible and necessary. To expect more is misguided, in my opinion.

And the theist proposition strips all that away, and forces us to face the unknown, and unknowable, without this delusion of knowing how it works, or why. And then to make a choice based on our own subjective natures. Which is far more true and honest to who we are and how we actually live our lives. I like this very much about theism.

We face the unknown all the time. But we can change it into the known. Theism as you describe is simply giving up. Although to be honest, your view seems more like solipsism to me than theism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes. The theist proposition is the result of overwhelmingly universal, ongoing, subjective human experience. That is where the evidence for it originates. So that is the evidence that should logically be considered. If your bias is so overwhelming that you can't do that, then you can't reasonably consider the proposition.

But that's where it MUST end then, is with your subjective experience. DO NOT tell me I must accept the proposition, or even hint that I am being remiss if I reject it entirely.

It is exactly the same as me making the proposition that "mushrooms are disgusting." I absolutely abhor the damn things. They are, to no end, repulsive to me. Now... you don't see me going around, informing people who like mushrooms that they are making a mistake, or are somehow falling down, philosophically, because they don't take my proposition under advisement, do you? I even have loads of SUBJECTIVE evidence for why mushrooms are just plain nasty. And I could present this evidence to all the mushroom lovers. But what should they make of my evidence, in your estimation? They should tell me to screw off! That's exactly what they should do with that "evidence." Because it is genuinely GARBAGE.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, yes, we get to choose. That's one of the interesting things about an unresolved possibility. We get to choose what we do with it.

Only if you don't care about being rationally justified in your beliefs.
When the claim concerns an "unresolved possibility", then the only rational answer is "i don't know". Not "it is the truth", let alone "The Truth".

Having said, it most definatly does NOT concern an "unresolved possibility".
Not once has it been demonstrated that gods, or any other supernatural things, are possible.

You don't get to simply assert that X is possible.

We can trust in it's validity, or we can reject it's validity,

We can not. You can make an empty undefendable assertion about that, but you can not "trust" it. Because that requires evidence. Which you acknowledge does not exist.

according to our own subjective needs, desires, and self-delusions.

aka, irrationality.

"Belief" has nothing to do with this conversation.

It has everything to do with it.

Ya'll seem to be having great difficulty understanding this. The conversation is about a subjective choice to trust in the validity of a philosophical/theological proposition,

Which would result in a belief.

or not to. "Belief" is just the biased presumption that we're right.

No. It is the acceptance of a claim as being true.
Which is what you end up with if you "decide" (on faith) that the claim is valid and believable.

 

[Nakosis]

So, if you can't resolve the proposition, you reject it for being unresolved, and pretend that in doing so, you've resolved it.

Can you see why I think atheism is foolish?

Not all atheists take a position on the existence of a god. A god could exist for all I know. Being an atheist just means I lack the knowledge to make any claims about a god. So no, I'm not pretending anything has been resolved.

 

[PureX]

And yes, by testing and requiring testable hypotheses, we can eliminate some of the wrongness.

We can eliminate some of our dysfunction. And that's a good thing. But it doesn't make us any less wrong. It just makes us more effective at it.

A thing is how it interacts (functions). So if we understand how things function, we understand all that is possible and necessary.

Except WHY it functions. And WHY it matters. Which would seem to be quite important things to know. If only we could.

To expect more is misguided, in my opinion.

Disappointing, perhaps, but not misguided.

We face the unknown all the time. But we can change it into the known.

We pretend that knowing how something functions is all there is to know, so we must be really smart. But we are fools. And deep down we know this. Which is why we work so hard at maintaining the pretense.

Theism as you describe is simply giving up. Although to be honest, your view seems more like solipsism to me than theism.

Giving up the pretense of knowing is the foundation of wisdom, ... according to nearly every intellectual and spiritual discipline throughout human history.

 

[PureX]

But that's where it MUST end then, is with your subjective experience. DO NOT tell me I must accept the proposition, or even hint that I am being remiss if I reject it entirely.

You are free to do as you please with the theist proposition. But don't pretend your choice is based on "objective evidence", or on the lack of it. Because objective evidence in not obtainable, and the lack of it is expected; so cannot stand as evidence against. Your decision will be exactly as subjectively derived as any theist's. The difference is that the theist will have effective possibilities open to them that you will not.

 

[PureX]

When the claim concerns an "unresolved possibility", then the only rational answer is "i don't know". Not "it is the truth", let alone "The Truth".

I agree. Which is why I keep pointing out that "belief" is irrelevant. The discussion is about faith, not 'belief'.

Having said, it most definatly does NOT concern an "unresolved possibility".
Not once has it been demonstrated that gods, or any other supernatural things, are possible.

Existence, itself, demonstrates that "God" is possible. If you can't accept that, then I don't know what to tell you.

You can make an empty undefendable assertion about that, but you can not "trust" it. Because that requires evidence. Which you acknowledge does not exist.

Trust does not require evidence. It only requires possibility.

 

[PureX]

Not all atheists take a position on the existence of a god. A god could exist for all I know. Being an atheist just means I lack the knowledge to make any claims about a god. So no, I'm not pretending anything has been resolved.

You are confused about what these terms mean. "Atheism" is the philosophical antithetical to the theist proposition that a "God/gods" of some sort exists in a way that affects humanity. Agnosticism is the position of being undetermined due to a lack of sufficient evidence/information. By your description, you are agnostic, not atheist.

 

[ppp]

You are confused about what these terms mean. "Atheism" is the philosophical antithetical to the theist proposition that a "God/gods" of some sort exists in a way that affects humanity. Agnosticism is the position of being undetermined due to a lack of sufficient evidence/information. By your description, you are agnostic, not atheist.

You are mistaken. Nakosis is correct. Atheism is simply not believing theist claims. The "antithetical" is the Pulpit version of atheism, not the philosophical. Which is not to say that there are not atheist who do take the "no gods can exist" position. But they are a philosophical subset of not believing theism claims.

 

[Polymath257]

You are confused about what these terms mean. "Atheism" is the philosophical antithetical to the theist proposition that a "God/gods" of some sort exists in a way that affects humanity. Agnosticism is the position of being undetermined due to a lack of sufficient evidence/information. By your description, you are agnostic, not atheist.

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in God/gods. It is answering the question 'do you believe in God' in the negative.

Agnosticism is the position that knowledge (about God/gods) isn't possible.

It is possible to be an agnostic theist (belief, but allowing that knowledge is impossible), an agnostic atheist (no belief, but allowing that knowledge is impossible), a gnostic theist (belief, and claiming knowledge is possible), and a gnostic atheist (no belief, and claiming knowledge is possible).

A person can 'not believe' because of lack of evidence (and hence, be an atheist) while believing that such knowledge is possible (and thereby not being an agnostic--although this is sometimes called being a weak agnostic). The position of 'being undetermined' does NOT automatically make one a (strong) agnostic.

The problem is that there are various levels of both atheism and agnosticism. There are degrees of lack of belief and degrees to which one thinks there can be knowledge.

 

[Nakosis]

You are confused about what these terms mean. "Atheism" is the philosophical antithetical to the theist proposition that a "God/gods" of some sort exists in a way that affects humanity. Agnosticism is the position of being undetermined due to a lack of sufficient evidence/information. By your description, you are agnostic, not atheist.

I am both an agnostic and atheist. They are not exclusive terms. One is about knowledge, the other is about belief. I have no knowledge of a god and are therefore without a theistic belief.

 

[PureX]

You are mistaken. Nakosis is correct. Atheism is simply not believing theist claims.

"Belief" has nothing to do with anything. "Belief" is nothing but one's own internal assessment of correctness. It's just a self-legitimized bias.

 

[ppp]

"Belief" has nothing to do with anything. "Belief" is nothing but one's own internal assessment of correctness. It's just a self-legitimized bias.

Belief is merely being convinced that some proposition is true. Theism is being convinced that at least one god exists. If you are not talking about belief, then you are not talking about theism. If you are not talking about rejecting a belief, then you are not talking about atheism.

 

[PureX]

No. Atheism is the lack of belief...

"Belief" has nothing to do with anything. "Belief" is nothing but one's own internal assessment of correctness. It's just a self-legitimized bias.

Agnosticism is the position that knowledge (about God/gods) isn't possible.

No. It is not logical to claim that information that we do not possess could not be possessed. As we could not possibly know this to be so; not having the information necessary to make that determination.

It is possible to be an agnostic theist

Yes, as an act of faith, we can choose to accept the theist proposition as valid even though we don't know this to be so. And the same is true for an atheist.

The problem is that there are various levels of both atheism and agnosticism. There are degrees of lack of belief and degrees to which one thinks there can be knowledge.

The problem is that we continually forget and ignore that "theism" and "atheism" are philosophical propositions; NOT PEOPLE. They have no "levels of belief". The degree to which any one of us accepts, rejects, proposes or denies the proposition is completely irrelevant to the terminology representing it.