Author Topic: Why Worship?  (Read 4631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #261 on: April 18, 2018, 03:11:42 PM »
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1]

It seems we have a bit of a language barrier here. Earlier you asserted that "all evidence is claims." I understand claims to mean a statement or assertion that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof (EOD). If evidence is a claim, as you say, and if a claim is to assert a thing is the case, then your definition reads something like this: Claims/Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of a claim/assertion. This would be a circular argument, which of course would be insufficient for scientific purposes.

Following the same article down a bit we read, "In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis."

When I'm asking about evidence for reincarnation or gods, for example, I'm asking specifically for scientific evidence. I'm asking what observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions support the assertion that reincarnation and/or gods exist. Do you know of any? If you do, would you share them? If you do, why do you not believe in reincarnation and/or gods?

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

According to this article, "In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature,[11] law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation,[12] and so on." (Italics mine)

This article also does not mention or even imply "all [or even some] evidence is claims," as you promoted.

When I ask about evidence of reincarnation or gods, I'm asking about the things drawn from nature that support this assertion, not assertions made by people who believe in it.

Semantics aside, when you ask about paradigm shifts, do you mean "expanded knowledge" or a "fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline" (from wiki link)? If you mean to ask about paradigm shift literally and not as expanded knowledge, would you explain your reasoning?

What basic concepts and experimental practices do you believe have been altered in the field of physics? Do you believe the examples of trees, fungus, and chorals you provided in another thread presents a paradigm shift in the field of biology? If so, would you explain what basic concept and experimental practices you believe have been changed?

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #262 on: April 18, 2018, 03:49:26 PM »

When I'm asking about evidence for reincarnation or gods, for example, I'm asking specifically for scientific evidence. I'm asking what observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions support the assertion that reincarnation and/or gods exist. Do you know of any? If you do, would you share them? If you do, why do you not believe in reincarnation and/or gods?


we're done, albeto.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #263 on: April 18, 2018, 03:52:22 PM »

It's almost like kevinagain has no idea of what words mean in a scientific context, despite his two degrees.

kevinagain, if I were you, I'd demand a refund. You were robbed.

nah, i don't think so.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4241
  • Darwins +553/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #264 on: April 18, 2018, 04:58:16 PM »

When I'm asking about evidence for reincarnation or gods, for example, I'm asking specifically for scientific evidence. I'm asking what observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions support the assertion that reincarnation and/or gods exist. Do you know of any? If you do, would you share them? If you do, why do you not believe in reincarnation and/or gods?


we're done, albeto.

ROFL

You're gonna run out of people to talk to, quickly.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #265 on: April 18, 2018, 05:03:23 PM »

ROFL

You're gonna run out of people to talk to, quickly.

looks that way.

is there something you'd like to talk about, jag?
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8940
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #266 on: April 18, 2018, 05:38:04 PM »
sure. that will work. would you please rephrase it in the context of this discussion?

you recognize that asserting that an explanation is unnecessay is not the same as asserting that it is false?

occam's razor is a tool of convenience. it isnt a test of any kind.
As it is already fully understandable in the context of this discussion, I see no point in rephrasing it.

And I am well aware that Occam's razor doesn't actually prove anything, but that does not make it a mere "tool of convenience".  Quite the opposite, in fact; it saves tremendous time and effort by effectively ruling out complications unless and until there is actual reason to introduce them into an explanation or whatever.  That is why strong atheists dismiss gods entirely - they unnecessarily complicate explanations without justifying the additional complications.

You, of course, are not obligated to agree.  Nor are you obligated to make use of other things that make your life simpler and easier.  But I think you would probably not be willing to accept reasoning that you should live without air conditioning, or microwaves, or automobiles, or any of the other modern 'conveniences' you are probably very used to using, without some particularly good justifications for taking those out of your life.

By the way, you should probably take more care when trying to present arguments.  You don't convince people of anything by trying to argue definitions - largely because they can pull out their own definitions, and that gets nowhere fast.  I got what you were trying to say - claims are a form of evidence, albeit a weak one.  What you failed to recognize is that just because all claims are evidence, it does not mean that all evidence is claims.  This is basic set mechanics.  If all B are A, it does not follow that all A are B[1].

I also don't recommend telling people you're 'done' with them.  Especially when it looks like you did so to avoid addressing valid points raised against your arguments.
 1. if A is the set of all positive whole numbers and B is the set of all prime numbers, then all members of set B are going to be members of set A, but the opposite does not hold true; all positive whole numbers are not prime
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #267 on: April 18, 2018, 06:21:26 PM »
hello jaime


And I am well aware that Occam's razor doesn't actually prove anything, but that does not make it a mere "tool of convenience".  Quite the opposite, in fact; it saves tremendous time and effort by effectively ruling out complications unless and until there is actual reason to introduce them into an explanation or whatever.

. . . in other words, a tool of convenience. thank you for that.

Quote
That is why strong atheists dismiss gods entirely - they unnecessarily complicate explanations without justifying the additional complications.

You, of course, are not obligated to agree. 

and i don't. you are conflating strong atheism-- the explicit assertion that gods do not exist-- with the position supported by parsimony of merely asserting that they are unnecessary. occam's razor may justify the assertion that gods are unnecessary. it does not justify the assertion that they do not exist.

of course, there are strong atheists who will disagree. they will be wrong.

Quote
By the way, you should probably take more care when trying to present arguments.  You don't convince people of anything by trying to argue definitions - largely because they can pull out their own definitions, and that gets nowhere fast.

yes. i've noticed a tendency for discussions to get bogged down in semantics, to the detriment of content.

Quote
I also don't recommend telling people you're 'done' with them.  Especially when it looks like you did so to avoid addressing valid points raised against your arguments.

thank you for the advice.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8940
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #268 on: April 18, 2018, 11:15:37 PM »
. . . in other words, a tool of convenience. thank you for that.
Sorry, simply restating your original assertion doesn't fly here.  Try again, this time with actual logic to support your argument.

Quote from: kevinagain
and i don't. you are conflating strong atheism-- the explicit assertion that gods do not exist-- with the position supported by parsimony of merely asserting that they are unnecessary. occam's razor may justify the assertion that gods are unnecessary. it does not justify the assertion that they do not exist.
Incorrect.  Occam's razor, the principle of parsimony, is about excluding assertions that make unnecessary additional assumptions.  And contrary to what you might believe, asserting that something exists requires additional assumptions over asserting that it does not.  Therefore, Occam's razor will always exclude such things from consideration unless someone can show that it is necessary to make those additional assumptions.

It is true that strong atheism asserts that gods do not exist.  Where you are mistaken is in assuming that this is not compatible with parsimony, as I showed above.  More concretely, in order to assert that something exists without physical evidence, you must make assumptions about it.  For example, to assert that leprechauns exist, one must assume all the various details about them - being fairly short, wearing green clothes, hiding pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, and so on, whereas to assert that leprechauns do not exist, one must simply reject these assumptions.

Quote from: kevinagain
of course, there are strong atheists who will disagree. they will be wrong.
Save it for when you no longer retreat from discussions the way you did with albeto.

Quote from: kevinagain
yes. i've noticed a tendency for discussions to get bogged down in semantics, to the detriment of content.
Discussions get bogged down even more when one party says "everyone but me is wrong".

Quote from: kevinagain
thank you for the advice.
If you really want to thank me, then make use of the advice.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4241
  • Darwins +553/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #269 on: April 19, 2018, 09:15:06 AM »

ROFL

You're gonna run out of people to talk to, quickly.

looks that way.

is there something you'd like to talk about, jag?

Sorry kevinagain, not with you. I see a pattern in your participation that interests me in the abstract, but does nothing to draw me in. I'll just keep watching, and interjecting the occasional remark as the mood strikes.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #270 on: April 19, 2018, 10:47:36 AM »
  I got what you were trying to say - claims are a form of evidence, albeit a weak one. 

Jaimehlers, perhaps you can explain this to me. In what way are claims a form of evidence?

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #271 on: April 19, 2018, 11:40:49 AM »
. . . in other words, a tool of convenience. thank you for that.
Sorry, simply restating your original assertion doesn't fly here.  Try again, this time with actual logic to support your argument.

jaime, the positive assertion that occam’s razor was adequate to justify strong atheism was yours, and therefore you have the rhetorical burden of proof to back it up. but here is the actual logic behind my position anyway:

premise1. occam's razor is a heuristic for identifying the simplest solution to a problem.
premise2. the simplest solution to a problem is not always correct solution to the problem.
conclusion. occams' razor is a heuristic that does not always identify the correct solution to a problem.

if there is something wrong with ^^^this, please point it out.

apparently, the following is the actual logic behind your assertion that occam’s razor justifies strong atheism:

premise1.  the simplest solution to the god question is that there are no gods.
premise2. the simplest solution to a problem is the correct solution.
conclusion. the correct solution to the god question is that there are no gods.

^^^ this appears to be the argument you have presented so far. the form is valid, but the second premise is not true. unless you have a different formulation of parsimony, or have a different defintion of strong atheism to propose, that’s enough to support my point.

do you have something different?

Quote
Incorrect. Occam's razor, the principle of parsimony, is about excluding assertions that make unnecessary additional assumptions.  And contrary to what you might believe, asserting that something exists requires additional assumptions over asserting that it does not.  Therefore, Occam's razor will always exclude such things from consideration unless someone can show that it is necessary to make those additional assumptions.

there is nothing ^^^here i disagree with, jaime.

Quote
It is true that strong atheism asserts that gods do not exist.  Where you are mistaken is in assuming that this is not compatible with parsimony, as I showed above.  More concretely, in order to assert that something exists without physical evidence, you must make assumptions about it.  For example, to assert that leprechauns exist, one must assume all the various details about them - being fairly short, wearing green clothes, hiding pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, and so on, whereas to assert that leprechauns do not exist, one must simply reject these assumptions.

no, jaime. ^^^this argument doesn’t fly. strong atheism is the positive assertion of the existence of a condition—the non-existence of gods, and asserting the existence of a condition requires evidence, as you say. parsimony asserts nothing more than that there is no evidence for gods, and that’s as far as the occam’s razor argument will take you. a statement of logical certainty that no gods exist cannot be made unless the universe is completely searched for for them. that is absurd, and cannot be done. what parsimony asserts is that there is no evidence for believing in gods, which is very different from stating that they do not exist.

the existence of a phenomenon does not depend on whether or not we have evidence for it.

Quote
Quote from: kevinagain
thank you for the advice.
If you really want to thank me, then make use of the advice.

jaime, i’ll thank you anyway, even though i still think you’re wrong and won’t be following your advice. i’m here to learn, and talking with you helps me do that. if you have more to offer, i'm listening.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #272 on: April 19, 2018, 11:42:04 AM »
Quote from: kevin
is there something you'd like to talk about, jag?

Sorry kevinagain, not with you. I see a pattern in your participation that interests me in the abstract, but does nothing to draw me in. I'll just keep watching, and interjecting the occasional remark as the mood strikes.

okay. feel free to say hi or not, as you are led.

i don't bite, and i have no axe to grind.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #273 on: April 19, 2018, 12:40:21 PM »

When I'm asking about evidence for reincarnation or gods, for example, I'm asking specifically for scientific evidence. I'm asking what observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions support the assertion that reincarnation and/or gods exist. Do you know of any? If you do, would you share them? If you do, why do you not believe in reincarnation and/or gods?


we're done, albeto.

aka he's run away again.  It's a shame that kevin doesn't want to be responsible for what he has typed. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #274 on: April 19, 2018, 12:47:56 PM »
Kevin wins.

I don't even agree with this:

premise1.  the simplest solution to the god question is that there are no gods.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #275 on: April 19, 2018, 12:50:04 PM »
Kevin wins.

well, that's quite amusing since it's jst just making one more baseless claim in desperate need to convince us.  ;D  what an ally  &)
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14806
  • Darwins +625/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #276 on: April 19, 2018, 12:50:22 PM »
I don't even agree with this:

premise1. the simplest solution to the god question is that there are no gods.

Good for you. You're wrong.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #277 on: April 19, 2018, 01:26:24 PM »
I don't even agree with this:

premise1.  the simplest solution to the god question is that there are no gods.

I don't either. That's not a premise, it's a conclusion.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #278 on: April 19, 2018, 01:38:33 PM »
Kevin wins.

I don't even agree with this:

premise1.  the simplest solution to the god question is that there are no gods.

i didn't mean that it was the simplest solution to the question of gods, jst. i was referring only to the question of whether parsimony justifies a position of explicit atheism. i don't think it does.

occam's razor is nothing more than a tool of convenience pointing to provisional answers for a question for which several answers are possible. the thing about occam's razor is that it is by definition provisional-- it's nothing more than a heuristic for choosing the least complex but still adequate answer to a question, pending any other information which may someday contradict it. it doesn't prove anything to be true. it just says that if a simpler answer can explain the data, there's no need to complicate the model by adding anything else.

for example, if i hear a crash from the kitchen, and then when i walk in i find my son standing over a broken cookie jar, the simplest explanation consistent with what data i have is that my son has broken it. occam's razor would indicate that scenario to be an adequate solution to the data in my possession.

but if i then walked over to the pantry and upon opening the door, discovered my daughter hiding inside eating a handful of cookies, i now have more information that the theory must accommodate. the simplest solution no longer explains all the data and may have to be revised.

with respect to strong atheism, occam's razor states that if i have no evidence to support the existence of gods, there is no need to believe in them. but to jump ahead to a conclusion that occam's razor says that gods aren't there does not follow from the argument.

perhaps god is in the pantry, eating cookies.

^^^^^
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 01:40:37 PM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #279 on: April 19, 2018, 02:36:50 PM »
with respect to strong atheism, occam's razor states that if i have no evidence to support the existence of gods, there is no need to believe in them. but to jump ahead to a conclusion that occam's razor says that gods aren't there does not follow from the argument.

Well I guess is a pretty good principle but it's not an infallible mechanism.

If I hear a crash in the kitchen the simplest explanation is that a cat is on the counter again.  So much so that I consider it guilty until proven innocent lol.  It has been proven innocent a couple of times. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #280 on: April 19, 2018, 02:46:30 PM »
Well I guess is a pretty good principle but it's not an infallible mechanism.

If I hear a crash in the kitchen the simplest explanation is that a cat is on the counter again.  So much so that I consider it guilty until proven innocent lol.  It has been proven innocent a couple of times.

well, here is what it says, jst:

parsimony is a logical heuristic that states that there is no need to multiply explanatory entities beyond what is necessary.

this is a heuristic:

Quote
A heuristic technique (/hj???r?st?k/; Ancient Greek: ???????, "find" or "discover"), often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, guesstimate, stereotyping, profiling, or common sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

this is occam's razor, which is an expression of logical parsimony:

Quote
In science, Occam's razor is used as an heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

if you justify something on the basis of occam's razor, or logical parsimony, you are stating that you are using a heuristic to arrive at a satisfactory, simplest, most practical, or least complicated answer to a question that still explains the data you currently have available.

your are not stating that  your answer must be true.

your assertion may be contradicted at any time by the inclusion of data previously unknown or excluded.

with respect to the existence of gods, it can be proposed that there is no adequate evidence for their existence. given that, occam's razor allows you to state that there is no need to believe in their existence.

it does not allow you to state that gods do not exist, which is the strong atheist position.

it may be true that gods do not exist, but you have to look elsewhere than logical parsimony to support that assertion.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 03:30:16 PM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Darwins +327/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #281 on: April 19, 2018, 03:27:23 PM »
you are conflating strong atheism-- the explicit assertion that gods do not exist-- with the position supported by parsimony of merely asserting that they are unnecessary.

Just out of interest, please list the attributes of unnecessary gods in such a way that they could be considered gods.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #282 on: April 19, 2018, 03:31:54 PM »
it does not allow you to state that gods do not exist, which is the strong atheist position.

Is strong atheism different than antitheism?  I wish there weren't so many sects of atheism.  Why can't they all agree to just be one kind of atheist?

I've never seen strong atheism supported with anything other than statements of faith.  I do not even think it's a rational position because you would have to actually prove evidence of absence.  And while atheist claim they have evidence the God of the Bible isn't real, that's just the tip of the ice berg. 

First you have to accurately define evidence of a god's presence before you can determine it's absent.  I've never seen anyone up to the challenge. 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #283 on: April 19, 2018, 03:40:18 PM »
I've never seen strong atheism supported with anything other than statements of faith.  I do not even think it's a rational position because you would have to actually prove evidence of absence.

bingo, jst. you'll notice the loudest opponents of your position don't actually defend a position of their own. they just demand that you prove yours.

Quote
First you have to accurately define evidence of a god's presence before you can determine it's absent.  I've never seen anyone up to the challenge.

yes. claiming that your position--that gods exist-- is wrong does not establish theirs--that gods do not exist-- to be correct by some sort of default.

occam's razor merely allows the statement that gods have not been proven to exist.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 03:47:07 PM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #284 on: April 19, 2018, 03:43:23 PM »
you are conflating strong atheism-- the explicit assertion that gods do not exist-- with the position supported by parsimony of merely asserting that they are unnecessary.

Just out of interest, please list the attributes of unnecessary gods in such a way that they could be considered gods.

hi foxy

how've you been?

history has had hundreds of definitions of gods, far too many to list.

what is your own opinion?
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Darwins +327/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #285 on: April 19, 2018, 04:16:57 PM »
you are conflating strong atheism-- the explicit assertion that gods do not exist-- with the position supported by parsimony of merely asserting that they are unnecessary.

Just out of interest, please list the attributes of unnecessary gods in such a way that they could be considered gods.

hi foxy

how've you been?

history has had hundreds of definitions of gods, far too many to list.

what is your own opinion?

I am very busy with my life at the moment. No time for anything else.

I want to know how you deal with this, not hundreds of religions.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #286 on: April 19, 2018, 04:19:39 PM »
I've never seen strong atheism supported with anything other than statements of faith.  I do not even think it's a rational position because you would have to actually prove evidence of absence.

bingo, jst. you'll notice the loudest opponents of your position don't actually defend a position of their own. they just demand that you prove yours.

Quote
First you have to accurately define evidence of a god's presence before you can determine it's absent.  I've never seen anyone up to the challenge.

yes. claiming that your position--that gods exist-- is wrong does not establish theirs--that gods do not exist-- to be correct by some sort of default.

occam's razor merely allows the statement that gods have not been proven to exist.

and kevin again ignores that strong atheists (most) do not just say that gods don't exist based on their "faith" that this is the case.  we have evidence. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #287 on: April 19, 2018, 04:21:32 PM »
it does not allow you to state that gods do not exist, which is the strong atheist position.

Is strong atheism different than antitheism?  I wish there weren't so many sects of atheism.  Why can't they all agree to just be one kind of atheist?

I've never seen strong atheism supported with anything other than statements of faith.  I do not even think it's a rational position because you would have to actually prove evidence of absence.  And while atheist claim they have evidence the God of the Bible isn't real, that's just the tip of the ice berg. 

First you have to accurately define evidence of a god's presence before you can determine it's absent.  I've never seen anyone up to the challenge.

what is antitheism and atheism in your understanding, jst?     It's interesting to see kevin's and jst's positions coalescing.  tell us what evidence of a god's presence is and how you know. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #288 on: April 19, 2018, 04:27:46 PM »
lol

see below.

my fan club will keep us all on topic here, i'm sure.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 04:37:43 PM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #289 on: April 19, 2018, 04:31:02 PM »
you are conflating strong atheism-- the explicit assertion that gods do not exist-- with the position supported by parsimony of merely asserting that they are unnecessary.

Just out of interest, please list the attributes of unnecessary gods in such a way that they could be considered gods.

hi foxy

how've you been?

history has had hundreds of definitions of gods, far too many to list.

what is your own opinion?

I am very busy with my life at the moment. No time for anything else.

I want to know how you deal with this, not hundreds of religions.

well, i guess i have no answer for you. i don't contemplate the characteristics of unnecessary gods on a routine basis.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.