CuteAsFark:

Interesting theory, I love it, kudos to you.

Gotta admit it's a different take. I think if this were to go mainstream it could get into a feng shui groove with science.

Zamboro: Do you believe in Santa Claus, yes or no? Step outside of the "must win argument" mindset and be real with me for a moment. Is it reasonable to conclude, based on all of the available information, that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Santa DOES exist!
Link (new window)

I met him once when I was little. He let me touch his north pole.

Zamboro: DeanMoriarty: "I totally do. That's what I've been arguing. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism pertains to faith."

But that makes no sense. Is a-fairyism an article of faith? Is a-Santaism? If there's anything you don't believe is true but which cannot in principle be disproven, why do you feel it's reasonable to disbelieve?

Once again, not rhetorical. I'm actually asking you why you don't believe in Santa, for instance. Once we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve in Santa, everything else follows.


As stated above - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is reasonable to disbelieve anything that falls outside the norms of conventional knowledge, until proven otherwise.

It's the total root of agnosticism - the position that we can't know, evidence-wise, that god exists.


On a purely faith-level, yes: a 6 year-old believes in Santa for many of the same reasons people believe in god. and my atheist ass says it's a similar construct: people who should know better have built up a false framework to support that faith.

/this is all SO entertaining, had to throw this out
//still dosen't explain why you drive on a parkway and park in a driveway, though...

It's not even a real story. Why all the blab?


\What "research" exactly did they base that dribble on?
/I really coun't read much of it.

CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

So, if you are God and you turn yourself into wine, then you drink yourself, is that some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation?

/TFA is BS in other words.

CrankMyBlueSax: CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

So, if you are God and you turn yourself into wine, then you drink yourself, is that some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation?

Only if you choke on yourself


/then you would die and dwell forever in... your kingdom
//hmmmm

Accent: "I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way."

In other words, you won't consider the evidence I've presented to you.

Accent: "The difference is I am not convinced strongly enough either way to believe* either side. Scientific theories have changed many times over history... and each one was accepted as "the new one" because it was thought to have been right."

So is science always wrong? Surely not. You're using a computer right now. It's not as though tomorrow it will be discovered that the theories underlying our useo f electricity are mistaken and your computer will suddenly stop working, so the pattern of paradigm shifts in science can't be as simple as you describe.

The history of science began on shaky foundations, like a newborn fawn struggling to stand on its own. Early methdology was highly flawed, little more than a series of guesses, but as the methdology itself was refined and formalized the frequency of grievous errors slowed. We are not about to discover that the world is actually flat, for instance; Huge upheavals (the world going form flat to round) have given way to slight revisions (the world going from a perfect sphere to a slightly squashed elliptoid) as we make fewer large mistakes thanks to a more rigorous, self-critical scientific method.

So to cite the fact that science made a great deal of big mistakes in its infancy as an excuse to simply disregard anything it has to say that you don't like ignores the history of science, denigrates the men and women who give their life to its practice, and grossly unerestimates its power to pry hard-won truths from a silent and mysterious natural world.

Accent: "Either way... if I understand this right... this God fella is a pretty forgiving guy, and I'll be alright if I grovel enough if I meet him. If he isn't there, then why waste my time trying to prove or disprove.. as you stated... Santa Clause"

You're not cooperating with a very simple line of questioning. I wonder why that is. Could it be that you already know where it leads?

heck i know i would, i'd be delicious

DeanMoriarty: "As stated above - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is reasonable to disbelieve anything that falls outside the norms of conventional knowledge, until proven otherwise.

It's the total root of agnosticism - the position that we can't know, evidence-wise, that god exists."

Precisely, I meant only to argue that there are many things we cannot know don't exist but which we can nonetheless determine to be nonexistent. The conclusion is merely probabilistic and provisional rather than absolute, like any other conclusion in science. That's the only definition of "true" that actually means anything.

FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

And they/we would be right

Zamboro:
Precisely, I meant only to argue that there are many things we cannot know don't exist but which we can nonetheless determine to be nonexistent. The conclusion is merely probabilistic and provisional rather than absolute, like any other conclusion in science. That's the only definition of "true" that actually means anything.

In which case, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

DeanMoriarty: they just need to be using information as the basis.

well i'm glad you narrowed that down...

DeanMoriarty: A woman who thinks she sees god's face in a piece of toast, and thereby declares (believes not knows) that god is real, is agnostic.

according to the accurate definition

which is why I proposed a more useful application which skips the knows part

none of us know, but we all believe something

so my proposal is:

gnostic theist = i know (am pretty sure) God exists and here is why

agnostic theist = i don't know why but i kinda sorta believe God exists

agnostic = I don't know maybe he does maybe he doesn't

agnostic atheist = i don't know why but I kinda sorta don't believe God exists

gnostic theist = i know (am pretty sure) God does not exist and here is why

I personally don't believe anyone is truly a 50/50 agnostic (or even gnostic) but I guess it is theoretically possible

even the truly hardcore agnostics are really 51/49 if they are really honest with themselves

+2
+1
0
-1
-2

Zamboro: absoluteparanoia: "It's not that I don't believe in Santa. It's that it's a nonsense question in the absence of data. It's like saying "Why can't you smell the color green?"

It's because I haven't and it doesn't jive. It's not a rejection so much as a "I never claimed he existed." It's like the difference between "meh" and "no"."

Do you believe in Santa Claus, yes or no? Step outside of the "must win argument" mindset and be real with me for a moment. Is it reasonable to conclude, based on all of the available information, that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

He sees you when you're eating. He knows when you're on drugs.

UberDave: Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein


Very good point. But some would claim that Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel....

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

Yeah, suck it Agnostics.

See, I told you I'm not closed minded.

/I'm a Catholic in case you haven't figured it out in the other threads.

Zamboro: Accent: "In other words, you won't consider the evidence I've presented to you."

I've already read articles presenting the same principles. Read my posts and take them literally.

So is science always wrong?
Twisting my words to fit your argument is not the way to 'win' a discussion. There is a probability that the current theories (and your articles) we hold to be true today will be proven flawed in the future.

You're not cooperating with a very simple line of questioning. I wonder why that is. Could it be that you already know where it leads?

I am cooperating perfectly, and have stated the same answer every.. farking.. time. I don't know. You don't know. What you believe is your own personal thought. What I believe is not going to be swayed by anyone.. or it is merely a thought. When I feel strongly enough to believe whether there is or isn't a god, I'll let you know since you seem so concerned.

YoungSwedishBlonde: "And they/we would be right"

Well no, it's an absurd position. Both sides of any social conflict will be passionate and spirited. Were some feminists "just as bad" as their opponents? Perhaps. Were women's suffrage and the women's lib movement therefore misguided? Should they never have happened? Likewise, there were no doubt abolitionists and civil rights protestors who were just as aggressive and violent as their opponent. Was their cause invalidated by it? Should we never have freed the slaves and worked towards a state of social equality with their descendants?

The fact of the matter is that the atheists you regularly argue with an denigrate are part of a social movement that has never harmed or killed anyone. You're making an apples to apples comparison between a group of people who stand for freedom of thought/women's rights/human rights/secularism/better living through science, and the sort of fanatics who bomb abortion clinics, blow themselves up at funerals, fly planes into skyscrapers, mail anthrax to people and so on.

I'll buy that you hate us as much as you hate any religious terrorist. That doesn't make us the same, however.

CrankMyBlueSax: CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

So, if you are God and you turn yourself into wine, then you drink yourself, is that some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation?

He didn't turn himself into wine. He is the body and the blood, which is the wine and the bread- but when we drink the wine and eat the bread, we are not eating a part of him. Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

I drunk what: gnostic atheist = i know (am pretty sure) God does not exist and here is why

sorry I couldn't resist

let he who is without typos cast the first stone!

vertiaset: Direct experience is the only way to "know" God. It is a simple process. Sit quietly. Empty your mind of its ubiquitous chatter and noise. Forget your "self". Seek. Seek and you shall find; although, what you find may no be what you "expected' to find.

** Reminder: Works best while high. **


SobrietyFighter: rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats

What about lizard and Spock?


I drunk what: oh hai guys, what r we talkin' about?

Bacon.


maddogdelta: Oh really?

...so, who do you think is FloydA, making good on his trolling threat?


Zamboro: All I'd like to add is that the sort of people you hear using the term "militant atheist" seriously are the same sort of people who, a few decades ago, would have been ranting about "militant feminists" and "uppity negros". They enjoy a privileged place in society and anyone who threatens that privilege must be painted as a villian whether or not they fit the bill.

Yeah, but they were RIGHT about all the uppity Negroes!


SobrietyFighter: if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist.

Nuh-uh, man. You only disprove the "chimney" aspect!


absoluteparanoia: The default position of science is not to say that something doesn't exist. It's to say that there's no evidence that it does...

...and then to ignore it, until such a time as relevant evidence is procured. Which is pretty much all atheists do about the whole "deity" thing.

Not even Lord High Atheist-God Almighty Dawkins believes what you're implying: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.".


SobrietyFighter: so god is really just lapses in quality control?

God is Klaus?

imgod2u 2009-07-02 02:09:00 PM
Lord_Baull: There was a Creationist on another website that suggested to me how Koalas, who dine exclusively on Eucalyptus leaves found exclusively in Australia, were able to make it back to Australia after the flood. This (new window) was her explanation.
Yeah, the logic from the close-minded Fundie borders on insanity.

But what she hot? And if so, did you hit that like the crazy hand of her angry God?


Yeah, I e-f*cked her like a jackhammer.

Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Accent: "I've already read articles presenting the same principles. Read my posts and take them literally."

I have. You won't consider those articles or the studies they describe as supportive of my position, and that's unreasonable.

Accent: "Twisting my words to fit your argument is not the way to 'win' a discussion. There is a probability that the current theories (and your articles) we hold to be true today will be proven flawed in the future."

You ignored the rest of my rebuttal, which explained how scientific methodology has been improved over the centuries such that its errors have become less frequent and less severe. Cognitive neurobiology isn't about to be invalidated, any more than evolution is.

Accent: "I am cooperating perfectly,"

No, you aren't.

Accent: "and have stated the same answer every.. farking.. time. I don't know. You don't know. What you believe is your own personal thought."

That is not an answer to "why don't you believe in Santa Claus". It's an effort to dodge the question.

Accent: "What I believe is not going to be swayed by anyone.. or it is merely a thought."

That is an admission of dogmatism.

Accent: "When I feel strongly enough to believe whether there is or isn't a god, I'll let you know since you seem so concerned."

I am not in the habit of participating in arguments and then suddenly losing interest halfway through.

If anyone cares, the actual paper is here.

lordargent: Or the people who aren't sure god exists, but worship him "just incase".

+0.000...000000001

/which math smarties will tell you = zero

lordargent: what about the people that aren't sure god exists, but if he does exist, he's a bit of an asshole and isn't worthy of worship.

+/- 0.005

(depending on your final choice)

CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

*hic* I don't know the shtory but i can tells ya he's quite *hic* tasty!

LoL seriously though, I'd prefer not to go the "christian route" and mix fabels in with all of this. I'd prefer to just back up the core ideas with what chemistry, physics and general science can account for.

/the otters were right!

DeanMoriarty: "In which case, I'm not sure what you're arguing."

Nothing. It may surprise you to learn this but not everything that comes out of my mouth is an argument. I just didn't understand you at first so, after a bit of discussion, we came to a point of understanding. Hooray, right?

amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: No. It does not.

Sure it does. One is a question of belief, the other is a question of knowledge. Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

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

How many times do people need to tell you that the belief in no god is different than the belief that you cannot know if there is a god are not the same thing?

I'll just leave it at that... Have a nice day.

cthellis: Bacon

I like bacon!

forget flying cars or curing cancer, WHY haven't scientists invented broccoli that tastes like bacon?!?

you FAIL me science

/F-

I drunk what: DeanMoriarty: A woman who thinks she sees god's face in a piece of toast, and thereby declares (believes not knows) that god is real, is agnostic.

according to the accurate definition

no, you have that entirely wrong.

agnostic - says you cannot ascertain, using knowledge, a basis for the faith.

toast woman is using "knowledge" (however faulty) as the basis for her faith. Ergo, she's gnostic.

abb3w: If anyone cares, the actual paper is here.

Error - DOI Not Found

Wow. It seems that all of you are missing the point of this article. They didn't single out atheists or agnostics. It said "people who are unsure." That is to say, maybe a guy who goes to church but he's not quite convinced. Or maybe an atheist who's non-faith is starting to shake a little.

Or maybe even a Liberal who's starting to get Conservative views (or vice versa). A Trekkie who's starting to realize that DS9 was kind of lame. A PS3 fanboy who discovers that he (gasp!) actually enjoyed a Wii or 360 game once.

These people, once their beliefs are shaken, have two directions they can take. Either overcompensate like hell by rushing back to "home base," or get their feet a little more wet by realizing not everything is set in stone. Most people choose option A.

CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic.

Zamboro: I have. You won't consider those articles or the studies they describe as supportive of my position, and that's unreasonable.

Where did I say that?

"You ignored the rest of my rebuttal, which explained how scientific methodology has been improved over the centuries such that its errors have become less frequent and less severe. Cognitive neurobiology isn't about to be invalidated, any more than evolution is.

Probably the same reasoning why other theories were accepted as well.

"That is not an answer to "why don't you believe in Santa Claus". It's an effort to dodge the question.

You're analogy of using Santa is dumb. Believing in where the presents under my tree came from and where the first anything came from is not the same.

"I am not in the habit of participating in arguments and then suddenly losing interest halfway through.

How is this not sinking in... there is no "end" to this because you cannot prove or disprove anything. It isn't a loss of interest, but it has now become clear that your agenda isn't worth considering.
This is me leaving your own personal "argument" and my statements.

I drunk what: "forget flying cars or curing cancer, WHY haven't scientists invented broccoli that tastes like bacon?!?"

Put some bacon salt on it.

Rockstone: CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic

Transubstantiation is very real.

Zamboro: DeanMoriarty: "In which case, I'm not sure what you're arguing."

Nothing. It may surprise you to learn this but not everything that comes out of my mouth is an argument. I just didn't understand you at first so, after a bit of discussion, we came to a point of understanding. Hooray, right?

I wasn't aware there was a misunderstanding. you just started asking a bunch of weird-ass questions.

When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)

YoungSwedishBlonde: FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

And they/we would be right

It is the human condition for one to make their personal truth their religion regardless of whether is about religion at all. Really you aren't any different or more correct so please don't try to come across as so. Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all.

Accent: "Where did I say that?"

Here:

Accent: "I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way."

Translation: "It doesn't matter what studies you show me, I won't concede that either side can come to any conclusions."

Accent: "Probably the same reasoning why other theories were accepted as well."

Citation please.

Accent: "You're analogy of using Santa is dumb."

;-)

Accent: "Believing in where the presents under my tree came from and where the first anything came from is not the same."

That's not the focal point of the analogy, though. Both Santa and God are impossible in principle to absolutely disprove. The matter we've been debating is whether or not we can reasonably conclude something doesn't exist in spite of the impossibility of absolutely proving that it doesn't.

Clan Xpy: "Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all."

Boy I hope you've never mocked a creationist. That'd make evolution a religion by your metric, would it not?

Rockstone: Transubstantiation is very real.

The Easter Bunny was telling me the very same thing just the other day. I'm convinced.

What someone that gets their morals from the Bible might look like:

Rockstone: Rockstone: CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic

Transubstantiation is very real.



No it isn't.

Zamboro: Accent: "Where did I say that?"

Here:

Accent: "I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way."

Translation: "It doesn't matter what studies you show me, I won't concede that either side can come to any conclusions."

Accent: "Probably the same reasoning why other theories were accepted as well."

Citation please.

Accent: "You're analogy of using Santa is dumb."

;-)

Accent: "Believing in where the presents under my tree came from and where the first anything came from is not the same."

That's not the focal point of the analogy, though. Both Santa and God are impossible in principle to absolutely disprove. The matter we've been debating is whether or not we can reasonably conclude something doesn't exist in spite of the impossibility of absolutely proving that it doesn't.

It is very easy to disprove Santa's Existence entirely, but impossible to do that with god. Any evidence we have shows that god does exist.


Anyway- how do you prove Santa Doesn't exist? Does he do everything little kids and tradition say he does? No. Does he live in the North Pole? Its all frozen ice water, no. Therefore, he does not exist.


But God- he has done everything the prophecies have said he will, and that is the difference.

Ed Gruberman: "When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)"

Ah, but apatosaurs never having eaten clams is a pretty small error wouldn't you say? At least compared to the sorts of errors science made when it was young. That is the point I had hoped to make to Accent. Science can and will err on occasion, but there are nonetheless things which are so thoroughly proven that we can safely conclude that they are true.

Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all."

Boy I hope you've never mocked a creationist. That'd make evolution a religion by your metric, would it not?

Yeah if said person holds it as their personal truth. It's just one of those things people do. Like Fox Mulder from X Files had "The Truth" or House had cynicism. Same applies to real life. At least that is my observation. This will just turn into a semantics argument by the way.

Zamboro: Ed Gruberman: "When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)"

Ah, but apatosaurs never having eaten clams is a pretty small error wouldn't you say? At least compared to the sorts of errors science made when it was young. That is the point I had hoped to make to Accent. Science can and will err on occasion, but there are nonetheless things which are so thoroughly proven that we can safely conclude that they are true.

Technically, we can't prove that we are alive, that we were ever born, or hell- that anything exists. I could be imagining you guys right now, in a lucid dream or a plane, but I somehow doubt it.

We could be at the bottom of the ocean, amphibious blobs that perceive everything as we do. Or we could be in the matrix.