Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

[gboisjo]

So you're calling all religious folks idiots?
That's a bold statement.

They're sheep, better noun.

 

[devildavid]

What definition of agnosticism is this?

Being agnostic on the question of God is not "I don't know". It is an assertion that the question of God's existence is necessarily unknowable. (I mean "necessarily" in the strict logical sense). The concept of God is of a creature that encompasses reality. Yet, we only have access to information 'within' reality. Information within reality could not lead to any deductions or inductions are what's outside of reality.

Meanwhile, if something could be answered in time with study, then agnosticism does not fit, because such a thing is knowable.

Well, if it is unknowable it kind of equates to anyone not knowing anything about it. The problem is with the word god and the inability to agree on its definition. It is a word describing something imaginary but treated as if it has a special place among imaginary things and should be treated as such. As if it is an imaginary thing that might be real because people hold deep beliefs about it so we must handle it very carefully so as not to offend.

What does “outside of reality” mean except another made up concept similar to god?

 

[gboisjo]

Share with the group what is the difference between the possibility of a supernatural entity, and the possibility that the universe is contained in the eye of a giant.
Since they are both unproven, what is the difference?
It's my contention they are both just as likely.

Common sense should rule, what we do know is the universe is real.

What we don't is how it came be, to say it started with the Big Bang is wrong, nothing comes from nothing.

Common sense 101.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Actually, I said CC had "no less than a 50/50 chance of being correct" about guess that there are no gods or there is at least one god. Anyone has no less than a 50/50 chance of being correct on that kind of a guess. If one makes a guess about whether team A will win the Super Bowl...you have no less than a 50/50 chance of being correct. (Not so if you guess right now that KC will win the Super Bowl.)

Any either it is or isn't guess has no less than a 50/50 chance of being correct.

Are you suggesting that is incorrect?

We know teams exist.
We also know the outcome of their game will probably be a win, a loss or a tie (sans the possibility of other outlying occurrences, such as weather issues, etc.).
All we know of supernatural entities is whatever mankind has conjured up in his imagination.
@Mithrae made a good point when he stated:

"the more variables which have to hold in order for it to be accurate, and the more it is encapsulated within broader descriptions - the less plausible it is in the absence of evidence."

Keeping that in mind, the existence of any supernatural entities is much less plausible than a 50/50 chance.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Common sense should rule, what we do know is the universe is real.

What we don't is how it came be, to say it started with the Big Bang is wrong, nothing comes from nothing.

Common sense 101.

Well, common sense is not universally common.
To say the universe was made in 7 days by a benevolent supernatural entity is much less plausible then the big bang theory, because we have absolutely no objective evidence that any supernatural entities exist.

 

[gboisjo]

As an atheist, I would say that belief, per se, has no real merit in thr determination as to whether there is a God or gods. On the other hand, this so-called “knowledge” of agnostics really isn’t knowledge if it is lacking. in other words, to say that “we can’t know”, in the case of a God or gods, assumes the potential existence of them, but only that we can’t know whether that is true or not. It defeats itself at the beginning. Some then hide behind the claim that it is “ultimate reality” that we can’t know, but so what? For more info: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/what-is-the-ultimate-reality.558738/

Your right, saying I don't know isn't knowlege per se, its humility. Someting lacking in most atheist and especially true believers.

A first cause, a creator of some sort is possible, however its outside of what we know so it really doesn't matter.

Dealing with what we know, facts, evidence, trump all of our wild guesses about gods, creators and the like.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

They're sheep, better noun.

They are just expressing very human traits.
 Human beings are remarkably prone to supernatural beliefs and, in particular, to beliefs in invisible agents. Beings that, like us, act on the basis of their beliefs and desires, but unlike us, aren’t visible to the naked eye.
Simply put, humans make shite up in an attempt at making sense of the World around them.
Doesn't make the stupid or sheep.
It just makes them human

 

[Frank Apisa]

We know teams exist.
We also know the outcome of their game will probably be a win, a loss or a tie (sans the possibility of other outlying occurrences, such as weather issues, etc.).
All we know of supernatural entities is whatever mankind has conjured up in his imagination.
@Mithrae made a good point when he stated:

"the more variables which have to hold in order for it to be accurate, and the more it is encapsulated within broader descriptions - the less plausible it is in the absence of evidence."

What I stated was correct.

Why not just concede that it was?

Keeping that in mind, the existence of any supernatural entities is much less plausible than a 50/50 chance.

I appreciate your blind guess that that is so.

 

[Frank Apisa]

They are just expressing very human traits.
 Human beings are remarkably prone to supernatural beliefs and, in particular, to beliefs in invisible agents. Beings that, like us, act on the basis of their beliefs and desires, but unlike us, aren’t visible to the naked eye.
Simply put, humans make shite up in an attempt at making sense of the World around them.
Doesn't make the stupid or sheep.
It just makes them human

Do you KNOW there are no entities that are invisible to humans...that are not able to be sensed in any way by humans? Or is that just another blind guess?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

What I stated was correct.

Why not just concede that it was?


I appreciate your blind guess that that is so.

I cant concede to that which is false.
The question of God's existence is not quantifiable using probability due to the nature of the concept itself.
Since science cannot definitively prove or disprove the existence of God, it's is therefore impossible to assign a concrete probability of a "50/50 chance".

 

[Mulefoot]

Keeping that in mind, the existence of any supernatural entities is much less plausible than a 50/50 chance.

The question of God's existence is not quantifiable using probability due to the nature of the concept itself.

wut

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Do you KNOW there are no entities that are invisible to humans...that are not able to be sensed in any way by humans? Or is that just another blind guess?

What I'm contending is that the probability of supernatural entities existing cannot reasonably be compared to what objectively exists.
I have to defer to objective evidence. Not unsubstantiated beliefs nor "feelings".
Ask yourself, have you ever had a "feeling" that turned out to be false? That's common, because feelings are subjective. They are unique to each person and shaped by their individual experiences, beliefs, and perceptions. Thus, they can easily be misconstrued.

Logic is not a "blind guess".

 

[Frank Apisa]

I cant concede to that which is false.

I am not asking you to concede to that which is false.

I am asking you to concede to being wrong.

The question of God's existence is not quantifiable using probability due to the nature of the concept itself.

That is absolutely correct.

Since science cannot definitively prove or disprove the existence of God, it's is therefore impossible to assign a concrete probability of a "50/50 chance".

I was not suggesting in any way that there is a 50/50 chance of such a thing. Not in any way. That is why I suggested you read my comment again. Try doing that...and deal with what I actually said rather than your misinterpretation of what I said.

I have no idea of the likelihood of whether no gods exist...or the likelihood of at least one god existing.

YOU are the one suggesting one is more probable than the other...something even you concede makes no sense.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

wut

A perfect response.
Ain't religion grand?

 

[Frank Apisa]

What I'm contending is that the probability of supernatural entities existing cannot reasonably be compared to what objectively exists.
I have to defer to objective evidence. Not unsubstantiated beliefs nor "feelings".

I agree with that. But the tone of your post indicates that you think "invisible things" are made up. I suppose most are, but I am just asking, "Do you KNOW there are no entities that are invisible to humans...that are not able to be sensed in any way by humans? "

Ask yourself, have you ever had a "feeling" that turned out to be false?

Absolutely. What does that have to do with this?

That's common, because feelings are subjective.

No comment.

They are unique to each person and shaped by their individual experiences, beliefs, and perceptions. Thus, they can easily be misconstrued.

Okay, but what does that have to do with this?

Logic is not a "blind guess".

Absolutely correct. When a person uses logic...I accept it as logical.

If a person is asserting something that I cannot see as a logical conclusion...I just ask them if they KNOW whatever it is they asserted is true...or if they are just making a guess. Sometimes I ask if they are making a blind guess.

I've asked you.

If you do not want to answer...okay with me. I sometimes do not want to answer certain questions.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

YOU are the one suggesting one is more probable than the other...

Let me ask you, which is more likely to be real:
Things you can see and touch, or
Things who's existence cannot be objectively substantiated.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Let me ask you, which is more likely to be real:
Things you can see and touch, or
Things who's existence cannot be objectively substantiated.

I could make a blind guess as an answer...but I could not give an answer that I consider logical unless I noted that it was a blind guess.

There may be more things that exist in this universe that humans could not detect with human senses than that can be.

I am certainly willing to make a blind guess...as long as you understand it is a blind guess.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I agree with that. But the tone of your post indicates that you think "invisible things" are made up. I suppose most are, but I am just asking, "Do you KNOW there are no entities that are invisible to humans...that are not able to be sensed in any way by humans? "

Nobody knows.
But the probability of those "invisible things" existing is much less than the probability of non-"invisible things" existing.

No comment.

Hummm.
Are you saying you think feelings are objective?
That is a false notion.

Okay, but what does that have to do with this?

It just means that just because you've "felt" the presence of a supernatural entity doesn't mean that supernatural entity actually exists.
Nor does it mean that there's a 50/50 chance the entity exists. ( you see where I'm going with this)

If a person is asserting something that I cannot see as a logical conclusion...I just ask them if they KNOW whatever it is they asserted is true...or if they are just making a guess. Sometimes I ask if they are making a blind guess.

I've asked you.

If you do not want to answer...okay with me. I sometimes do not want to answer certain questions.

I never asserted your invisible master doesn't exist.
My assertion is the existence of any supernatural entities is less probable than things that objectively exist.
I find it odd that you keep denying this.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

There may be more things that exist in this universe that humans could not detect with human senses than that can be.

True.
But the likelihood of confirming the existence of something unseen is significantly lower compared to something readily visible.

It might help if you'd research this topic a tad more, then come back when you're better prepared to discuss it.

 

[watsup]

I am certainly willing to make a blind guess...as long as you understand it is a blind guess.

It is a blind guess that a god is “possible”. You have no evidence to support that other than the imagination-based musings of humans, which is not evidence.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Nobody knows.
But the probability of those "invisible thing" existing is much less than the probability of non-"invisible things" existing.

And once again I thank you for sharing that guess. I cannot make that guess, because I do not know how much (if any) of the universe is made up of invisible (to humans) stuff.

Hummm.
Are you saying you think feelings are objective?
That is a false notion.

I am not saying that at all.
Answering that would be a diversion and I do not want to do that.

It just means that just because you've "felt" the presence of a supernatural entity doesn't mean that supernatural entity actually exists.

I have never felt the presence of a supernatural entity. But I agree with you...if anyone does "feel" such a presence...does NOT mean that one actually exists.

Nor does it mean that there's a 50/50 chance the entity exists. ( you see where I'm going with this)

Not at all.

I never asserted your invisible master doesn't exist.

What invisible master? Where did that come from?

My assertion is the existence of any supernatural entities is less probable than things that objectively exist.

And once again I thank you for sharing that blind guess about the probability of things.

I find it odd that you keep denying this.

Yes, you do. Perhaps you need to put more work into thinking about what I am saying.

 

[Frank Apisa]

True.

Absolutely.

But the likelihood of confirming the existence of something unseen is significantly lower compared to something readily visible.

For humans...probably yes. I sorta agree about that.

But the REALITY of what exists and does not exist does not depend in any way on what humans can sense. Our senses might be closer to those of a slug than you suppose.

It might help if you'd research this topic a tad more, then come back when you're better prepared to discuss it.

You ought take that advice yourself. I am well prepared. My guess (see what I did there) is that I have been discussing these matter seriously long before you were born.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

And once again I thank you for sharing that blind guess about the probability of things.

The likelihood of confirming the existence of something unseen is significantly lower compared to something readily visible.

It's not a guess.
It's fact.
And regardless of how many times you deny it, it will still be a fact.

I recommend that you consign yourself to researching the topic, then come back when you're better prepared.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I am well prepared.

The likelihood of confirming the existence of something unseen is significantly lower compared to something readily visible.

If this is not your consensus , then you are not well prepared.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The likelihood of confirming the existence of something unseen is significantly lower compared to something readily visible.

I agree...at least for humans at this time.

But that is not what you blindly guessed about. Here is your blind guess:

"But the probability of those "invisible thing" existing is much less than the probability of non-"invisible things" existing."

That had nothing to do with confirmation.

It's not a guess.
It's fact.

The statement I just quoted is a blind guess. It is not a fact.

And regardless of how many times you deny it, it will still be a fact.

No matter how many times you claim it is a fact, what you actually wrote and to which I responded...is a guess.

I recommend that you consign yourself to researching the topic, then come back when you're better prepared.

As I said...my guess is that I have been arguing this position from before you were even born. Learn how to argue logically...and then give others instruction about how to do it.