Selsaral

I think this is definitely one of the psychological explanations for why human beings are religious. Hell, I like a good fictional story more than most real ones, and if there is all sorts of crazy stuff happening, then I like it even more.

Crito

Koyaanisqatsi:

I took a cursory look at your post. Will peruse it later. (I'm not retired. )

Actually, when writing this I realized you might point this out. I wrote "him" simply because it was easier. Blame it on laziness - my laziness, of course.

In reality, the rotten words I utter about God (doing it again) could only lead people to conclude that I'm the strongest of atheists. I'm not "playing it safe" (ie, Pascal's Wager). Should there be a God (Xian), my afterlife will be the worst of worst, spent probably in Satan's scrotum, saturated forever in duckbutter.


Anyways, before I post, I want to first make sure our terminology is consistent. Could you please answer the following questions?

• What's your definition of "extant"?
• What is your definition of "fictional"?
• Isn't saying "Object A is fictional" identical to saying "Object A doesn't exist"?
• If Object A remains Characteristic C (eg, "fictional"), doesn't that mean that Object A had Characteristic C in the first place?
• Is "unproven" the same as "fictional"?
• What's the difference between saying, "Object A factually exists," and saying "Object A exists"?

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Currently or actually existing.

Something invented by the imagination or feigned; something that does not actually exist.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Specific delineation between the "fantasy realm" (where fiction "resides") and the "physical realm" (where reality "resides").

Therefore, to state that "Object A factually exists," is to make a substantiated claim (or an as yet unsubstantiated claim, which in turn mandates a burden of proof) regarding some Object A existing in the physical world, and not simply in the imagination of an individual (or group of individuals).

(edited for formatting - Koy still)

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

LLaurieG

(Laurie) Ridiculous, but I'll play along with the point I assume you're trying to make. Based on the evidence that children exhibit, virtually without exception, belief in their parents' religion, or the dominant religion of the country or region where they are born, it is my exceedingly strong opinion that babies are not born with random, pre-existing religious beliefs cognitively pre-installed prior to their birth.

You could (possibly) regain my respect by doing the polite thing and admitting like a gentleman that you actually agree with the original assertion, or if you do not agree with it, then I would be very interested in hearing your evidence that babies are BORN already equipped with creeds (presumably of extant religions as opposed to extinct ones, but ?). Please also describe how you think the creeds the babies are born with so AMAZINGLY often just happen to match the creeds of the birth parents.

(Laurie) Duh. NOTHING can prove a negative.

(Laurie) In the pragmatic world of "reasonable case" for things and "reasonable doubt" against things, I think that's damn good evidence!

I simply have to ask: Crito, have you ever served on a jury? In American courts it is not only possible, but at times mandated for rational jurors (and I use that term advisedly) to find a defendant guilty of murder, even if no one actually saw him pull the trigger, if there is excellent circumstantial evidence (that means indirect evidence), motive, and opportunity.

One example, real case. The defendant "Scooby," a 17-year-old gang member with a history of violence:
1) possessed a weapon,
2) the death bullets matched that weapon,
3) had a serious grudge against the victim,
4) access to the victim,
5) a really weak alibi for the time in question,
6) BRAGS far and wide to several people about how he "smoked" the victim,
7) (people who did NOT want to get on his gang's bad side by cooperating with police),
8) is trying to buy stuff with credit cards belonging to the victim,
9) is ID'd by witnesses while revisiting the car trunk where the victim was dumped and decomposing, while
10) driving a car belonging to his, the defendant's, father.

No one physically saw the defendant shoot the victim. Based on the indisputable chain of hard - but indirect - evidence above, do you, Crito, think the defendant is guilty, and would you vote to convict him of murder?

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: LLaurieG ]</p>

Crito

Koyaanisqatsi:

Thanks for your reply.

Got a scenario for you.

A five-year-old draws a picture of an odd looking creature - twelve eyes, green skin, and eight legs dangling from a torso that resembles an apple. The child comes to you and says, "Look what I've made! I'm going to call it a Plofdasan."

Then, as ignorant as can be, the child asks you, "Does the Plofdasan factually exist?"

What do you say? You can't claim the child has the burden of proof, because he simply asked a question. Plus no one before this child has ever made such a creature, or claimed one existed, so there's "chronology of claims" to worry about.

If you answer "No", you are claiming, "The Plofdasan does not exist." Aren't you now the First Claimant? Don't you now have the burden of proof (a prodigious burden, I might add)?

Let's generalize now.

First, to avoid any confusion, I give you the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imagined" target="_blank">definition</a> of "imagine": "To form a mental picture or image of."

That stated, for any Object A that has only been imagined (never physically perceived), does it directly follow that Object A is fictional (that it does not factually exist)?

Crito

As for Daoine Sidhe, I don't think I could ever prove it's existence. And could I prove that it doesn't exist? No, I can't. Do you have some way of proving, with certainty, that Daoine Sidhe doesn't exist? Or do you have reasons to show that "it makes more sense" to think that Daoine Sidhe does not exist? In all honesty, I certaintly don't.

Crito

Koyaanisqatsi:
I have read through your post, and I mostly agree (one part I'm not sure of; hence this post). To borrow a phrase from you, I was indeed confusing Proof with proof. Sorry.

Here's what I'm not understanding:

Just to be sure I know 100% what you're saying, can you please state, in the simplest terms, exactly what the default position is? You say you are "merely upholding what is extant." Exactly what is it that is extant?

This is probably needless repetition, but when someone asks you "Does a god exist?", what is your answer? "Yes"? "No"? "I don't know"? Can there be any other answer, besides these three?

Finally, you said "In other words...I am what is extant and the theist is what is attempting to contravene (or otherwise alter) that base construct. Get it?"

I don't get it. Can you elaborate more?

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

In all honesty, sure you do. If I were to tell you that the Daoine Sidhe were out in your front yard playfully abrogating natural law, you would respond with either considerable doubt or dismissive contempt.

diana

Koy,

Ah. I think I understand where your frustration stems from. To you, it's entirely about the scientific method. Hence, you reject all attempts to argue for or against the existence of a god using logic as "mental masturbation," as logic does not and cannot provide the necessary evidence to establish existence.

The situation is worsened because when we discuss the nuances of our position, people hear us say "hard/strong" atheist, point out it's a positive claim, then try to shift back from the discussion of logic and semantics to scientific method, thus shifting the burden of proof. Or trying to.

I take it that you interpret "There is no god" as the default you-haven't-proved-jack-shit position, from the absolute burden of proof standpoint. I further take it that you sneer at any statement of "belief," as this is something we'd need to say only if the statement was unverifiable.

For example, in reality, there are only two possibilities: the pot has tripe in it or it doesn't. (For this illustration, it is assumed that the pot inaccessible to the arguers.)

These possibilities aren't changed by what we say we believe or not. The person who says "The pot has tripe in it" is claiming the presence of something specific.

We can respond that, lacking reason to believe the pot holds tripe, we disagree. As far as producing evidence goes, it doesn't matter whether we say "No it doesn't" or "I don't think it does" or "I disagree." From the scientific view, regardless of the semantics we choose to express it, the default is an empty pot until actual evidence is produced for the existence of said tripe.

Do I have you?

Hawkingfan,
Does this constitute a secular belief in the ultimate triumph of good over evil?

d

Crito

Of course I would be skeptical. And my reason is that, from birth until now, I have never ever seen anything that's uneffected by natural law.

So if a faerie (or anything, for that matter) is seemingly floating around in my back yard, my first impulse would be to find out exactly how it is floating. My head screams at me, "There's got to be a scientific explanation!!!" Which leads me to ask, "Does there?" Or, put probably in better terms, "Perhaps there is an explanation, a scientific one. Is there not some part of science which we are yet to discover - which explains why this faerie is floating in my yard?"

Thus my question now is, do we have a complete (or should I say, sufficient) understanding of natural law?