Jayhawker Soule

Could you give us some examples of such material?

Theophage

Quoted text by HRG will be in bold:

First, the sentence "I only believe which can be proven by X" does not mean that I believe that everything which cannot be proven by X is false.

Actually, I have to agree with Tercel here; it would mean exactly that. The operative word in the above sentence is "only". If he had said "I believe that which can be proven by X" then you would be correct HRG. since he said "only", however, that short circuits any other avenue of belief.

Of course, that does not eliminate the possibility that the sentence in question itself can be proven by X, but I don't think that's what you or the original poster had meant.

Second, he should know himself whether he believes something, shouldn't he ? So how do you conclude that the quoted sentence is false ?

Yes, we should know by what criteria we determine things true and false, but that sad fact is that most people don't. It is easier to know what you believe than to know why you believe it. In the case of the quoted sentence by the original poster, I'm sure the Tercel was right when he implied that the poster believes certain things on more criteria than simply scientific provability.

We'd all do well to examine why we hold the beliefs that we do, and what reasons for belief are valid and what aren't.

BTW, HRG, are you the hgruemm who posts to talk.origins?

joedad

Actually, "god" is not very difficult to detect or observe.

Our english usage of the word refers to a human behavior, a calling out, invoking, pouring forth, and this is what "god" refers to.

Understood this way, a person's goddidit behavior is neither mysterious nor maddening, and can be easily distinguished and viewed separately from something like Zeusdidit behavior.

joe

Amos

Except for the fact that 666 it the number of "man" and the mark of the beast makes reference to the number of a "certain man." To be 666 for the day is a compliment indeed because it is the threshold of the everlasting day.

DarkBronzePlant

Not necessarily. It's very possible that, given a statement such as "XXX exists", one may not actively believe the statement to be true and simultaneously not actively believe the statement to be false.

I'll use myself as an example. I do not currently believe that either of the following statements is necessarily true or false:
"Intelligent extra-terrestrial life exists"
"Intelligent extra-terrestrial life does not exist"
Thus, when I say that I do not believe intelligent extra-terrestrial life exists, I am not necessarily saying that I believe it does not exist. I flat-out do not know, have no evidence either way, and either option, IMO, seems equally as likely.

Thus, HRG may very well be saying that the only things he believes with conviction are those that can be proven by X. Those things that cannot be proven by X may or may not, in HRG's opinion, be true, he just doesn't actively believe them to be true.

DarkBronzePlant

Keenanvin,

One of the most difficult things to learn and to accept is that some arguments--no matter how much logic, how many facts, how much evidence is on your side--can never be won. You can only win an argument, or convince another person of your viewpoint, if that other person is actually engaging in a dialog, rather then just covering up their ears and shouting out their beliefs. And, ironically, you usually won't succeed unless the other person knows something about what they are talking about.

So, in sum, give it up. You aren't going to succeed here.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: DarkBronzePlant ]</p>

Theophage

Thanks DarkBronze, that helps me understand HRG's statment a bit better.

Tercel noted that since the statement "I only believe that which can be proven by X" may not be provable by X, that one making that statement would by their own statement not be justified in holding the statement itself to be true. And I certainly agree with this.

But I see HRG's point that perhaps Tercel was reading too much into the original statement made by Keenanvin.

You may all return to the original dicussion now :^)

Samhain

Huh? I do not believe that Keenanvin's intention of creating this post was to have a discussion on human behavior. As you can clearly see he is not only talking about a diety, but specifically the Christian god (correct me if I am wrong Keenan). Therefore saying that "God did it" would be no different than saying "Zeus did it" since both are referring to a supernatural diety, and not to some kind of human behavior/emotion.

madmax2976

<strong> People believe things in varying degrees, depending on the claim. For instance I may accept the word of a friend who is late and claims he had a flat tire, but I will not accept his word if he claims to have been abducted by aliens for a short time.

If he claims a flat tire, what level of belief will I have for his explanation? This depends on many factors: How close a friend is he? Had he ever lied before? Is he prone to making up stories to cover himself? Are his clothes a little dirty or rumpled?

I may accept the claim that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address, but there are limits to this acceptance. I wouldn't stake my life on it, nor the life of my children. If I had a million dollars I'd probably bet around 6 or 7 hundred thousand of it on something as well documented. On whether he walked two miles to bring back a penny (as I remember the story) I'd have
severe doubts. I might bet a few thousand if anything.

<strong> As long as you don't suffer from myopia when you do so. Claims abound amoung thousands of belief systems. Whose "testimony" will be accepted or rejected and why? What subject does the testimony concern? Will the testimony of someone who claims they fought in a battle or issued a decree be considered in the same light as someone who claims to have turned lead into gold, healed someone in the name of the God Sarapis, or claimed the God Chemosh aided them in victory over their enemies?

<strong> Many people claim that many Gods have acted in their lives. People claim, to have been reincarnated, to be able to talk with the dead, to be able to tell the future from cards or through pyschic powers, to have seen ghosts, attest to the power of healing crystals, to have been abducted by aliens, to have seen Elvis, to heal with a touch, and the list goes on and on.

If we accept people's testimony for such things, people we never even knew personally, then I submit any wish to discern truth from non-truth becomes virtually impossible.

<strong> I agree. Except don't just read scholarly material from one side or the other. Be sure to read critiques and rebuttals from boths sides and books from authors with differing biases.

<strong> Unless he first believed such a being exists this would seem illogical.

<strong> Yes, and before jumping to any supernatural conclusions when faced with a mystery, examine whether more evidence can be found, what other possibilities there are, whether its more honest to withhold any judgement than leap to a conclusion, and examine what is more probable given the past four hundred years of scientific research and success.

<strong>[quote
There are also various rational arguments for and against the existence of God. Have a look into some of these if you aren't already familar with them.
</strong>[/quote]

Agreed

<strong> Science has proven to be the most reliable method of determining facts about the world. Its self-correcting, subject to peer review, systematic in its approach, logical, - and yet to see that a deity exists we have to abandon it for a less successful, weaker methodology. This seems very strange.

<strong> Is "explanation" then equivalent to speculation? Conjecture? Mere assertion? How is speculation then distinquished from an explanation?

When theists want naturalists to explain some phenomena they typically want details: How does this work? How did this happen? etc.. When it comes to their own worldview, all this is left behind. No details are necessary. No understanding of the process is required. Just a mere assertion serves to "explain" the phenomena.

Given that anyone can offer these types of explanations for whatever they wish to claim, I wonder what's the point?

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Amos--

I have to hand it to you. You're a whack job, but a fun one.

Right out of the gate the equivocation. You've improved measurably, Terc, ol' bean.

There is no need to "believe" that which has been proved. That's the whole point, which you know, hence the attempted equivocation.

As always, nice try.

And there's a fine example of how cult programming destroys cognitive processes.

Do you realize, by the way, that you're indirectly arguing for direct cult programming as being the only form of belief acceptable; for operant conditioning to one's beliefs?

No, of course you don't realize it. Sorry, my mistake.

There's that attempt to equivocate what is believed with what has been proved by science again.

Inculcation doesn't work on us .

And now that you've started your straw man, you stuff it...

It's amazing that you can attempt to equivocate "belief" and "fact" in one sentence and then in the next separate the two to make your point. Truly astounding.

As you well know, you're not talking about religious faith and scientific verification at all, so why stuff this obvious straw man? "Having faith" that a friend of mine isn't lying or that if they say they will pick me up at 7:00 has nothing to do with using the same mechanism to simply accept that an alleged historical event factually occured!

The analogy does not work and is not valid or applicable. Only an ignorant child would accept such reasoning and I mean that quite literally.

Fictional characters do not factually exist. That wasn't hard at all.

So, let's recap. You believe that an undetectable, invisible being lives outside of our dimension, but occasionally "interacts" with our world from time to time.

And the manner in which this fairy god king interacts is? Genocide, eternal damnation, plagues, subjugation, cruel and unusual punishment and highly conditional existence.

Oh, and, further, that this undetectable, invisible creature trifurcated into flesh in order to commit suicide/murder itself in order to save us all from itself.

These are your beliefs. This is what you believe to be true. You have no evidence to support it; it is a personal decision you have made to just accept that such a creature factually exists. An undetectable, invisible fairy god king that lives outside of our universe (created our universe and ourselves in order to worship and obey it) that occasionally intervenes in our affairs, just, you know, what the hell, why not?

These are your beliefs. A grown man who seriously believes an invisible fairy god king that murders us, creates us, eternally punishes us for not obeying it.

Just wanted to clarify here what is a belief as opposed to what is a fact that science can or cannot prove so that there is absolutely no further equivocation on your part.

You believe in invisible fairy god kings and as such, science is useless to you, because you have irrational beliefs.

That is the truth here and nothing else, so let's get it straight.

An undetectable, invisible fairy god king that can't be falsified.

I like this. You can just make up whatever you want to avoid scientific scrutiny!

Because you are delusional. I'm going to have to revisit my post on the psychosis of theism.

An undetectable, invisible fairy god king that appears and dissappears anytime it wants to that can't be verified or falsified...got it. What's next?

PERFECT!

An invisible fairy tale creature that exists and doesn't exist in our world that can't be detected--yet mandates all existence and punishment for said existence--that can, nevertheless, be analyzed "rationally" by reading the fairy tales that concocted the creature to begin with.

It can't be detected, yet it can be analyzed "rationally" by reading the stories of its detection.

A classic delusional state, perfectly described!

It doesn't exist and can't be detected and we know this by analyzing the stories about its existence where it was detected. Astounding.

If only we were talking about elementary particles, we'd have coherence. Unfortunately, we're not, but feel free to falsely apply that analogy as you do all others to your delusional state.

So, it can be detected.

You believe you're telling the truth and yet you obviously are not relaying any kind of truth state other than your own personal delusional beliefs, so to what end would someone else's delusional state shead light on any such "truth claims" (other as further evidence of cult indoctrination, of course)?

Yes, the same invisible, undetectable creature you spoke of earlier, that one need only have "faith" exists in order to establish that it exists, we know.

By this you mean, of course, atheist authors, since they are the only ones who are unbiased.

One who already believes in the possibility of supernatural creatures as depicted in the Bible factually existing cannot possibly be unbiased.

Try praying to RWT#$@Z;alkje honestly about your feelings, if nothing happens and you don't feel any different you've lost nothing and if you feel something or something happens then all well and good [sic].

Makes just as much sense as what you wrote and demonstrates rather conclusively the level of coherency found in your offer.

And then come back and explain to Tercel how none of them are "miracles" like everyone else here does. He won't listen to your analysis, of course, but it's kind of fun to watch what a brick wall does when its requests are followed up on.

This is, of course, misleading. There has never been a "rational" argument for the existence of a creature commonly refered to as "God." Never.

Tercel likes to pretend that there are such arguments and denies that others have demonstrated for centuries that no such "rational" argument exists, but then again, he believes that invisible, undetectable creatures punish him for his disobediance and that these invisible, undetectable creatures are visible and detectable in the anonymous writings of ancient cult myths, so, I wouldn't rely too heavily on Tercel's cognitive processing in this regard. It is obviously, shall we say, tainted?

A nice if meaningless platitude. Of course, you'll notice that no "way" is ever mentioned or demonstrated to be true. It is all, "Pray and you shall know; believe and you shall know; accept and you shall know; have faith and you shall know; etc."

In other words, delusional thought control.

If only cult members actually preached this and/or believed this to be true. Of course, that is not the case as noted by the opening comments from Tercel about how you are supposed to look at the "evidence." You are to simply accept that it is true. That's it. That's what he means by "unbiased." He means, "be biased."

This is the damage of cult indoctrination. *Syme would be orgasming over this.

* Character from Orwell's 1984 who speaks out on the glory of the destruction of the language so that all thought will one day be contained in one word

(edited because I forgot there was more before hitting "edit post" - Koy)

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>