Brian63

How very unperceptive of you. I did not "warp" my question, I phrased it exactly as I meant it to get at the point that was relevant, I then further explained why that was. I have been completely open about it, so your claim that I "warped" it or was "dishonest" is obviously silly.



Well, the wording there is a bit too casual. You first say that it is evidence that it "might hold," which is not a particularly interesting claim and easily agreeable. You then reference a completely different claim, that the "Goldbach conjecture is true," which is a much stronger claim. The question is, does the fact that it is true for many numbers (into the billions, as you say) make it more probable that it is true for all numbers? Based upon your somewhat vague statements, I would say you consider it not to be so, and thus does not constitute evidence, which is why you do not believe it.



It is not surprising the point was lost on you yet again. The point is that the consideration that something is "evidence" is a highly subjective one influenced largely by our own values, desires, biases, etc. So I may consider something to be "evidence" while you do not, and vice versa.



Well, since you have all but explicitly admitted that your response was inadequate, I will repost my initial paragraph that prompted your response, and then await your further reply WITH ELABORATION AND EXPLANATION, AND NOT MERELY A ONE-LINE VAGUE REMARK THAT DOES NOT HELP ANYTHING.

I said:

Moving on...



Oh my...must I repeat myself again? We have already gone over this several times, where I indicated that my position is based largely on personal experience and intuition, and obviously that will not convince you. Your own personal experience and intuition will be more convincing to you (but not to me), but I believe others will share my own sentiments if they look at it as objectively and honestly as they can. Obviously you disagree, and thus we are at a deadend there. Now we have moved on to other things, unless some new evidence is brought for either one of our sides. Any of this ringing any bells?

Brian

I am truly sorry that this thread has gotten nasty now. In my OP I had stated that I wanted to avoid doing this, and it is definitely a great deal my fault for perpetuating it. I will leave my just-typed post as is, but will try not to be so nasty in any future posts that I make here (if any). Apologies to all out there (especially mods monitoring this).

galiel

This is so silly. God (meaning a god that actually matters, not a deist god that has no effect on or response to ongoing reality) either exists or does not exist. One either concludes definitively that god exists, or one concludes definitively that god does not exist, or one says the jury is out, in which case one chooses to act as if a god that cares exists, or one choose to act as if a god that cares does not exist.

What is complex about that? What nuances are there?

One is either pregnant, not pregnant, or not sure yet. One can go an have a test done, win which case evidence will tell one either way, or one can wait until there is clear evidence in the future about whether one is or is not pregnant.

If, after many months pass with no evidence of pregnancy, and one still chooses to believe that one is pregnant, one is insane--or religious.

If, one denies that empirical evidence matters in the first place, and that pregnancy depends only on one's belief in being pregnant, even if one is a male on a desert island in the middle of the Pacific, one is insane - or religious.

If, after eons of debate, one continues to try and reason with theists, then one is insane, since one of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Therefore, I and other nontheists on this board are clearly insane.

Goliath

Brian,

You asked a question about whether or not the supernatural existed. My answer was "unknown." After a ton of rigamorole, I find out that you wanted to get at what I believed, not what I knew. Why didn't you just ask what you originally meant to ask? Why the indirect question? Why not say what you mean?

Not necessarily. The fact that the Goldbach conjecture holds for billions of even integers is evidence that it might be true. I said nothing about probability.

No, the point was not lost on me at all. You have stated that your experience and intuition lead you to believe that humans are always forced to hold an opinion on all topics at all times. My experience and intuition tell me different. So, since we can go no farther in this discussion, why should I care about your intuition and your experiences? You remind me of a xian who tries to use an argument consisting of "God has done so much in my life, therefore you should believe in Him!"

Do you enjoy screaming?

You had said:

I do not see why the existence of emotions, desires, and biases implies that one must hold an opinion regarding the supernatural.

Why not? You repeat your unproven assertions, I repeat my requests for you to prove them, and you repeat your unproven assertions yet again... You're reminding me more and more of a theist.

And that is not acceptable if you wish to convince me that every human must hold an opinion regarding the supernatural.

And others are welcome to prove the claims that you were unable to prove.

Well, we were at a dead end quite awhile ago. So, why have you continued to reply?

Apology accepted, although I get the distinct feeling that you are apologizing more to the moderators, than to me. (of course, I might be wrong, after all, I used my intuition, which is obviously completely faulty by your standards, right?).

Sincerely,

Goliath

(Edited to fix UBB code)

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Brian63

In the effort to bring this back to a little civility, I will not address portions above that were inflammatory and baiting for a flame-war. Other parts of it I think are either not particularly relevant to our discussion or are relevant but we have been over so many times that I do not wish to do so again. I see only one thing that I would like to comment on that I think would be fruitful to the heart of this topic, but if you (Goliath or others) think that there is something else that was said that deserves attention, please feel free to repost it and I will probably (but not certainly) make a comment on it.

I do see that, and will attempt to explain it here.

It sounds like you agree that we have emotions, values, desires, biases, prejudices, etc. that influence what opinions we hold. I see these things being factors for ALL opinions that we hold. In other words, there are NO opinions that we can have in which we are completely objective and unbiased and that we can render ourselves immune from these factors. You may stop here and disagree with this, and I would be unable to provide convincing evidence (convincing to you) that it is true, but I think to do that would be putting you in an extremely unrealistic scenario, and it would be plain to see as being unrealistic.

Assuming that you agree thus far...

Our biases, prejudices, values, desires, etc. suggest that we have certain feelings and attitudes about things in this world. We *want* certain things to be true and we *want* other things to be false. Since we have these feelings in regards to ALL opinions, there are no exceptions. So, in each of us there is an underlying general desire for the proposition "The supernatural exists" to be either true or false, as an example.

I will add another stipulation, one that I think all people would agree with but that I am unable to provide scientific evidence for (although it probably exists somewhere), and that is that we tend to look for evidence that supports our already-held positions, and to give such evidence greater weight in our minds than evidence that challenges our current beliefs.

More on this can be found in the article:

<a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html" target="_blank">Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die</a>

So not only do each of us *want* (to varying extents) the proposition "The supernatural exists" to be either true or false, but each of us will then seek out evidence that fits in with our already-held desire, and will use it to rationalize our own positions. We cannot help but to find evidence either way, regardless of how obviously mistaken it is to outsiders, because we want a certain position to obtain. We are convinced that one way or the other is true then, based largely on our own wishes.

That is why I mentioned earlier in this thread that when I state the proposition "The supernatural exists," each person will have some general feeling of agreement or disagreement, and thus will have an opinion on it.

Every opinion forms a belief (so it seems obvious to me), and thus we can say that every person will have a belief about the proposition "The supernatural exists." That is why I am skeptical of Goliath's claim to "hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural." The only way that I see that as being possible is if he is in some way able to divorce himself from his values, desires, biases, etc. Such a thing is impossible, it seems to me.

Brian

Goliath

Brian,

Mostly agreed. These things can influence opinions that we already hold.

I'm unsure about whether or not this is true. Certainly, these things affect many beliefs that we already hold. You have yet to say why the existence of emotions, values, etc imply that one must hold an opinion regarding the supernatural.

Nothing more than a bullying argument from authority. Are you actually interested in discussing this topic, or do you really want a flame war?

I'd agree if you changed it to "...we have certain fellings and attitudes about some things in this world."

Agreed, although these "things" mentioned above need not include all things.

All opinions that we already hold.

Absolutely incorrect. You're begging the question in assuming that such an opinion regarding the supernatural exists in the first place.

I will read your article and respond to the rest of your post later this week, even though I've outlined why your argument still fails.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

First off, the one remark was not an argument from authority at all, much less a bullying argument from authority. I never claimed to be an authority figure on this subject. It just happens to be one of my views that others will share certain elements of my views because they are common and clear to each of us. Others that disagree with me can do so with as much or little "authority" as I have.

The main issue seems to be whether our biases, values, etc. influence just our already-existing opinions, or whether they can also influence newly developing opinions.

From the article I link to:

Effectively, whenever a new opinion is formed, it is formed within an already-existing framework that contains already-existing opinions, and these newly-forming opinions are worked in such a way that they are consistent with our already-existing opinions.

Our emotions, desires, biases, etc. influence what those already-existing opinions are, and since those already-existing opinions influence what the newly-formed opinions will be, we can say that our values, desires, etc. will influence what the newly-forming opinions will be. So our personal feelings, values, etc. will influence ALL of our opinions if they influence any, it appears.

Brian

Richard1366

What an absolute waste of time trying to come up with a hodgepodge of names to describe our individual beliefs. The christians have split themselves into a number of sects, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Calvinist, ad nauseum. At least, no matter which sect they belong, to they are all willing to be referred to as christians.

Isn't it much easier to simply refer to ourselves as Atheists? Does anyone give a rats ass (besides yourself) whether you are weak, or strong, or agnostic?

Don't you have more important things to do or more important things to say than argue about this drivel.

To anyone I meet, I'm an Atheist..Period!! Nothing more needs to be said.

Howay the Toon

I prefer to say that I have no Religion than label myself as an "atheist". This is because I object to having to in some way define myself with reference to someone else's (IMHO) ridiculous beliefs.

I am no more an a-theist than I am an a-fairyist, a-santaist or a-"insert chosen lunacy"ist

Goliath

Brian,

I've read the article, and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The article is about beliefs that already exist. It says absolutely nothing at all about why every human must hold beliefs about the supernatural.

Also, you've been trying to point out to me that emotions and biases affect beliefs that we already hold. I never disagreed with you. However, just because emotions and biases affect beliefs that we already hold, that does not necessarily mean that I must hold a belief regarding the supernatural.

That is why your argument has failed, and that is why such an argument will fail each and every single time it is used.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Well, I disagree.

A major point made in the article that I gathered is that the beliefs that we already hold influence new beliefs that we acquire, and thus if our biases, emotions, etc. influence our already-existing beliefs, then they will also influence our newly-acquired beliefs.

I will quote the relevant sections of the article that implicitly suggest and explain this:

You are correct that the article does not mention beliefs about the supernatural specifically. As far as I can recall, the term is never even mentioned. It did not appear to intend discuss beliefs in particular, except as examples though. What seemed clear to me was that the article was addressing the nature of all beliefs that our minds form, not just particular ones. The fact that he did not mention particulars that the article applies to and others that it does not I think suggests that he was speaking of all beliefs (which includes beliefs about the supernatural). His article has relevance for all beliefs.

Why do you think it has no relevance for beliefs about the supernatural in particular, but has relevance for other kinds of beliefs (if that is indeed what you believe)?

Brian