Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 08-30-2002, 08:35 AM

Vanderzyden:

Others have answered well, but:

To lack a belief that the majority of humankind holds justifiably is tantamount to a denial.

Argumentum ad numerum. Asserting that the belief is held justifiably is questionable as well, since your defense of the belief here is that "the majority of humankind" holds it! Without external, "justifiable" evidence (which I've yet to see), this argument boils down to "Belief in god is justifiable because the majority of humankind justifiably holds the belief."

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">Logic faq</a>

Certainly I will admit the my belief in God is possibly erroneous. I'm willing to explore the probability of it's truth or falsehood.

I respect you for that, and I admit the same for my lack of belief. That doesn't equate to either of us being in denial. Unwillingness to admit a belief may be erroneous in the face of contraevidence is denial.

Jamie_L · 08-30-2002, 08:37 AM

I've often said to others that I'm not so arrogant to think that there's no chance that I can be wrong about something.

Most of my culture says "God exists." Personally, I've encountered nothing in my life that leads me to believe that statement is true. Furthermore, I've come across plausible theories (plausible to me anyway) as to why humans might have dreamed up a false idea such as this.

Lastly, I'm a firm believer in Smith's Wager:
1) If God is real and benevolent, he will forgive me for coming to honest conclusions based on the tools and information God has given me.
2) If God is real and not benevolent, there's no reason to trust that he will reward me for belief in him.
3) If God is real and apathetic, he doesn't care if I believe in him.
4) If there is no God, it doesn't matter what I believe.

If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter.

"Ubi dubium ibi libertas."
Where there is doubt, there is freedom. - Latin proverb

Jamie

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]

MadMordigan · 08-30-2002, 09:08 AM

Certainly I will admit the my belief in God is possibly erroneous. I'm willing to explore the probability of it's truth or falsehood.

Dude, I've been here for over 2 years, and you are one of the handfull of new posters who has ever said something like this. I sincerely congradulate you on your intellectual honesty, and the courage it takes to admit something that the culture of many faiths holds as 'evil'.

Is it possible that your lack of (ignorance, indifference) is erroneous?

Oh ya, it sure is. I've been wrong far more often than I have been right in my life. Its quite possible that I am incorrect in stating that there are no gods. But as other people have pointed out, there are a number of wild crazy things that 'could' be true. And as Smith's wager describes, there simply is no reason for me to consider this particular belief as very important.

Please stick around man.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]

Dr S · 08-30-2002, 09:43 AM

As far as Atheists go I'm as pure as the driven snow. But I've never noticed myself denying any gods. For the simple reason that no gods have ever turned up in these parts for me to accept or deny.

What has shown up are people, like you, with stories about gods. When I have asked them how they knew that these stories were true I was referred to a magic book filled with recycled stories of gods these same people swore up and down didn't exist.
Or I was told that the storyteller felt in their heart that they were true. Worse yet, they would brag that they had "faith." Their reason for believing this unbelievable story was because they believed it. Huh, what?
I have no doubt whatsoever that the tellers of this story have no way of knowing if it is true. They are completely ignorant of any facts that deal with this claim.
So, yes, I deny your story because of the "want of particular evidence." But not my want of this evidence--YOUR want of it.
It's not that I don't believe god, I don't believe you because you can't back up your claims.

Vanderzyden · 08-30-2002, 02:20 PM

MadMordigan, thank you for the kind words!

wade-w · 08-31-2002, 06:35 AM

Jamie:

Quote:

Lastly, I'm a firm believer in Smith's Wager:
1) If God is real and benevolent, he will forgive me for coming to honest conclusions based on the tools and information God has given me.
2) If God is real and not benevolent, there's no reason to trust that he will reward me for belief in him.
3) If God is real and apathetic, he doesn't care if I believe in him.
4) If there is no God, it doesn't matter what I believe.

I've never come across this one before. VERY good! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Vanderzyden:

In your orginal question, and in your later ammendment, you mention only "God", and not a particualr flavor. So I will not address my reasons for rejecting the myths. But in the end, my reasons for non-belief come down to this: while it is possible that god exists, it is just possible (if not more probable) that god does not exist (however many people that believe otherwise notwithstanding). Given that, Occam's Razor slices God right out of the picture.

Coul I be wrong? Certainly. I have been wrong many times in the past, and no doubt will be wrong just as often in the future. But on this subject I am quite certain.

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has..."
--Martin Luther

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

Vanderzyden · 08-31-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:


Lastly, I'm a firm believer in Smith's Wager:
1) If God is real and benevolent, he will forgive me for coming to honest conclusions based on the tools and information God has given me.
2) If God is real and not benevolent, there's no reason to trust that he will reward me for belief in him.
3) If God is real and apathetic, he doesn't care if I believe in him.
4) If there is no God, it doesn't matter what I believe.

If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter.

What if Smith is wrong about his definition of "benevolent"? All of the premises and your conclusion are possibly (and likely) false.

The problem with the "wager" is that:

-- Smith is not an authority.

-- Smith is not responsible for the existence of anything, including himself.

-- Smith cannot sustain himself indefinitely.

-- Smith doesn't know what lies beyond the Last Horizon.

I like what John Piper has to say: "God would not have to use one sentence of Scripture to show us our guilt and the appropriateness of our condemnation. He would need only to ask three questions:

1. Was it not plain in Nature that everything you had was a gift, and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything?

2. Did not the judicial sentiment in your own heart always hold people guilty when they lacked the gratitude they should have had in response to a kindness you performed?

3. Has your life been filled with gratitude and trust toward me in proportion to my generosity and authority?"

Whatever people believe, on subjects on which it is of the first importance to believe rightly, they ought to be able to defend against at least the common objections.

--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

wade-w · 08-31-2002, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


I like what John Piper has to say: "God would not have to use one sentence of Scripture to show us our guilt and the appropriateness of our condemnation. He would need only to ask three questions:

1. Was it not plain in Nature that everything you had was a gift, and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything?

2. Did not the judicial sentiment in your own heart always hold people guilty when they lacked the gratitude they should have had in response to a kindness you performed?

3. Has your life been filled with gratitude and trust toward me in proportion to my generosity and authority?"

Sounds like the old teleological argument to me, and that has been refuted countless times in the past. See <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/3_apndx.html" target="_blank">this article</a> for more details. But the upshot is, no, it was FAR from plain.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Whatever people believe, on subjects on which it is of the first importance to believe rightly, they ought to be able to defend against at least the common objections.

--John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

I have yet to see one of these "common objections" that holds any water whatsoever.

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has..."
-- Martin Luther

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

Vibr8gKiwi · 08-31-2002, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

The problem with the "wager" is that:

-- Smith is not an authority.
-- Smith is not responsible for the existence of anything, including himself.
-- Smith cannot sustain himself indefinitely.
-- Smith doesn't know what lies beyond the Last Horizon.

No human objectively fits any of those criteria, so those are hardly valid problems with the wager. Try again.

[Edited to add...]

Interestingly, directly after the above you then quote a guy named John Piper. Are we to assume that you believe John Piper meets those criteria? Would you care to support that? Or do you hold everyone else's sources to a different standard than your own?

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

MadMordigan · 08-31-2002, 01:23 PM

1. Was it not plain in Nature that everything you had was a gift, and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything?

No. It is not plain to me that this life is a 'gift' from a maker. I'd need to have evidence of a maker before I could conclude it did anything, or that anything was dependant upon it.

Given the vastness of the universe, the capriciousness of nature, and the total absence of interaction with any conciousness that could be described as a creator, and EPESCIALLY because of patterns of untruths spoken by those who suggest the existance of this conciousness, I've come to an honest conclusion that it is make-believe.

If I am mistaken about this, then it is a sincere mistake. I have been directly condemmend by dozens, and vicariously condemmned by millions for this, even though they can not be sure that I can not correct.

The counter questions are thus:

1)Is it possible for people to be honestly mistaken?

2) Would you punish someone eternally for this mistaken belief?

3) Does the character of God, as portrayed in the bible, measure up to these simple test of benevolence?

08-30-2002, 08:37 AM	#22
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I've often said to others that I'm not so arrogant to think that there's no chance that I can be wrong about something. Most of my culture says "God exists." Personally, I've encountered nothing in my life that leads me to believe that statement is true. Furthermore, I've come across plausible theories (plausible to me anyway) as to why humans might have dreamed up a false idea such as this. Lastly, I'm a firm believer in Smith's Wager: 1) If God is real and benevolent, he will forgive me for coming to honest conclusions based on the tools and information God has given me. 2) If God is real and not benevolent, there's no reason to trust that he will reward me for belief in him. 3) If God is real and apathetic, he doesn't care if I believe in him. 4) If there is no God, it doesn't matter what I believe. If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. "Ubi dubium ibi libertas." Where there is doubt, there is freedom. - Latin proverb Jamie [ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

08-30-2002, 09:08 AM	#23
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Certainly I will admit the my belief in God is possibly erroneous. I'm willing to explore the probability of it's truth or falsehood. Dude, I've been here for over 2 years, and you are one of the handfull of new posters who has ever said something like this. I sincerely congradulate you on your intellectual honesty, and the courage it takes to admit something that the culture of many faiths holds as 'evil'. Is it possible that your lack of (ignorance, indifference) is erroneous? Oh ya, it sure is. I've been wrong far more often than I have been right in my life. Its quite possible that I am incorrect in stating that there are no gods. But as other people have pointed out, there are a number of wild crazy things that 'could' be true. And as Smith's wager describes, there simply is no reason for me to consider this particular belief as very important. Please stick around man. [ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-30-2002, 08:35 AM	#21
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Vanderzyden: Others have answered well, but: To lack a belief that the majority of humankind holds justifiably is tantamount to a denial. Argumentum ad numerum. Asserting that the belief is held justifiably is questionable as well, since your defense of the belief here is that "the majority of humankind" holds it! Without external, "justifiable" evidence (which I've yet to see), this argument boils down to "Belief in god is justifiable because the majority of humankind justifiably holds the belief." <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">Logic faq</a> Certainly I will admit the my belief in God is possibly erroneous. I'm willing to explore the probability of it's truth or falsehood. I respect you for that, and I admit the same for my lack of belief. That doesn't equate to either of us being in denial. Unwillingness to admit a belief may be erroneous in the face of contraevidence is denial.

08-30-2002, 09:43 AM	#24
Dr S Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 106	As far as Atheists go I'm as pure as the driven snow. But I've never noticed myself denying any gods. For the simple reason that no gods have ever turned up in these parts for me to accept or deny. What has shown up are people, like you, with stories about gods. When I have asked them how they knew that these stories were true I was referred to a magic book filled with recycled stories of gods these same people swore up and down didn't exist. Or I was told that the storyteller felt in their heart that they were true. Worse yet, they would brag that they had "faith." Their reason for believing this unbelievable story was because they believed it. Huh, what? I have no doubt whatsoever that the tellers of this story have no way of knowing if it is true. They are completely ignorant of any facts that deal with this claim. So, yes, I deny your story because of the "want of particular evidence." But not my want of this evidence--YOUR want of it. It's not that I don't believe god, I don't believe you because you can't back up your claims.

08-30-2002, 02:20 PM	#25
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	MadMordigan, thank you for the kind words!

08-31-2002, 01:23 PM	#30
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	1. Was it not plain in Nature that everything you had was a gift, and that you were dependent on your Maker for life and breath and everything? No. It is not plain to me that this life is a 'gift' from a maker. I'd need to have evidence of a maker before I could conclude it did anything, or that anything was dependant upon it. Given the vastness of the universe, the capriciousness of nature, and the total absence of interaction with any conciousness that could be described as a creator, and EPESCIALLY because of patterns of untruths spoken by those who suggest the existance of this conciousness, I've come to an honest conclusion that it is make-believe. If I am mistaken about this, then it is a sincere mistake. I have been directly condemmend by dozens, and vicariously condemmned by millions for this, even though they can not be sure that I can not correct. The counter questions are thus: 1)Is it possible for people to be honestly mistaken? 2) Would you punish someone eternally for this mistaken belief? 3) Does the character of God, as portrayed in the bible, measure up to these simple test of benevolence?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.