Yes, it really is that stupid

[Sashi]

The problem here is that while masturbation over philosophical points is all well and good, it doesn't actually matter. Because none of that shit is the scientific epistemology. And science doesn't give a fuck about your untestable double secret potential gods. For a good example of how science tells philosophy to go fuck itself, consider the Humble Electron. Yes, you can make a very apparently sound philosophical argument that it is impossible to know for sure that two electrons are "the same" and that argument would be wrong.

All that lesswrong article does is push the inductive reasoning problem back to "how can you know FOR SURE that quantum physics is right?" and you can't, because of the fundamental flaw of inductive reasoning. You're absolutely right that it's an epistemological nightmare. Except for pure math everything is an epistemological nightmare. And we go on functioning. When I write a paper I don't pepper my observations and conclusion with "of course, this is assuming it's even possible for us to know anything" because

I don't go around searching for definitions of "atheist" on wikipedia, and back when I was reading things to try and develop my philosophical views, I was not made aware that atheism has two main camps: strong and weak. Strong atheists believe they have total proof of the nonexistence of god, weak atheists believe there are no grounds for believing that god exists.

I would be comfortable describing myself as a weak atheist. Though to get more specific I think I'm closest to an igtheist. I believe trying to talk about the existence or nonexistence of god is a moot point because any attempt by nongodlike beings to describe godlike beings and then try to come to a conclusion about their existence or nonexistence is philosophically incoherent.

The few times I've had to bubble in my religious views, there was either an "atheist/agnostic" bubble, or an "other" bubble in which I wrote agnostic. So I hadn't even been made aware that there was a specific term like "ignostic" and I've been using "agnostic" to mean "ignostic".

I can also now see that the blog post Kaelik linked is kind of trying to say "When I say 'atheist' I mean 'weak atheist', why is this so hard for people to understand?"

But it still stands that I don't like it when people who call themselves atheists get a bug up their ass about my calling myself agnostic and start accusing me of believing in Leprechauns and Frodo, or being a secret member of the Evil Christian Conspiracy to destroy science and kill the gays.

[cthulhu]

Your turn to start trying again.

No - you are making the positive assertion - the null hypothesis is to assume that something does not exist until there is sufficient evidence to accept that it does.

Edit: If you want to ribbit on about aliens, there is a body of evidence sufficient to posit that aliens might exist. If you want to talk about entities that started with a biological process, developed intelligence and then went on to do something else that is okay, but not the discussion at hand.

[Kaelik]

But it still stands that I don't like it when people who call themselves atheists get a bug up their ass about my calling myself agnostic and start accusing me of believing in Leprechauns and Frodo, or being a secret member of the Evil Christian Conspiracy to destroy science and kill the gays.

A) No one here called you a secret member of the ECCtDSaKtG.

B) It was not an accusation about believing them, it is a analogy to demonstrate that no knowledge deductively true, because:

C) Yes, you aren't a "Strong atheist" if you choose to define Strong Atheist as 100% certainty. But no one is a Strong anti-Leprechaunist either, or a strong anti-Frodoist.

I don't use or respect the terms Strong/Weak Atheist for the same reason I assume many atheists don't, is that it sets up a binary between "No reason to believe God exists, but also no reason to believe it doesn't exist" and "100% certainty, more certainty than I have that my car is outside right now that 'God' doesn't exist."

But that's not the the entire range. There many reasons to not believe, one of which is because god is an undefined self contradictory mishappen term that people who want to defend it (or even defend agnosticism towards it) even refuse to define: See Zine refusing to define God, you rejecting actual definitions of god, but not replacing them with your own.

I am a Non cognitivist with respect to 'god.' But I am also an atheist, and more than that, I see many compelling reasons to assert that I know that no god exists, one of which is Noncognitivism itself.

[Zinegata]

Rationality is again very simple: You can only test a theory if you have evidence that you can evaluate. If you don't have evidence, the theory is irrational. There is no evidence proving God. Hence it is irrational.

However, this does not make the statement "God does not exist" logically correct. To prove this, you must actually search the entire cosmos, look under every nook and cranny, make sure there aren't alternate dimensions, etc.

Because again: The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. This is a consequence of humanity's lack of omniscience. We don't know *yet* what is actually true because we haven't collected all possible data.

This was in response to something that mentioned science with inductive logic, not deductive logic.

Nope, it was a declarative statement showing that these three elements are, in fact, seperate.

Regardless of what it was said in response to, it quite clearly shows that I defined logic, science, and rationality as different concepts.

If you wish to disprove this, then post some actual proof instead of your unsubstantiated belief - preferably in the form of actual statements I made wherein I made no distinction between science and logic.

I'm quite confident that you'll find that I was very careful to keep the two concepts apart. Because not only do I know this to be true, I was particularly careful NOT to mix the two up because lots of people make the same mistake.

Once again, you are talking about deductive logic -- which is quite different from the inductive epistemology of science. Reading your posts, I really get the sense that you do not know the difference between the two, as I end up reading things from you like this:

Logic states that the absence of proof is NOT the proof of absence.

Just because you haven't found it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As, in the inductive epistemology (which is what the person you responded to was talking about!), absence of evidence when you go looking for evidence is evidence of absence.

That's actually a good tangent. I've been waiting for somebody to bring up epistemology again.

First of all, Epistemology isn't a science. It's a branch of philosophy about the proper treatment of knowledge. It asks "What, How, Why" we gather and use knowledge.

And what Epistemology gives us is different models on how to use/gain knowledge. It doesn't actually say "What is the right way to use knowledge." It's instead trying to figure out which way are the best ways. Otherwise it wouldn't have sub-disciplines such as Constructivism, Empiricism, etc.

Now, you're obviously talking about a very specific way of gaining knowledge - which is the inductive process of the scientific method. In layman's terms - inductive means that you go out and observe phenomena. You then form conclusions based on your observations.

The thing is, and which I've been repeating constantly, is that purely inductive thinking is insufficient. If all the swans you examine are white, then you will conclude that all swans are in fact white. That's inductive thinking.

However, the absolute truth is quite different. Black swans do in fact exist. If the world only engaged in inductive thinking, we'd be stuck with the incorrect conclusion that all swans are white.

That's where logic and deductive reasoning comes in. It's logic that tells you that "Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.". Because this statement is factually true no matter how you swing it.

So someone who uses deductive thinking may go "Hmmm, but other birds have different colors. And those colors variations occur in different climates. So maybe we should explore and find new lands with different climates, and Black Swans may exist in those new lands".

Note that this doesn't mean that logic/science have now merged and become one, mind you. Instead, what I'm saying is that in the march of human progress, people have used both inductive scientific reasoning and deductive logic as two seperate but complementary ways of thinking.

[Zinegata]

Edit: If you want to ribbit on about aliens, there is a body of evidence sufficient to posit that aliens might exist. If you want to talk about entities that started with a biological process, developed intelligence and then went on to do something else that is okay, but not the discussion at hand.

Cha-ching. Good answer.

A correct null hypothesis - like ones involving the search for aliens - goes into great detail as to defining what aliens are. And for the most part science has chosen to define them as "creatures that have generally evolved the same way as humans".

Now nobody has ever done the same for God. Because nobody can agree on what God is to begin with. Which is again the only real danger with agnostic belief - they don't actually strongly define their criteria to finally say "This is God", or "I thought this is God, but we've scoured the entire universe and found he does not exist."

[Koumei]

Seriously, try again.

You just had to say that, didn't you?

[cthulhu]

Edit: If you want to ribbit on about aliens, there is a body of evidence sufficient to posit that aliens might exist. If you want to talk about entities that started with a biological process, developed intelligence and then went on to do something else that is okay, but not the discussion at hand.

Now nobody has ever done the same for God. Because nobody can agree on what God is to begin with. Which is again the only real danger with agnostic belief - they don't actually strongly define their criteria to finally say "This is God", or "I thought this is God, but we've scoured the entire universe and found he does not exist."

Wait, so now you are saying that the agnostic position isn't a valid hypothesis because it's not testable? Isn't that where we started?

Seriously, this is pointless. Put up a valid hypothesis that jumps through those five hurdles, or stop defending the hypothesis as relevant.

[Zinegata]

See Zine refusing to define God

I'm wasn't "refusing to define God". I was saying it was pointless because an agnostic isn't required to define what God really is. Which can be a problem, but they're still entitled to the belief.

But you really want me to define God? Fine.

I see Him as a big guy in a Golden Throne on eternal life support.

And he's too frakking busy keeping other, much more evil Gods (who want to eat us) at bay using just the power of his mind. So when people pray to Him, He gets annoyed and goes "Leave me alone, I'm busy!"

He's also pissed that the last time He held a press conference, the only news outlet that covered Him was The Onion. The world wasn't ready to hear Him go "Stop killing each other! I mean it!". It made Him cry.

[Surgo]

First of all, Epistemology isn't a science. It's a branch of philosophy about the proper treatment of knowledge. It asks "What, How, Why" we gather and use knowledge.

Why are you writing this silly wall of text? I know all this, and so does everyone in this discussion -- but you are either, knowingly or unknowingly, responding to people in a way that is completely irrelevant to the point that people are making. A strawman, if you will.

[Zinegata]

Wait, so now you are saying that the agnostic position isn't a valid hypothesis because it's not testable? Isn't that where we started?

Nope, I'm saying that if you take the views of all agnostics, you can't come up with a valid hypothesis that's testable because they'd never freaking agree.

In contrast to scientists looking for aliens, who at least agreed "Okay, let's find aliens who are at least kinda like us first. Instead of imagining methane-breathing tentacle rape things."

Individual agnostics however, are fully capable of making their own hypothesis. Just don't expect the definition of God of said individual agnostic to look a lot like Jesus.

And again, your five virtues (not "hurdles") are actually six. And only one is mandatory, the rest are up for debate.

[Kaelik]

I'm wasn't "refusing to define God". I was saying it was pointless because an agnostic isn't required to define what God really is. Which can be a problem, but they're still entitled to the belief.

So your official position on agnostics is that they are relevant to the conversation, and more correct than anyone else, even though they don't even know what they think, and have no idea what anyone else is talking about.

...

Epic Trollz, where's Roy, Zine needs to break out a just as planned macro.

[Zinegata]

Why are you writing this silly wall of text? I know all this, and so does everyone in this discussion -- but you are either, knowingly or unknowingly, responding to people in a way that is completely irrelevant to the point that people are making. A strawman, if you will.

And why have you still failed to present any proof that I indeed mixed up logic and science?

Again, all you need to do is to quote me.

And why are instead whining about how I took the time to explain Epistemology?

Really? What's your point? This is the third post where you have failed to come up with any proof or explanation as to why you think I mixed up logic and science.

[For Valor]

Signal-to-Noise ratio has skyrocketed.

I recommend everyone here puts their dicks away.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm not proposing a theory however. What I'm really proposing is to conduct some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

Which revolves around getting new observations of previously unobserved phenomena. Since we haven't seen aliens, that's previously unobserved phenomena.

That depends on how you frame it, actually. The hypothesis for "aliens" is based on the observation that there is life on planets (at least Earth), that there are billions and billions of stars much like our own, which we now know often have plants like our own, and there is no reason to assume that the earth is unique among all those planets to have evolved life, and that there is also no reason to assume that Earth is unique in having evolved intelligent life.

Defining "intelligent life" is a bit tricky, but it's fairly straightforward to determine whether what you've found fits your definition.

---

That said, unlike life on other planets, the existence of gods has been pretty conclusively proven. Many dynasties have deified their rulers (North Korea being the most modern example), and some religions have what are effectively living gods (Hinduism is a good modern example).

There might not be any evidence for a Christian god, but actual Atheism requires a very specific set of rules defining the nature of divinity.

---

Signal-to-Noise ratio has skyrocketed.

I recommend everyone here puts their dicks away.

Do you mean noise-to-signal ratio?

[Zinegata]

So your official position on agnostics is that they are relevant to the conversation, and more correct than anyone else, even though they don't even know what they think, and have no idea what anyone else is talking about.

Nope. That's you practicing your usual misdirection and intimidation tactics. Again. It's sad.

No wonder so few people bother listening to you and mainly reply just to show that you're an idiot.

I'm saying that agnostics don't have a common idea of what God is. It's up to the individual agnostic.

Their unifying belief thus isn't about God. It's their attitude towards knowledge - which by definition is in large part an acknowledgment that "Maybe we don't know everything in the universe", but at the same time "We refuse to accept Gods that we cannot see."

Logical, and yet rational.

In short, they're not bigoted hacks like you who just go "Rar!" whenever somebody has the temerity to disagree with you.

BTW, haha. Yes, this is all a big Xanatos gambit on my part. I am totally undone. But you will still not prevent me from taking over Luxembourg and become its new Grand Prince!

[Zinegata]

I'm not proposing a theory however. What I'm really proposing is to conduct some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

Which revolves around getting new observations of previously unobserved phenomena. Since we haven't seen aliens, that's previously unobserved phenomena.

That depends on how you frame it, actually. The hypothesis for "aliens" is based on the observation that there is life on planets (at least Earth), that there are billions and billions of stars much like our own, which we now know often have plants like our own, and there is no reason to assume that the earth is unique among all those planets to have evolved life, and that there is also no reason to assume that Earth is unique in having evolved intelligent life.

Defining "intelligent life" is a bit tricky, but it's fairly straightforward to determine whether what you've found fits your definition.

---

That said, unlike life on other planets, the existence of gods has been pretty conclusively proven. Many dynasties have deified their rulers (North Korea being the most modern example), and some religions have what are effectively living gods (Hinduism is a good modern example).

There might not be any evidence for a Christian god, but actual Atheism requires a very specific set of rules defining the nature of divinity.

I actually agree with you completely. cthulu actually did point out the basis for searching for alien life too (after that post of mine), and he was spot-on.

I think we're all in agreement that belief in aliens who evolved much the way we did is a fairly reasonable assumption to make (which is why scientists more or less agree on it), and given that we have ourselves as the "null hypothesis" so to speak, it's a totally testable hypothesis.

[Sashi]

A) No one here called you a secret member of the ECCtDSaKtG.

Nope, but I originally brought up agnosticism in the context of being attacked by the local skeptics society for being a member of the ECCtDSaKtG because I wasn't willing to state with 100% certainty that god didn't exist.

B) It was not an accusation about believing them, it is a analogy to demonstrate that no knowledge deductively true, because:

Oversensitivity on my part, I'm sorry.

C) Yes, you aren't a "Strong atheist" if you choose to define Strong Atheist as 100% certainty. But no one is a Strong anti-Leprechaunist either, or a strong anti-Frodoist.

I don't "choose to", that's what wikipedia said it was. And back 12 years ago or so, when I was reading religious philosophy from library books rather than internet, the only definition of atheist given was the "strong" version.

I don't use or respect the terms Strong/Weak Atheist for the same reason I assume many atheists don't, is that it sets up a binary between "No reason to believe God exists, but also no reason to believe it doesn't exist" and "100% certainty, more certainty than I have that my car is outside right now that 'God' doesn't exist."

In the strong tradition of TGD, are you smoking crack? A strong atheist is 100% sure, and a weak atheist is sure to the natural limits of empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. "weak atheist" isn't the same as "agnostic".

See Zine refusing to define God, you rejecting actual definitions of god, but not replacing them with your own.

I don't "reject" definitions, I admit that the christian or muslim definition of "god" is obviously false. I don't provide my own definition because I hold the ignostic position that a non-god trying to define a god is incoherent, which renders any questions after that point moot.

I am a Non cognitivist with respect to 'god.' But I am also an atheist, and more than that, I see many compelling reasons to assert that I know that no god exists, one of which is Noncognitivism itself.

That's a different kettle of fish. I'll thank you and Frank for leading me to think about my position and find my actual position is ignosticism and hope this ends without negative feelings.

[Username17]

Uh... OK. Personally, I find the coining of such terms as ignostic to be philosophical fappery. But in so far as it recognizes the noncognitivist position regarding the non-falsifiable definitions of gods, it is epistemologically secure.

That is a scientifically valid position. Although I would go one step forward from where you seem to be standing there to note that since affirmations of the existence of gods are incoherent, that they are also false, just as any other incoherent postulate is false.

-Username17

[Surgo]

Why are you writing this silly wall of text? I know all this, and so does everyone in this discussion -- but you are either, knowingly or unknowingly, responding to people in a way that is completely irrelevant to the point that people are making. A strawman, if you will.

And why have you still failed to present any proof that I indeed mixed up logic and science?

Again, all you need to do is to quote me.

I have quoted you -- in the second post I made the complaint. Unfortunately, you seem to be quite adept at ignoring text you don't like.

[tussock]

So, snipping the stupid part of people's arguments is frowned on around here too?

It basically tells us that until we exhaust every possibility and search every corner of the universe, you can't actually disprove something as general as the concept of God.

So, your answer to there being obviously no god in any sense that means anything outside our imagination is to say "somewhere else might be different", but you see, we've tested that theory too, and it's also bullshit. Other places are the same as here, in the basic structure of their components and the forces that act on them. For reals.

The rest of the universe is also composed of energy in various forms. We are made of old exploded stars, same as any other carbon-based life form out there, or silicon-based, or whatever other chemical set manages to arrange itself into tiny little self-replicating machines like we did 4 and a bit billion years back.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Why are you writing this silly wall of text? I know all this, and so does everyone in this discussion -- but you are either, knowingly or unknowingly, responding to people in a way that is completely irrelevant to the point that people are making. A strawman, if you will.

And why have you still failed to present any proof that I indeed mixed up logic and science?

Again, all you need to do is to quote me.

I have quoted you -- in the second post I made the complaint. Unfortunately, you seem to be quite adept at ignoring text you don't like.

Question, we all know Zine is notorious for ignoring text he doesn't like, why does anyone still argue with him?