The Distinction Between Agnosticism And Atheism

Submitted by: boredhuman 6 months ago in Lifestyle


Self-identified atheism makes up only 3% of the population in the United States (wiki). In Europe, 7% are Atheists and 16% are Agnostic (wiki).

It may surprise believers to learn that there are different forms of Atheism, and that Atheists fight among themselves. Christians, get out your popcorn and enjoy as David Mitchell is challenged by an Atheist!

So a couple questions after you watch the video...

Q1: Do you share Mitchell's criticism of gnostic atheists?
When I see religious people argue with atheists, the arguments go nowhere, often because the gnosticism/atheism distinction isn't clear. That is, atheists are often perceived as gnostic, or 'strong', atheists, when in fact in my experience very few are. Similarly, atheists assume theists must be gnostic, when they may not necessarily be.

Q2: How theistic/gnostic about Jesus are you?
How many 'strong' atheists are there? How many are 'weak' Christians? Let's take the personal, Christian God as the particular God in question. Sorry, Hindus, Muslims, FSM and other believers - you might be labeled atheist for this one.

God: Jesus Christ
There are 226 comments:
Male 3,027
I grew up agnostic with former Catholic and Protestant parents. In my teens, I chose to attend a Pentecostal church with friends.

Years later, I've come to understand the existence of a truly omnipotent being isn't logical...but also not impossible.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
jaysingrimm Sounds like... Deism! lolz! Well a little bit...
0
Reply
Male 900
What if you just want to sit out the whole argument as wholly non-funtional and find only decisive vindictiveness in either answer?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
I watched this whole video.

This is the first time i've heard of David Mitchell. 

So is atheism rational?  From my own examination of it, i don't think it is.  I've frequently seen how irrational and illogical atheists are, and i regularly point this out (as some here on I-A-B are well aware).

I agree that agnosticism is more rational than atheism, however faith in God is far more rational, because despite Mitchell's claim that "we don't know and we can't know", we actually can know, and some do know. 

This self-identified atheist (the presenter) then responded with an atheist dogma and bias saying "I agree that those who say they know for a fact that if no god or gods exists are being irrational".  It's bias and dogma because he's 1/2 wrong: those who say that no God exists they are not being rational because they provide no evidence for their positive claim, and those who say God exists do provide evidence of testimony, which many have studied and found the truth that God does exist.  The video presenter is simply unwilling to examine the available evidence, through his own fallacies (Cherry Picking, or moving the goalposts on what is evidence).  

Then the presenter goes on to say that atheism is merely the view that theism has not met the burden of proof, yet as previously mentioned, it is the bias and dogmas that blind them and lead them to ignore the evidence that points to God. He then moves into a fallacious position, a false equivocal (along with an appeal to ridicule), saying that a-fairysim believes that those who have said fairies exist have failed to meet their burden of proof.  This is an irrational atheist claim.

The presenter then goes into saying that an agnostic either believes or doesn't believe, so their position is wrong.  Yet this is another err of reasoning in the presenting atheist.  "I don't know" to the question, "do you believe in God" is a valid answer.  In fact i'm reminded of someone i met who i asked if they believed in God, they said to me "I don't have enough information to say at the time".  He didn't claim to be agnostic, but he epoused what it means to be agnostic.  This atheist is irrationally trying to claim that agnosticism is an invalid position, when it is.

I'm getting the sense that this presenter seems like he is the type of irrational atheist that would declare "babies are atheist", putting words in others mouths where there is none, just to make their weak position seem more powerful.  On that topic i've run across many atheists who reason that atheism is without belief in God, so they reason that means babies, yet we don't know what babies understand, it it could just as very well be that they are closer to God than anyone..  

On the topic of atheism being a religion, i don't agree with that, however there are extreme levels of atheism, such as militant atheism, and anti-theism, which make such leaps of faith, and evangelise about their philosophy, preach it, and sometimes even assert it's true, making positive claims with no evidence, such as "no gods exist" or "there is no God", leaving the observer to consider that they are very religious-like (abeit a false religion).  This is what David Mitchell's comments around 6:05 note. The presenter claims this is born of a misconception of atheism, but this presenter is the one with the misconception, as many militant atheists and anti-theists actually do this, as previously mentioned this is a more extreme version of atheism, what the irrationality of atheism leads to.  Perhaps in the upcoming years the presenter may become a militant atheist or anti-theist, i notice the words that indicate his path is heading that way. Something i've seen happen in many.

He goes on to prove my point saying that "consequences of religion are often deeply and unnecessarily devastating", appealing to ignorance fallacy (ignoring all the good that religion has done).  He then tries to say he's a proponent of 'the scientific method' yet, he has only used fallacies so far, surely this is not rational, hmm?  

The presenter presents a strawman, saying "people would rather pray for their children's health rather than seek medical attention".  Yet this couldn't be further from the truth.  Most people with faith in God will understand that God has allowed us to understand his great works through science (Psalm 111:2 urges this), and both pray for their child and seek medical attention.  This person irrationally rejects that position, considering it to be that they only pray, and don't seek medical attention. While i have heard of a few cases like this, the majority of the cases are not like this.  He even previously said he agrees with 'dawkins' whom many scientists say is doing a discredit to science.  

Then he says David's quote was the stupidest thing he's ever heard him say.  He is being apologetic for atheism, trying to make atheism seem positive by by trying to separate the atheist murders of the 20th century, what a dishonest atheist apologetic.  The leaders of those regimes foisted state-atheism in most cases, in fact one even said "our propaganda necessarily includes atheism" or something to that degree.  He made the fallacy appeal to ignorance, to try assert that atheism had nothing to do with the number of deaths in the 20th century, when indeed it did. Then he makes another appeal to ignorance, asserting that for a good person to do a bad thing, then religion is the sure fire way of achieving that.  This is incorrect, as such a ridiculous and irrational claim could equally be applied to the communist regimes he just spoke of, taking his irrational stance good people doing a bad thing just takes state atheism to be a sure fire way of achieving it.  see how that works?

So is atheism rational?  Ultimately no it's not.  I have yet to see any successful arguments to support the position that atheism is rational.  I have seen more support for the claim that "atheism is fallacious and irrational" and hardly anything to support otherwise.  Even worse, such fallacious and irrational position leads to fear of what they dont understand, ignorance of what they don't comprehend, and hate of whom understand what they have feared and ignored.

So, chalk up another loss for another internet atheist, but hey, here's an E for effort.

Signed, your friendly neighborhood Monkwarrior
0
Reply
Male 1,030
monkwarrior I've read your entire book of a comment :)

Maybe you'll enjoy David Mitchell's take on conspiracy theories.

I agree with many of your critiques of the atheist presenter. I disagree with the presenter on philosophical grounds: The distinction between knowledge and belief are paramount when discussing agnosticism and atheism; and he conflates them when defining atheism.

Gnosticism refers to the evidence to justify the belief. I'd argue, you're gnostic, because you claim to have evidence of testimony to justify your belief. I'd claim the presenter is ALSO gnostic, because HIS claim is justified by lack of evidence for God.

I would visualize theism as a scale from -1 (Atheist) to +1 (Theist). "I don't know [what my belief is]", strictly speaking, is not an acceptable answer. I think the agnostic you met meant: I don't have strong beliefs regarding the existence of God. They'd rank close to 0 on the theism scale.

You've talked a lot about the atheist presenter, whom I also see as the real problem here. What are your views on Mitchell's take though? Personally, I think his views are refreshingly tolerant towards religion.

"Signed, your friendly neighborhood Monkwarrior" you've been exceedingly friendly and articulate this time. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
boredhuman it was rather long, i admit.  I was just typing as the video was playing pretty much.  I don't really know much of David Mitchell, and i'd really have to look more into what he's said before i could talk of his take.  But i'm not too keen on the atheist/agnostic/theist debates, they're a bit of a large waste of time (as this video and my long reply indicate), but im not ignorant of them.  This presenter claimed to be able to debunk that atheism isn't rational, which is why i watched it in full, because i've observed it is irrational, yet the presenter failed to make their case in a rational way.  I'll keep an eye out for David Mitchell as i surf the internet, but if this video of his words are indicative of how he is, i will agree it was a bit middle of the road (agnostic) arguments, and i don't see those as often as atheist or theist ones.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior The issue with your rebuttal is that you have shifted the burden of proof. The atheist or agnostic has no burden of proof, because they have not made any positive claim.

theist: I believe in the existence of god(s)
gnostic: I claim evidence/knowledge for the existence of god(s)

atheist: I find the theist's belief un-compelling, so I reject it.
agnostic:  I find the gnostic's evidence un-compelling, so I reject it.

Rejecting a claim requires no positive claim. Atheist's who make the positive claim that god(s) do not exist are really also anti-theists, or something, because that IS a positive claim.

By default, things do not exist. No one has to prove this. The burden of proof lies with the theist and gnostic.

Agnostic is not "middle of the road." You fail to understand this still.

If you ask me whether I believe in god, and I answer that I am agnostic, then I haven't answered your question.

One is belief, the other is knowledge. It is possible to have an agnostic theist.

Atheism is, buy definition, a rational response to the theistic claim. You may disagree with this conclusion, but that does not make it irrational. Belief in a claim without evidence IS IRRATIONAL BY DEFINITION. Hence, the agnostic theist is irrational. As is any faith-based belief, by definition. 

You seem to think irrational means "disagrees with my position." Which is, ironically, rather irrational. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe When someone makes a positive claim, such as "There is no God", the burden of proof lies on them, and many anti-theists and militant atheists do say these things
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I agree with you (*shocking, I know*), but you are missing my point.

But atheists, by definition, do not make this claim. This is so easy to understand, why are you so stupid?

Example even monkfish should understand:

I have a jar of pickles. It is large. I tell you that there is an odd number of pickles in my jar. You ask me why I think that. I tell you: "because god told me the number was odd." You say: "I don't believe you. I do not find your 'evidence' compelling."

Does this mean you suddenly believe the number of pickles is EVEN? Does this mean you think the number ISN'T ODD?

No! You aren't convinced of either position, and both positions -- if claimed by someone -- have a burden of proof.

Again: you have rejected my claim and you have no burden of proof, because you have not claimed anything. Do you get it now, fish?

Atheists reject the god claim. They say: I do not find your reasons compelling. Athiests have no burden of proof. This is the definition of atheism.

Anti-theists, on the other hand, HAVE a burden of proof. They say: The number of pickles is EVEN. Militant theists is maybe what you are calling theists-that-are-also-anti-theists. If so, then you are correct here also.

All anti-theists are atheists, but not all atheists are anti-theists.

Atheism is by definition a rational position because it makes a logically rational response to a claim. You can disagree with the conclusion they reach, but you cannot claim it is irrational. 

I hope this helps you. I know we are having silly arguments on other threads, but I do actually want to help you when you show even the slightest bit of promise.

The rest of the time, however, you can go fuck the business-end of a rake.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe "atheists by definition do not make this claim"?

Apparently you're wrong there too: 
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/why-there-no-god-quick-responses-10-common-theist-arguments

https://carm.org/atheist-says-he-knows-there-no-god

The rest of your post was desperately trying to make your claim work despite the facts that there are atheists who make that claim.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior "despite the facts" replace with: "despite the fact"

singular, like your thought process.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along buttercup, you have nothing and are clutching at straws.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior you have nothing and are clutching at straws.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe if you say so, snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Yes I do. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I will.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
then run along snowflake.BuckeyeJoe 
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup troll
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior The first website provides common refutations to the god claim. Where on it do you see a positive claim? 

carm.org is a religious site, hence they are no authority on atheism. 

Some atheists might make this claim, but that is not what makes them atheists. 

All anti-theists are atheists, but not all atheists are anti-theists.

God, you're so fucking retarded. 

I am an atheist, and I claim that the sky is red. You say: see, atheists make a positive claim.

This is the fallacy of composition: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

"The rest of your post was desperately trying to make your claim work despite the facts that there are atheists who make that claim."

I kicked your fucking ass, didn't I? You can't even address the rest because it is so far over your head. You can't even understand it. 

Do you wear a diaper? Seriously, your level of retard should probably include diapers.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe actually thanks for demonstrating how your position is indefensible by agreeing the fact that some atheists make that claim.  But there's really no need to get emotional over it
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior My pickle example just wrecked you, didn't it?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along buttercup, your repeated demonstration of your indefensible position is futile, especially in light of the fact that there are atheists who make that claim (which you claim 'by definition' they don't, yet in reality they have been observed to do that).
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Your repeated 3 words is futile. 

Especially with the claims you make that are desperate. 

You define that which has your fallacious reasoning.

vapid Winchester berry refrigerator smallness fixation. 
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Some theists make the claim that you are a fucktard. I just spoke with one who did. 

So by the same logic, you are defeated. 

Don't cry now fish.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe keep demonstrating your indefensible position, buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior keep whistling in the dark, fish.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe keep demonstrating your indefensible position, buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Hey, that's what YOU do!
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe sorry, it's you, now run along buttercup
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Nope. You.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along snowflake, you can't fool others even though you can try fool yourself..
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I will.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe then run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup troll
0
Reply
Male 6,347
monkwarrior You always accept "evidence of testimony" as proof, but only when spoken by someone 1000s of years ago.

You seem to forget, you too are an atheist to the vast majority of gods that ever existed.  You do not believe in the Skyfather, You do not believe in the Cthonian gods, are you irrational for your atheism of those gods?

Tell me monk, can you bring yourself to even think there might not be a god or is that too heretical?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
daegog the evidence of testimony isn't just 1000's of years ago.  It has continued in every generation since, and into this one.  In fact you can hear of many people giving testimony to the power of God changing their life for the better, even right now in 2018.
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior the evidence of DERP is apparent DUNNING DERP
0
Reply
Male 11,554
rumham there, there, o'flotyham
0
Reply
Male 2,461
monkwarrior   I have yet to see any successful arguments to support the position that the belief in god is rational. I started to believe in the Atheist point  of view when I was 15 and I am now 63 and have never doubted my belief, there is no way to prove your god exists except with faith. Give one example that god exists with out the requirement of faith, not counting the one and only example of, who else could have created the world, because that is not proof of anything and could be used just as easily to prove the big bang.  

In truth there is no proof that god exists. Except in your own mind.

   
0
Reply
Male 11,554
casaledana there's plenty of evidences for the existence of God.  For example, the evidence of testimony that has led billions to see the empirical evidence of God.  The procedures in scripture than someone can follow, test, apply to their life, and observe the results (which are still found to be true today).  

Your claim that there is no proof is only confined to your mind and others of like minds, so that's why your spectacles of bias prevent you from seeing faith in God is rational.  As for the position that belief in God is rational, we do have a wealth of history available to us showing us this, for example  what happens when we reject what God asks of us or not, both which have panned out as God said would. Turns out the love that God asks of us is the most sensible rational, and reasonable way for humankind.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior You are correct! Anecdotal evidence is indeed evidence! Scriptural evidence is indeed evidence. 

However, it is very poor evidence. And insufficient to justify belief.

Testimony exists for individuals of all religions. 

"For example, the evidence of testimony that has led billions to see the empirical evidence of God."

No empirical evidence has ever been found to my knowledge. Go ahead and state what you think this could possibly be. 

The number of people who believe a claim is not evidence for the claim being true. 

Here's your problem. You just use words without understanding what they mean. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe It's only poor to those who haven't been able to successfully follow the procedures.  Many people will substitute things for procedures, and wonder why it failed, but incorrectly claim it has failed, when the reality is they incorrectly followed the procedures.

As for empirical evidence, this has been witnessed, and corroborated by people in every generation for thousands of years.  

Here's your problem: You dismiss what you don't understand completely, without fully understanding it.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Then teach me. Why don't you list those procedures of which you speak?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe They're in scripture, go study them and show yourself worthy to find your Creator.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Lol. The truth is in science. Go study it and find yourself worthy of being a biped.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe mockery and scorn only reveals your true self.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Your true self has already been revealed, and it is pathetic.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe that's what your doing to yourself, buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior that's what I'm doing to your mom, fish.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along butter cup, you have nothing but trolls and anyone can see it ruins your position.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I do not own trolls. Trolls aren't even real. How many bridges have you checked under?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe i'm looking at you under yours, buttercup.  run along
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Under my bridge is my cockadoodle. 

Lickylicky
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along snowflake, it's past your nap-time
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I will.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe then run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup troll
0
Reply
Male 12,258
monkwarrior People saying something exists has never been nor will ever be proof of its existence. If that were true than you would have to accept the fact that the Hindu gods exist because of the proof of their testimony.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod your need to move the goalposts on evidence to claim that evidence of testimony is not evidence continues to sink you  When you study all of testimony, you'll find there is more testimony for God than anything else in this world.  But you won't, after all you've demonstrated your wilful ignorance on the issue of spirituality for quite some time.  It's no surprise though, many things you say indicate your nature to embrace sin, and people who do that hate the idea that they might be judged for it.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
monkwarrior Oh man. I see that I have 3 responses and I think, oh yea, someone is engaging me in intellectual discourse. Imagine my disappointment when it is just you and your generic, meaningless, regurgitated bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod I see you've resorted to your emotional teenage tantrum mindset again, unable to engage in intellectual discourse.  Understand that remaining willfully ignorant of what you don't understand won't ever make you wise on that matter.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
holygod People having a strong emotional feeling that God exisists isn’t proof either. You can get the same exact emotional reaction from a song. If monk could actually test the Bible and prove it to be true, he would be on every news channel. But I believe he believes he can.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 there's evidence for God yet you too are moving the goalposts to satisfy your own emotional reaction.  I've actually tested the bible and found it's true.  In fact, people are on television telling others of how it can change their lives, and have been since the beginning of television.  It's like you want to willfully ignore that.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior Bullshit. If you could truly test the bible and prove that God exists there would be religious schools named after you. People on TV telling others how religion can change their lives is NOT the same as someone going on TV and showing people how to test the Bible to prove the existence of God.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Listen.  Billions of people have tried and tested scripture and found it to be true.  

Do you not see how willfully ignorant you are?  You say " If you could truly test the bible and prove that God exists there would be religious schools named after you", yet saints are probably the #1 thing that schools are named after.  People have been going on TV since the inception of TV testifying of God, providing testimonial evidence for God in hopes that others may find the evidence they've found.

The procedures to test scripture can be found within it.  Granted, in an age of sin, it may be difficult for people to follow the procedures, being wound up thinking sin is 'normal'.  Or tempted to substitute things in the procedures, fail, and then declare it to be false, when the reality is they simply substituted a procedure and failed.  It's no different than me reading a procedure on how to split water into 2 hydrogen gas atoms and 1 oxygen gas atoms, use soda pop instead because my tap was broken, and then claim "it's false!" when i don't get the results others did (who used water).

It's a personal journey of discovery to build your own faith.  While others can play supporting roles in that, ultimately your faith is your own responsibility.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior You are so frustrating. You are talking about faith. You are always talking about faith. Testimony is faith. Saints become Saints because man says so. No one has ever been able to prove there is a God. Everything you ever talk about is faith.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 It's only frustrating to you because you have staked a position on a foundation that is not solid or stable.  You might want to consider doing what others have done, building their foundation on God, which is a sturdy foundation that can weather storms (and lead those who are built on an unstable ground to consider them frustrating).  

Perhaps then you might see that God has proven Himself to those who have trusted in Him, as you too might see it as well.  This is what billions of people have done, who have found God.  Each and every one of them has seen the evidence of God to some degree, and while they may only be able to testify of it to others, the reality is, that is how God wants to do it, because it allows Him to find the most worthy people.

Are you worthy?  Perhaps you are, and it might only take you to study to show yourself to be so.  Could you imagine finally putting the questions you have of God to rest by finding out He exists?
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior Again you are only talking faith. I have nothing against faith. It has helped many people. But no one can test scriptures to prove that God exists. No one. The fame you would receive if you could truly do that would be unimaginable. To say you can is being deceitful in the eyes of God.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Again, i'm sorry, but you are speaking from willful ignorance.  Billions have tested scripture and found God exists.  Do you think God wants lazy people, or those who are too lazy to find out about Him, demanding others prove it to them?  I'm sorry, that's not how it works, and scripture makes the situation surrounding lazy people very clear.  You are responsible for your own faith, and as I've previously mentioned, others can provide a supporting role, but ultimately it's between you and God.  If you took the time to find and build a relationship with your creator, you would have proven that you've tested scriptures, and God would have proven Himself to you.

I'm not in this for fame, i couldn't care less for it.  What i care more about is my fellow humans who are missing out on the greatest truth and word this world has ever known, some to their own peril.  I've seen the evidence of God, and He is real; you can mark these words and bet your life on them.  But i know you won't be able to take my word for it, which is why i am urging you to truly study and find out for yourself.

0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior You would have no choice in the matter of fame. If you truly could prove that God exists you would be known in every corner of the world. What you are talking about is faith. What you always talk about is faith. Humans will only truly know if there is a God and which religion got it right, if any, when we die.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Again, my goal isn't to prove God to this world, that's God's job.  Many people already know God is real, and they still live, and yes, they know what religion is right:  love.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
markust123 That's the problem with monk. He doesn't understand the difference between "thinking" something and "feeling" something, between "knowing" something and "believing" something.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod Sorry your problem is you don't understand people, nor spiritual matters, as your comment is so far off base that it truly shows me how much you suffer from insecurity and your Dunning-Kruger, having to rely on your emotions to spout ridiculousness.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior That is at least the thirtieth time you have said Dunning-Kruger to holygod. You are such a troll.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
markust123 sad huh? He can't think for himself so he just repeats words he has heard that he thinks sound smart.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 HG continues to make ridiculous statements based on his poor understanding of scripture, while thinking he is too intelligent for it, yet the reality is that he is simply willfully ignorant of what it teaches, and clings to prejudices, thinking it is wise when it's not.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
monkwarrior ... Says the flat-earther. LOL.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod And you continue to prove your Dunning-Kruger, as i have never claimed that the earth is flat, nor think that the earth is flat.  If you truly were intelligent, you would have no need to resort to such juvenile teenage tantrums, and repetitive insults (the ridiculousness of which has been pointed out to you numerous times which you ignore).  Instead you would be able to engage in intellectual discussion as a civilized human being.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
monkwarrior "intellectual". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod keep proving that you're unable to demonstrate it - it only sinks you.
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior keep demonstrating derp - it only defines you. you have these powers! derp derp!
0
Reply
Male 11,554
rumham its your vortex, tell us of life there, o'flotyham
0
Reply
Male 584
holygod What about people tweeting that their sexual assault exists? Hmmm?

Troll level 100 achieved.

0
Reply
Male 12,258
yelloow12 That isn't proof. We just decide wether or not we accept what they are saying as to wether an event happened. I tend to always believe a victim account, however I also look at contributing factors and other elements such as timeline and behavior to corroborate. 

Also, I'm speaking of a thing, not an event. Sometimes events happen where there is no other proof, but there is always possible proof of a thing.
0
Reply
Male 43,788
I love David Mitchell's angry logic.

That said, Who he hell is this long haired hippy 
with the bad beard who drinks tea from a giant MUG ?!?
#UNCIVILIZED
0
Reply
Male 1,030
Maybe this distinction will help clarify what I mean by "gnostic atheist":
"[In philosophy], atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist" - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
That proposition can be true or false based on belief.

Knowledge is "justified true belief." (SEP) When you start justifying a belief by talking evidence, you're in the realm of knowledge - in the realm of (a)gnosticism.

Claiming you're agnostic atheist, just because the existence of God is unknowable misses the point:
Take the theory of gravity. A scientist would admit that knowing whether gravity exists with absolute certainty would be impossible - science deals with observable universe and evidence shows gravity to be a true fact. Would you label this scientist agnostic about gravity?!

So, I call gnostic atheists, atheists who insist that their atheism is justified. On the extreme scale, a gnostic atheist would claim that the evidence is so overwhelming to support that God does not exist, it's as certain as gravity. An extreme agnostic atheist would claim there is no God, while admitting to having absolutely no evidence to justify that belief. 

Personally, I'd agree with Mitchell, that atheists who insist about talking about evidence for God hurt the inter-faith conversation. The conversation begins and ends with evidence for/against God rather than talk about how we should live out lives, and how to make the world a better place. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
boredhuman I agree with that last bit (of your comment) especially:
Now that we've figured out that God (gods) do (do not) exist? What next? 
The important part(s) of religion (or religious philosophy) should be about how that improves our lives and the lives of those around us, not as a hammer to bash each other with :/

I've always had a problem with agnostics: how do your KNOW for sure that you CANNOT KNOW for sure? Isn't the knowledge of the impossibility of knowledge itself unknowable too? :-)
0
Reply
Male 12,258
5cats Do you think religion or the bible on a whole teaches us to be better people? I would say that 90% of the things taught in the bible either make us worse people or don't improve us in anyway. For every love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek there are 10 stone the harlots or beat the slaves. Most of the rules in the bible revolve around worshipping god, which in my opinion, does nothing to improve humanity.

Even the 10 commandments is mostly bullshit when you actually look at them.

Imagine how great the world could be if the religious books actually only focused on stories and rules that could make society better.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod People get out of it what they want to I guess, that's why I don't think it's 'divine' it's just a book(s).
Some say the bad stuff is in there (especially the OT) to remind us how NOT to behave :/
0
Reply
Male 717
I am happy to see a description of these four options. Too many people, imo, are not aware of the distinctions.

I have not watched the video (so apologies if it addresses this), but it appears most theists are caught between gnostic and agnostic positions. Many claim to 100% KNOW a god exists, but are also quick to say that their belief is faith-based. Faith is belief without evidence, it is the opposite of knowledge. If your believe on faith, than you are an agnostic theist and do not know it at all. 

They do not appear to recognize this is a paradox.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe " Faith is belief without evidence, it is the opposite of knowledge. "  another atheist irrational claim.

educate yourself by studying Hebrews 11
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior dunning derp
0
Reply
Male 11,554
rumham there, there, o'flotyham
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Yes you seem to not understand this discussion at even a basic level. Hebrews 11 verifies my definition:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"Things hoped for" since they are not a reality, i.e., they do not exist. It is the "substance" for things which do not exist. LOL. 

"The evidence of things not seen," meaning: faith is what we replace evidence with when it applies to things we cannot observe or measure.

The rest of the passage is what several folks do with their faith, and has nothing to do with the definition of faith.

So you see, idiot, we arrive at two conclusions:

1. Even your made up book confirms what I am saying. Which is pathetic, god couldn't even write a self-consistent narrative.

2. I understand this book better than you. Which is sad, I don't even believe this shit. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe And herein lies your problem, you think you understand the scripture, yet those who do understand it don't reject it. It's like you didn't follow the procedures properly, or substituted and didn't understand why it didn't work. You'll have to try again.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
monkwarrior LOL. Learn that the thing you don't believe in is real by reading a book you don't believe supposedly written by the thing you don't believe in. Have you ever experienced logic in your life?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod Sorry, but you have already buried yourself by holding to your misunderstanding, along with your refusal to understand, seemingly out of your fear of what you don't understand which leads to ignorance of what you don't comprehend, and leading to, as we see here, your hate of those who understand and comprehend what you don't.
0
Reply
Male 12,258
monkwarrior That was absolute gibberish. Typical of someone with nothing meaningful to say.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
holygod Unfortunately, you had nothing meaningful to say to begin with, resorting to your juvenile (and ridiculous) mockery due to your inability to comprehend what you willfully ignore.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Not going to work:

you don't believe = you don't understand.

Every religion says that. That can't all be true, but they can all be wrong. I will pit my understanding of scripture against yours in front of any religious authority you wish. You would do well to demonstrate your knowledge, as directed by your own book:

Mark 16:15-16 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

Peter 3:15-16 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Titus 1:16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. 

By your inaction you deny your god.

I have to say that (the only real) holygod does make a point. You really don't have meaningful things to say, which is why you hide.

This is why we fuck with you so much. It is entertaining. We're not taking you seriously, lol, you know that right?

I suspect it's been a long time since anyone has.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe Coming from someone who use profanity, claims to know what they demonstrate they don't know, who asks for lessons that are widely available, and who continues to troll,  It's no surprise you would say those things.  You might be able to fool yourself and those along similar mindsets, but you're not fooling others.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Coming from someone who just repeats the same five words you know, you aren't even fooling yourself. 

It's no surprise your obstinate rejection of the obvious truth.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe no need to get emotional over the fact.  
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior You are the one clearly getting emotional. 

You just need to calm down.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe you should take your advice buttercup
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior you should lick my balls.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along buttercup, you're getting emotionally desperate with your trolling.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Gosh, you are so desperate.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe of course, buttercup, run along with your imagination.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Your imagination!
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I will.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe then run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup troll
0
Reply
Male 867
I don't know if I agree, but, this song seems to fit... 
0
Reply
Male 6,347
I never liked that concept that you had to be a believer or not. Lemme give an example.

Suppose some IABers believe that fancylad loves okra.  Some IABers believe that fancylad does not love okra.  Are these the only two possible groups?


0
Reply
Male 12,258
daegog I don't believe that Fancy or okra exist.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
holygod I believe fancylad is a sentient Okra... possibly from outer space.

Hummm, then he'd likely 'love Okra' too, unless he was into inter-species kinky stuff...
0
Reply
Male 900
5cats But is he one of them self-loathing Okras?
0
Reply
Male 12,258
If I'm agnostic about god then I'm also agnostic about Zeus and the tooth fairy and big foot. I'm fine with that distinction, but that means we're saying it is impossible to be sure about anything not existing.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
holygod Would you claim you're agnostic about flat earth? I've tried to expand on what I mean by gnostic atheism above. 

I'd claim you ARE gnostic about tooth fairy/big foot, in the sense that your belief in non-existence of these creatures is justified by the evidence. 
0
Reply
Male 717
holygod That is correct. This is called the null hypothesis. One cannot really prove the non-existence of anything. It is assumed true...until evidence is presented that demonstrates otherwise. 

And for good reason: think what kind of world we would live in if the null hypothesis was existence instead? Everything would exist by default, including mutually exclusive ideas. It is an untenable position.

I find many conversations with theists can be simplified once recognizing that they usually either:

  1. attempt to shift the burden of proof by changing the null hypothesis
  2. conflate gnostic with agnostic positions
  3. or just generally act like a fucktard. That's when you have fun with them - no learning is probable in this scenario. 5cats. monkwarrior.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe I'm a Deist, I can defend my philosophy clearly and easily. I have no reason to get angry over it, I literally don't care what you or others think about Deism.
It is my experience that a lot of people are Deists, they just don't know the term. It's a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs actually :-)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism

"Belief in God based on reason rather than revelation or the teaching of any specific religion is known as deism. The word originated in England in the early 17th century as a rejection of orthodox Christianity. Deists asserted that reason could find evidence of God in nature and that God had created the world and then left it to operate under the natural laws devised by God. By the late 18th century, deism was the dominant religious attitude among Europe’s educated classes; it was accepted by many upper-class Americans of the same era, including the first three US presidents."
0
Reply
Male 717
5cats sucka.
0
Reply
Male 717
5cats If you don't care, then don't bother replying. 

Reason is the process by which logic is applied through critical thinking. Hence, it is impossible for Deism to satisfy the definition you have provided, because no logical proof/evidence exists to reject this null hypothesis. 

Thus, you have committed #2 from my previous post. 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe We humans have no clue how gravity or magnets work, we can only observe HOW they work, for example. It isn't illogical to believe the Laws or the Theory of Gravity really exist, right? Same for magnetism. Same for God.
Science doesn't know everything, there's plenty it simply cannot explain... yet!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance
0
Reply
Male 717
5cats While it may be true that you do not know how gravity or magnets work, it is incorrect to state that science does not know. We are able to do more than simply describe HOW they work, we build models that describe WHY they work and then we use those models to make predictions that turn out to be correct.

If a model enables you to predict future experiments, there is a good chance you know what the fuck is going on.

The action at a distance article you referenced is not correctly framed in the current discussion. You see, physicists were concerned with electromagnetic and gravitational forces because it appeared these forces could interact without the objects in question touching each other. This "spooky action at a distance" quote was made more in jest, and pointed to the self-deprecating humor we physicists have.

This apparent action at a distance indicated that there was more to these interactions than our current understanding contained, and this lead to field theory. Hence, a massive object interacts with another massive object through a gravitational field. They do not touch each other but they do both "touch" the field. One consequence of gravitational fields was the predicted gravitational waves, which were later observed. The concept of a field is well over a hundred years old and we have understood these things for a long time. So you need to be careful when talking about science, because your knowledge is very antiquated, and you will not get caught up to speed by haphazardly referencing a wiki.

So you see, it isn't illogical to believe field theory because there is good evidence to support its existence. We understand the electromagnetic force. We can describe how it behaves and why it does this. We even have a full quantum theory for it, Quantum Electrodynamics, and understand why electromagnetic fields behave the way they do on every size scale.

Your post sounds too much like Bill O'Reilly's comment: "tide goes in, tide goes out...you can't explain that." Yes, Bill, we can. Quite easily.

It is illogical, however, to believe in god -- because there is no good evidence to support god's existence. There is no god-model that allows one to predict (better than chance) what will happen in the future. All such proposed models have failed. Not a single one has passes this test - the latest attempt was intelligent design. 

Conflating deism with science is not only inaccurate, but underlines a vast ignorance of what science is and does.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe "It is illogical, however, to believe in god -- because there is no good evidence to support god's existence."
I'd also add that there are alternative, science-based explanations. We don't believe in Santa Claus

Would it be correct to characterize your views as gnostic atheist then? Even if you were to claim that God's existence is unknowable, I imagine you have sufficient evidence to justify the statement God does not exist to be true. In other words, as far as you know, God does not exist. 
0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman Not sure what you mean in the first paragraph. What alternative science-based explanation do you mean, for example? 

No, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not claim knowledge of the nonexistence of god. I simply reject the positive theistic claim. The evidence is uncompelling, and the null hypothesis fails to be rejected.

I have no burden of proof. 
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe "What alternative science-based explanation do you mean, for example?" Certain functions are assigned to God: creation of the universe, creation of life, creation of man, creation of complex organs such as the eye, and generally the nature of things the way they are. Science studies these questions and can provide theories that explain the same phenomena.
I stopped writing before finishing the Santa Claus thought, sorry... the idea was the alternative explanation to Santa Claus would be parents putting presents under the tree. More than that, I'd argue I KNOW my parents put presents under the tree, because they told me they did. Even if technically the existence of Santa Claus may be unknowable, I have evidence to justify the truth of my belief that Santa Claus does not exist. I have at least some knowledge; more than that, I have sufficient evidence to confidently claim that I KNOW Santa doesn't exist.

"I have no burden of proof. "
It's not about shifting the burden of proof. It's about understanding what is knowledge and how it relates to religious claims. If a religious claim is empirical, and many are, it can be known. More than that, I'd argue that's what you would do, and that is what would make you gnostic. 

I wanted to dissect gnosticism using the relationship between current scientific knowledge, scientific truth, and relate it to scientific gnosticism. Take the theory of gravity. In the past hundred years, in part thanks to Einstein, our understanding of the concept has deepened. Is it conceivable that we do not have full knowledge of gravity. Is it conceivable, that what we describe as gravity is something else entirely that we have not conceived of yet?  Despite all this, would say that you know gravity - that you're gnostic as it relates to gravity. Even though gravity itself may not be true, we talk about it as if it were fact due to overwhelming evidence. In the strictest sense of the word, would you argue that you know that gravity is knowable?If not, would you call yourself agnostic about gravity? 

Now going back to gnosticism as it relates to a Christian God in particular. Christian God makes a lot of claims, including about the observable universe: "Eve was created from Adam's rib" or Noah's arc, and explanation of bio-diversity. I'd argue we CAN talk about gnosticism as it relates to observable evidence that relates to Gods. I think I can correctly claim gnosticism as it relates to how the first woman was supposedly made. 

Maybe i should have specified my question more: after this explanation, would you characterize yourself as a gnostic atheist, where God is the God as described in the Book of Genesis? 

If you insist on calling yourself agnostic, can you elaborate what meaning you put into it - how can you to claim to not KNOW whether the first woman was made from man's rib, yet be gnostic about gravity? 
0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman I see. Thank you for your detailed reply. 

Lenny, is that you? Probably not.

I agree with most everything you say. Many positive claims made in the Bible can be empirically investigated, and appear to be refuted. But I need to distinguish between specific claims in the Bible and the God claim itself. I would claim to know that the first woman was not made from the rib of man (we have an alternate theory that is not a fairy tale), but God claims are not so easy to falsify. Indeed, the God claim is a supernatural one. I do not see how any supernatural claim can be empirical, by definition, it would then NOT be supernatural. How does one investigate the supernatural? If measurable, then is it not natural? So then how does one disprove that the supernatural exists? We cannot say that a lack of evidence provides this proof, for that is (basically) the logical fallacy of ignorance.

I cannot claim to be gnostic about my atheism because I have not seen proof that demonstrates god(s) do(es) NOT exist. God could exist but be not causally linked to our Universe, for example (this would not be the Christian god, of course). No possible way to disprove the existence of a general God.

Therefore, this is why I maintain that non-existence is the null hypothesis - it can never be proven, it is assumed true until such time as sufficient, compelling evidence is forthcoming and we reject it.

Does this answer your question? If not, tell me what I am missing. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. 
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe I'm not Lenny. Who's Lenny? Haha
I fully understand your reasoning, and I've come to similar conclusions (unsurprisingly, having a scientific background as well). Prior to submitting this post I never thought critically about the distinction between atheism and agnosticism, and confidently called my self agnostic atheist. Listening to David Mitchell, with whom I largely agree, I took a closer look at what he was protesting against. A little more study into agnosticism and atheism (link) and distinction between belief and knowledge (link) led me to the realization that rational people too hastily opt to call themselves agnostic, when in fact they do claim to know and do talk about evidence to justify their belief.

"But I need to distinguish between specific claims in the Bible and the God claim itself."
It's important to agree on what God is under discussion and state your position accordingly. When arguing with Christians, the fact that the God in question is from the Book of Genesis often remains implicit. You would be gnostic about Christian God, and it would be inaccurate to say that you were agnostic atheist in that discussion.

I've never seen any atheist shift their gnosticism, and would not have done it myself before. I think I might be onto something new here...

"God could exist but be not causally linked to our Universe"
These kinds of philosophical Gods are rarely seriously discussed. More problematic would be be Gods that are linked to the universe only through subjective links to individuals believing in them. In that case, the empirical evidence would exist, but it would only be available to the believer(s). You could try to get empirical evidence of the God, using believers as a proxy, but ultimately I think it would be accurate to call yourself agnostic in this very special case.

"Does this answer your question?"
You have not clearly answered my question: "would you characterize yourself as a gnostic atheist, where God is the God as described in the Book of Genesis." Your response, "I see" indicates thoughtful deliberation, but not necessarily agreement.

"No possible way to disprove the existence of a general God."
Agreed. I see you justify your agnostic position, but I question how often you actually discuss a God that is completely outside our universe. There could be, but what's the point of discussing it? Even the Deist God you discussed with 5cats has interacted with our universe by setting up the initial state. Depending on what this Deist God set up - was it just the Big Bang, was it creating life out of non-life, was it the initial state as described in the Bible - you could range from agnostic, to somewhat gnostic, to gnostic. 

Why is the distinction between "Christian God gnostic atheist" and "generalized god agnostic atheist" important? 
It helps strengthen the atheist's position. As agnostic, all you can really do is show that the theist's evidence would not justify their God. As gnostic, you would be able to discuss empirical evidence that questions the particular God's empirical claims - that's the type of conversation that usually takes place anyway. 
Ultimately, I think it would help the dialogue between atheists and theists, by reducing confusion. 

I'd like my views challenged to develop them. 
0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman Yes, I again agree with most of this. The items I would clarify:

"You would be gnostic about Christian God, and it would be inaccurate to say that you were agnostic atheist in that discussion."

In principle, but the problem is that no-one agrees on what the Christian God means. Even within Roman Catholicism, every person interprets it differently. One person might believe in a literal understanding of the bible, but most pick and choose what to take as literal (to suit their interests). Hence, I agree I could call myself gnostic in specific definitions for God, but not in general.

"You could try to get empirical evidence of the God, using believers as a proxy, but ultimately I think it would be accurate to call yourself agnostic in this very special case."

Agree. The empirical evidence would, however, be anecdotal and third person. I struggle to see how such evidence could be measurable on any standard deemed scientific.

"would you characterize yourself as a gnostic atheist, where God is the God as described in the Book of Genesis."

Yes. The literal events depicted in Genesis are not supported by data. Moreover, the data and models suggest "creation" did not proceed this way. If this God's existence required the genesis story to be literally true, then evidence exists to prove the non-existence of this God.

"I see you justify your agnostic position, but I question how often you actually discuss a God that is completely outside our universe."

Not often, really. My main point here was to emphasize my caution in these arguments, because I should not have to prove the non-existence of something in the first place.

"Ultimately, I think it would help the dialogue between atheists and theists, by reducing confusion."

Yes, quite possibly. But I have no control over this. I am forced to adhere to the rules of logical inference and evidence. I cannot truthfully call myself gnostic to the general God claim, because it is impossible to demonstrate it in general. For specific God claims it can be possible. If this makes my position weaker then that is the way it is. The theist has a worse job, they must justify perhaps the greatest claim one can make: the existence of an infinite being. I do not envy their position.

I think the largest errors committed by theists in such conversations are basic logical mistakes. I want to help teach theists the following:

1. If they care whether the things that they believe are actually true, then those beliefs require evidence.

2. There are reliable (i.e., more often leads to truth) forms of evidence and unreliable forms.

3. If unreliable existence exists, then it is irrational to believe the claim.

Until theists understand/buy this, no other discussion is useful. Empirical evidence that contradicts their God will be met with: "but I feel it in my heart." And this is a stalemate position unless #1-3 above are established. Ultimately, empirical conversations reduce to this "feeling" statement, in one form or another, once you demonstrate that their evidence doesn't hold any logical water.

Finally, I often discover that my #1 is false. Many theists DON'T care that the things they believe are actually true. They believe things for other reasons: e.g., emotional security, coping mechanism. So in these cases empiricism is a dead end conversation. And no progress can be made. 

5Cats is on the fence. He cannot decide if he cares or not - I can say that often he WANTS to care, but encounters barriers. So it is worth sometimes engaging him. Monkwarrior, on the other hand, is completely gone - he doesn't care at all. So conversations with him are fruitless and only good for entertainment, IMO.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe Jeeze, the 6÷2(1+2) post has gone over 500 comments and is broken for me... I'll continue that discussion here... and will submit whatever we come up with in a new 6÷2(1+2) post :)
Also, I did want to continue the agnostic discussion as well: I wrote a long reply a week ago, but it got lost, because my account logged out. I never bothered to rewrite a reply, but I'd love to continue it later. It's nice having a rational discussion!

1) 6÷2(1+2) = 6÷2*(1+2) - is this step justified by written rules within mathematics, or is it an unwritten convention?
"Yes, you do not have a complete grasp of the rules. Buy a second-hand textbook or take a class."
Yes, I do not - It has been too long since I had an algebra class. My advanced math classes, such as multivariate calculus, modeling, and graduate level statistics didn't bother stating basic conventions. I didn't question basic foundations of mathematics - I simply assumed they were there. Now that I am looking into it, I have trouble finding a clear list of math rules/conventions relating to multiplication sign omission.

"The "(" is the Parentheses in PEMDAS. You compute arithmetic within them first,"
Ok, I completed this step
6÷2(1+2)=6÷2(3)...
"and when they no longer serve a purpose, you drop them."
6÷2(3) = 6÷23 OK, got it! What now?

We got to the problem I stated before:
"What are you doing? Do you really think that if I write: xyz, where x=1, y=2, and z=3 That I mean to write the number 123 instead of 6?"  
No, it would result in "123" which is different from "123". 123=1*2*3=6 and 123=1*10^2+2*10^1+3*10^0=123. This ambiguity could be resolved by additional rules. For example, a rule requiring to proceed xyz=(1)(2)(3). Additionally, you'd need a rule for implied multiplication when the multiplication sign is dropped between parentheses.

Response: Applying PEMDAS results in the expression "6÷23," which does not mean the same as 6÷23=6/23. Additional rules are required to resolve the ambiguity.

Additional rules are required to resolve the ambiguity.
I've looked through a dozen algebra/arithmetic textbooks and have not found clearly written, consistent rules relating to multiplication symbol omission. There does not appear to be a central authority on mathematics writing conventions. The closest thing I could find is encyclopedia of mathematics, which states: "in notations using letters the [multiplication] sign is, as a rule, omitted." - Many algebra books will state something like: x*y=xy or x(y+z)=xy+xz. Following these rules, a÷b(c+d) would be acceptable, but 6÷2(1+2) would not apply. Some algebra books used 2(1+2) likeness. This algebra book used it a lot, but it also stated (on page 48) that multiplication could be state as "xy" without resolving the 23=6 ambiguity. This was an exception - most algebra books will not omit the multiplication sign when dealing with numbers, except when parenthesis are used: (6÷2)(1+2).

2) In the context of physics, 6÷2*(1+2) = 1?
"In the context of physics, I would say that 6÷2*(1+2) = 9. The physics convention is usually reserved for units, or in-line symbolic equations, and uses a "/." "
I think we can resolve it thus:
- The rule in the style guide states: "In mathematical formulas this is the accepted order of operations:...". 6÷2*(1+2) is not a formula, so this order of operations does not apply.
- If no context is stated, the default context for 6÷2*(1+2) would be mathematics, which would yield 9.
- The use of units within an expression would indicate physics context and would be computed thus: 6m÷2s*(1+2)s = 1m/s^2. Without units, physicists would compute 6÷2*(1+2) = 9 per rules of mathematics.

A little tricky, confusing to people outside physics, but internally consistent! Although I understand dimensional analysis, I think it will just confuse IAB readers :P

I consider 2) resolved, although I'd appreciate further insights or if you rephrase it in clear, simple terms.

1) is tricky to resolve because there does not appear to be an authority on math conventions. I think it would be fair to limit the discussion to 2(1+2) only.
If we take encyclopedia of mathematics as an absolute authority and the only additional rule would be: "in notations using letters the [multiplication] sign is, as a rule, omitted" - would that, strictly speaking, result in 6÷2(1+2) undefined?
0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman I agree with most. Discrepancies below.

"6÷2(3) = 6÷23" OK, got it! What now?

As I said before: 6÷2(3) = 6÷2*3 = 3*3 = 9

The reason you get 6÷2*3 = 3*3 and not 6÷2*3 = 6÷6 is because you do the operations left-to-right. That's it! There is nothing else here to learn.
 
"Additional rules are required to resolve the ambiguity."

Additional rule: do the operations left-to-right. No more ambiguity.

"- The use of units within an expression would indicate physics context and would be computed thus: 6m÷2s*(1+2)s = 1m/s^2. Without units, physicists would compute 6÷2*(1+2) = 9 per rules of mathematics."

I guess so, but we would never really do "6m÷2s*(1+2)s = 1m/s^2" like that, so it is a bad example, but the idea it is meant to illustrate is correct. But yes, "6÷2*(1+2) = 9 per rules of mathematics."

"1) is tricky to resolve because there does not appear to be an authority on math conventions. I think it would be fair to limit the discussion to 2(1+2) only."

Yes, it can be tricky since the rules can also change. This is evident especially across generations.

"If we take encyclopedia of mathematics as an absolute authority and the only additional rule would be: "in notations using letters the [multiplication] sign is, as a rule, omitted" - would that, strictly speaking, result in 6÷2(1+2) undefined?"

Yes, well, I guess so. Of course, if this encyclopedia is the ultimate authority then just about everything would be undefined - I do not see an explanation of PEMDAS on it at all!

I one uses a truncated set of PEMDAS rules and omits the "read from left to right" addition, then the form 6÷2(1+2) is undefined. Maybe it was precisely this way in years long past. But the easy fix is just to include this left-to-right part and now the ambiguity erases...so it looks like they did.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe Let's simplify the issue even further from 2(1+2) to just 2(3). We can resolve this thing if we show 2(3) = 2*3. That's it.
PEMDAS alone is insufficient to do 2(3) = 2*3. It requires an additional rule for interpreting the omitted multiplication sign.

Unfortunately, this operational definition is difficult to find in writing. From what I read, the multiplication sign is conventionally omitted when letters are involved: xy, 2x, x(y+z). And these rules are written down and defined as such. I couldn't find a rule for omitting multiplication sign when only numbers are involved.

Maybe the convention for letters can be used to argue for numbers?
2x = 2*x. Let x=3.
2x = 2(3) = 2*x = 2*(3)
Thus, 2(3)=2*3

What are your thoughts on wiki order of operations note
6÷2x is (6÷2)x or 6÷(2x). It looks like the wiki is plain wrong. We addressed the physics style already. The other source is mathematics for engineers. The algebra textbook refutes their point. 

I know I'm picking on a minor point, but it's the key to the confusion. I wouldn't object, if the problem read 6÷2*(1+2). PEMDAS clearly defines it as 9. 

0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman Oh, I guess I did not realize that was the sticking point for you. No, the "() = *" convention is not part of the PEMDAS rules - I would consider it subordinate to them. 

Look at it this way, PEMDAS also does not contain the rules for cardinality of the integers, but we use it when evaluating expressions involving PEMDAS. In other words, PEMDAS presupposes existing rules - it is not entirely fundamental. Another example, PEMDAS does not include the rule that 5/0 = undefined. But we would use this when solving using PEMDAS.

I argue that PEMDAS does not need to include "()=*" because the use of parentheses is a separate convention for multiplication that PEMDAS assumes is understood. 

Yes, I think the wiki is not the whole story. This is the problem with wikis: they tend to reflect the (averaged) understanding of the majority, which is not always true or representative of the individuals who actually know.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe "Oh, I guess I did not realize that was the sticking point for you." It was from the very beginning. Once we get to  6÷2*(1+2), the answer is clear. The question has always been the justification for: 6÷[2*(1+2)] ≠ 6÷2(1+2) = 6÷2*(1+2). 

"In other words, PEMDAS presupposes existing rules - it is not entirely fundamental." Of course. So, I have been looking into rules that address the omitted multiplication sign to shed light into 2(3)=2*3.

So far, the written rules I found indicate that omission of the multiplication sign is conventional with letters only, and that parenthesis should be used to reduce ambiguity.

"Another example, PEMDAS does not include the rule that 5/0 = undefined." These rules are written and defined, and can be referenced. There are no rules that define omitting multiplication sign when no variables are involved.

I see 2 issues
1) I'm looking for a justification for 2(3)=2*3 from other rules - rules that apply to variables, for example. 

2) We need to refute 6 / 2(3) = 6 / (2*3) ... I'd like to see written rules justify that it's wrong. 

2(3)=2*3 certainly looks like it would make sense, but looks can be deceiving. Doesn't ab/ac look like it implies (ab)/(ac)=b/c, when it's actually ab/ac=bc? Let a=2, b=3, c=3, and we have our problem! 

0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman

I do not.

"1) I'm looking for a justification for 2(3)=2*3 from other rules - rules that apply to variables, for example."

I found this in about 30 seconds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property

"2) We need to refute 6 / 2(3) = 6 / (2*3) ... I'd like to see written rules justify that it's wrong."

I found this in about 30 seconds.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html

"2(3)=2*3 certainly looks like it would make sense, but looks can be deceiving. Doesn't ab/ac look like it implies (ab)/(ac)=b/c, when it's actually ab/ac=bc? Let a=2, b=3, c=3, and we have our problem!"

No, ab/ac does not look like it implies (ab)/(ac) to me. 

ab/ac=a*b/a*c=2*3/2*3=6/2*3=3*3=9=bc.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe
It's back to the original argument - we've been here before! I claim that 6÷2(1+2) is ambiguous, because the multiplication sign SHOULD NOT be omitted when numbers are used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_property
- Yes, I know! Notice how the multiplication sign was only omitted with variables, and never with numbers?

https://www.mathsisfun.com/operation-order-pemdas.html
- Exactly! That's how it SHOULD be written when numbers are used: 6÷2×(1+2).

I anything, your 1 minute search confirmed my point! Once again, I challenge you to find a written rule that justifies omission of the multiplication sign when ONLY numbers are used. Based on my research, I'm sure you'll fail.

"No, ab/ac does not look like it implies (ab)/(ac) to me." Good. Can you see how it could be confusing? Have you never encountered situations with implied multiplication: ab/ac=b/c?

Going back to context argument:
And if this were physics context where the expression is the ratio of  two areas, then the same notation would mean ab/ac = b/c. a = 2m, b=3m, c=3m. ab/ac=a*b/a*c=2m*3m/2m*3m=6/2*3=1=b/c  Would that formula be inaccurate? 

How do you know our 6÷2(1+2) was not taken as a middle step in a physics calculation?
I realize this is arguing for 6÷2*(1+2) = 1... The solution, i guess, would be 2m*3m/2m*3m=6/(2*3)
The parenthesis MUST be present to avoid ambiguity, despite physics context. Similarly, my claim is that the multiplication sign MUST be present in the 6÷2(1+2) expression to avoid ambiguity. 
0
Reply
Male 717
boredhuman I believe you may now be acting intentionally obtuse, and I am stopping this correspondence after this reply. The time spent explaining this and directing you has exceeded my interest.

from my linked source:
"Then go from left to right doing any "A" or "S" as you find them."

This does not prove your point. You ask for a written rule, and I found one. PEMDAS unambiguously defines the order of operations. If you are still unable to see this, then take a pre-algebra course. 

multiplication sign SHOULD NOT be omitted when numbers are used.

Find me a rule that says exactly what is written above. I am looking at a pre-algebra textbook that has () with numbers. This is not a secret. If you really wanted to find it I bet you could.

"How do you know our 6÷2(1+2) was not taken as a middle step in a physics calculation? "

How do you know it was?

"the parenthesis MUST be present to avoid ambiguity"

Nope. PEMDAS, which includes: "Then go from left to right doing any "A" or "S" as you find them." Actually read the link.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
BuckeyeJoe "The time spent explaining this and directing you has exceeded my interest." The 6÷2(1+2) problem is of no particular interest in itself. It's simply a concrete example to talk about knowledge/belief AND an excuse to engage in intellectual debate. I don't think you have been particularly effective in debating in this reply. Am i missing something, or is the 6÷2(1+2) problem just too self-evident and boring for you?

"I believe you may now be acting intentionally obtuse,"
I don't understand what change you perceive. From the very beginning I've stated that there is no question that 6÷2*(1+2)=9. Later, I stated that I believe AND know that 6÷2(1+2)=9, but I am not completely gnostic about it. None of it changed, although I was hoping this conversation would lead me to a more informed, more gnostic position.

I have been "intentionally obtuse" from the very beginning, intentionally looking for any technicality or exception. Yes, the (physics) context argument is a technicality. Yes, the requirement of written rule for multiplication sign is an exception.

I was disappointed by your reply. Just as I feel we were arriving to clarification of my concerns, you went back to a superficial approach to the problem.
"This does not prove your point. You ask for a written rule, and I found one." We've been over this:
1) PEMDAS alone is insufficient. I've asked for a written rule that supplements PEMDAS to interpret "2(".
2) It's not my burden to prove the null hypothesis "6÷2(1+2) is ambiguous."

"Find me a rule that says exactly what is written above." It was my claim - my interpretation - of how things are based on the mathematics encyclopedia and a number of different algebra and arithmetic books. My larger point is that the omission of the multiplication sign applied to numbers is not clearly written.

"I am looking at a pre-algebra textbook that has () with numbers." I linked this textbook that showed it and addressed it in the broken iab thread. Yes, some notebooks use it; most textbooks, I read, consistently write the multiplication sign when applied to numbers.

"How do you know it was?" I don't know. If we both don't know, and there is a possibility that it could be a middle step in physics context, then 6÷2*(1+2)=1, making even 6÷2*(1+2) ambiguous. To avoid this ambiguity the physics middle step should be written as 6÷[2*(1+2)]=1. The point here was to show how lazy writing could lead to ambiguity. In physics,  6÷2*(1+2) is lazy, and 6÷2(1+2) is lazy in mathematics and shouldn't be written as such.

"If you are still unable to see this, then take a pre-algebra course." I've tried to ignore your jabs at my credentials, because I feel it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. This discussion is philosophical in nature, trying to establish how mathematical rules are justified as applied to our 6÷2(1+2) problem. Nevertheless, let me assure you that I do have a solid mathematics and science foundation: I did not pursue mathematics past multivariate calculus and model building, but I did have graduate coursework in psychology, including applied multivariate regression/correlation. Achieving perfect general GRE math score isn't a big deal, but at least it shows I have the basics down.
"Actually read the link" I can continue to ignore your demeaning stabs, if you wish, or I could address them. Let me assure you, that I read your links. As I indicated in my reply, they missed the point. 

"I am stopping this correspondence after this reply"
Let me try to bring it to the agnosticism/atheism discussion, which has been on the back of my mind throughout the entire 6÷2(1+2) correspondence.

I'd describe our conflict as it relates to the 6÷2(1+2) problem as a gnostic theist arguing with an agnostic theist. We both believe in the definite truth of mathematics, but I don't know it for sure, as indicated by 6÷2(1+2) evidence. A position that mathematics in general could be interpreted any way you feel like (as is the position monkwarrior appears to have) would be analogous to the agnostic atheist position. 
Your discussion of the null-hypothesis is relevant in both. Your deeper knowledge of the unwritten mathematical conventions would be analogous to a Christian's familiarity with the Bible and knowing the right interpretation of the contradicting passages... There are many parallels. 
I've insisted on arguing 6÷2(1+2) to clarify the distinction between gnostic and agnostic. You KNOW that 6÷2(1+2)=6÷2*(1+2)=9. I do believe it is the case, but am not completely sure. Is the difference my lack knowledge or is it our subjective interpretation of the same knowledge? You appear to say that PEMDAS shows 6÷2(1+2)=9; I also know PEMDAS, and yet it is insufficient to me. However, you additionally have a vastly better understanding of other mathematics rules (both written and unwritten), which may shape your interpretation of PEMDAS that i do not share... anyway I'm rambling now, but would this discussion be more to your liking? 
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe Antiquated? They conducted the Non-locality experiments a decade ago, they worked, even though it wasn't possible under current understandings. It has been repeated 2 more times iirc, each one working exactly as it shouldn't...
Gravity waves were observed, what, 2 years ago? Last year? Harsh!

The notion that information passes between objects (photons) moving at the speed of light away from each other means something that moves MUCH faster than light is used to transfer that information. Even 'gravity waves' for tiny elements isn't the answer since gravity doesn't work in the sub-atomic scale in the same way as the star-size scale.

Yes, they know the what and can predict the how, but the why of gravity remains (currently) unknown. As do lots of things, that's why they still do research! The science is not settled :-)

Life exists, that proves God for me. All life comes from life, there is nothing to suggest it was an accident except a theory. If the theory for 'accidental creation' is valid? So is the one for 'guided creation' :->

Note that this doesn't mean God is a guy with a white beard sitting on a thrown passing judgement on humans... we Deists don't claim to know exactly what God is, only that he exists. Just like... gravity!


-1
Reply
Male 717
5cats Bullshit. How dare you pretend to know what you're talking about.

Non-locality? Are you talking about the EPR paradox? That has fucking nothing to do with gravity or electromagnetism. It has to do with entangled quantum spin-states. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're not even in the right ballpark.

So don't you dare drop this bullshit on me, punk, I actually know what I'm talking about. I will call you out on your crap immediately and without mercy. 

Don't misinterpret this: I am saying you are exactly wrong. 

The world does not need more bullshit from people who pretend to know what they are talking about.

"Yes, they know the what and can predict the how, but the why of gravity remains (currently) unknown. As do lots of things, that's why they still do research! The science is not settled :-)"

You are simply wrong. We do know why gravity works. That's what a successful theory means. We can describe what it does, how it does it, and why it does it. 

Unless you understand general relativity, which you don't, you are in no position to claim what it is or is not. 

I got news for ya, NOTHING works at the sub-atomic scale in the same way that it does at macroscopic scales. This is why we have quantum mechanics.

"Life exists, that proves God for me. All life comes from life."

Yeah, whatever man. This is a tired argument. "All life comes from life" is just false. We have made organic matter from inorganic matter. So you are wrong. Life CAN come from non-life.

But even if I give you that one, this still fails.

Life comes from life - assume this is true. So God is alive. Where did god come from?

You have two options:

5Cats#1: Oh no, wait, you see, this logic doesn't apply to God himself. Just everything else. 

Well if it doesn't apply to God, then your statement "All life comes from life" is false. Your argument logically fails.

5Cats#2: No no, you see, God was his OWN creator. So it works.

Oh I get it. So life can create itself? Then we don't need God to do it.

5Cats#desperate: But, we DO need God because I like that idea.

Yeah, tough shit. There is nothing to suggest it was an accident except a theory, and there is nothing to suggest it was intentional except bald-ass assertions without evidence or incorrect arguments.

Theory > bald-ass assertions without evidence

Theory > incorrectly structured arguments.

BuckeyeJoe > 5Cats.

Go ahead, bring more science bullshit. I love correcting your ass and setting you straight. 

Seriously, maybe you can one-up the scientist. Keep trying. I need something to do while I wait for my simulations to finish each day. 




1
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe Yes, spin states, communicated at faster-than-light speeds via an unknown mechanism which you suggested was gravity waves... YES. SO? That is my point.

Blah blah, attacks, posturing, "I'm better than you" blah...

No. No life has ever been made from inorganic matter. Something that SEEMED to react to stimulus, sort of, in highly controlled environments? Maybe: but the jury is still out if that constitutes 'life' or is just chemical reactions... no links from you? That says all I need to hear...

Oh! Then you MAKE SHIT UP and claim I'm saying it? Well, you haven't changed a bit. Too bad for you.

Riddle me this big boy: Where did the Big Bang come from? Please be specific AND explain to me how God could not possibly have come from the exact same place.
You have nothing without the BB, so unless you can prove how the BB came to exist (you cannot btw, but go ahead and try!) then how can you claim God cannot exist? You have nothing but faith to explain THIS universe's existence.

You're a scientist? Well La-De-Dah! You aren't much of a thinker given your anger-filled scree above... and much less a human being... You>me? you even need to say that? how sad it must be to be you. You have my pity.
0
Reply
Male 717
5cats Lol, there is no gauge theory associated with spin states. So even though the EPR paradox is strange to us, there is no requirement within the understood framework of physics that it would obey lorentz invariance.

I know you are trying to shift the conversation to now say:

"Okay, well, I cannot argue against the fact that we understand gravity and electromagnetism, but we don't understand non-locality....so there."

Yes we do understand non-locality. This is what the EPR effect provides us. It may seem counter-intuitive, and it is, but that is how the Universe seems to behave.

No no, you misunderstand the physics. Spin-states are not communicated via gravity waves. Again: gravity has nothing to do with this. You are changing conversations and trying to link two disparate phenomena because you don't understand either.

There is no "communication" between the spin-states; information cannot be passed this way between observers to produce superluminal communications methods. 

Again, I am not making the claim that no gods exist. That is the null hypothesis. I do not have to prove God DIDN'T "come from the big bang (that's a new one to me, btw)," if you think God DID, then you have to provide evidence.

You are committing #1 from several posts ago, and trying to shift the burden of proof.

Where did the big bang come from? We don't know. In fact, the laws of physics (in current form) break down when the Universe was 10^(-43) seconds old.

You don't get to say: well if you don't know, then obviously GOD.

That is an argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy.

You once again underline MY (original) point that theist beliefs are founded on irrationality. 

BTW, organic compounds have been made from inorganic material. Literally, life was made from non-life. No, they did not make fucking elephants from non-organic material, which is probably where you will move the goal-posts next. Another logical fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 42,934
BuckeyeJoe The Clock In The Box yes? They've done it in real life now. It proves that the photons DO communicate even though they're moving away from each other at the speed of light. Proves it, not just 'in theory' as the CitB was originally.

(Oversimplified:) If you send the photons out, in opposite directions, one is 'up' and the other is 'down' correct? Randomly. Once you measure one, the other will be the opposite every single time, because it was all along.
But if you pass one stream through a field to make them ALL 'up'? Then measure the other stream further away? Those there will ALL be 'down' and not random at all.

That is the point: how does information get passed from the two photons at a speed faster than light using a medium no one can find?

If you are talking about something else? Then fine, but I'm talking about this.
0
Reply
Male 717
5cats Right, okay, I see the issue now. You are describing some of this properly, but there is one salient conceptual error, although it is subtle (but important). This may help.

I have two boxes, one has a red ball inside, the other a green ball. You take one box at random and travel a million miles away. I take the other box.

You open your box, and you instantaneously KNOW which color ball I have. Even though I am separated from you by a million miles!

But this doesn't help us. I still don't know what color I have until I open the box. Moreover, you can't USE this information to send me a signal faster than the speed of light.

And the balls did not communicate with each other. Photons do not either. There is no evidence that entangled spin states somehow "communicate" with each other. Communication means sending information (energy).

Rather, entangled spin-states stay entangled even if causally separated. That is interesting, for sure. It seems bizarre. So bizarre in fact that sometimes people label it with something more familiar, such as "communication." But like I said before, there is no gauge theory for spin, so it is okay that this breaks Lorentz invariance. What that means is: spins behaving this way does not somehow BREAK physics. We have known for some time that there are certain aspects of physics (or the Universe) that do this strange things.

For example. Imagine a straight ocean wave hits the shoreline on a straight beach. Suppose the wave is a bit angled relative to the shoreline, such that the wave meets the sand on one end of the beach first, and then as the rest of the wave comes in, the point where the wave contacts the sand moves down the beach to the other end. You got a mental picture? Now check this out.

If that angle is very small, if the wave is ALMOST parallel to the beach, then the point of contact can move faster than the speed of light! Indeed, if the angle is zero (wave exactly parallel to shore) then the speed is infinite (sorta).

This is an example of what we call the "phase" of a wave. BTW.

Just like in the photon case, we cannot use this faster than light behavior to send messages at speeds faster than light. Indeed, the beach itself is not "communicating" this way. We have known about these things for a long time. Mundane examples like phase and ocean waves just aren't sexy like photons and quantum mechanics, so the public didn't really care.

Things can have aspects that are faster than the speed of light. What Einstein said was that you can't, effectively, break this barrier if you want to send information (energy). But photon spins don't, so it's okay.

Again, there is no evidence that the photons communicate. Indeed, no energy transfer is detected. Instead, spin-states can be non-locally coupled. It is strange. 
0
Reply
Male 6,496
12 minutes. What the shit? I'm not going to watch all this. Holy shit, he's really handsome. Watches the whole thing.

"You either believe or you do not believe."

I don't buy into that hard line. Sometimes I don't believe in God and other times, like when I am in a plane that is violently being shaken by turbulence, I'm praying for the children on the plane to live. Yes, I try to guilt God into letting me live by pointing out the innocent children on the plane.

I'm an agnostic atheist. What I absolutely don't believe in is organized religion. A good story is supposed to transport you to a different world. You feel like that world exists. Hearing the stories week after week only solidifies the illusion. You could do that with any book.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 yet no other book is the living word like God's word is.
0
Reply
Male 1,416
monkwarrior Which book?  Also, show me a single word ever written by any god
0
Reply
Male 11,554
punko The Holy Bible.  Go study your creator's words.
0
Reply
Male 1,416
monkwarrior.  Ah, so the other religions holy books don't count?  Only the books you treasure are the right ones?

 You feel that these books were written by a supernatural deity?  Get a grip sunshine, men wrote those words.  Every word came from the brain of a human.  Most were written several hundred years after the events, based on oral traditions and that's just the New Testament.   Then a group of men in Italy decided that some of these stories don't count, and they shouldn't be included in the approved bundle of stories.

Now humans decide which stories are "allegory" and which are literal (interpretation).  There are disagreements, of course, because humans are humans and the control of dogma is the control of the flock.  And control means power, which humans are addicted to.

The bible is a book of oral stories head by and written down by men. Then edited by other men.  Then curated by men, so only the 'right' stories are told.  Then translated, altered, reinterpreted, and modernized.   There is nothing original left.

Any criticism is waved away as "you don't understand" or "you're only looking at the surface'.

You you believe the story of the ark is literally correct?  Or is it figuratively correct?  Was the entire world flooded or not ?  Is this a story that is allegory or is it factual?

I absolutely believe that the bible is important to a lot of folks.  I honestly feel that it provides a benefit to many.

But it is in no way more correct than all the other religious texts, stories, beliefs, or  dogmas that have existed from the dawn of time.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
punko you can study many books of many religions, i've done that myself, but ultimately all of the information you need to know is contained in the Holy Bible.
'
get a grip buttercup
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Another claim without providing evidence. Irrational.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe Oh there's plenty of evidence, the problem is you have moved the goalposts on evidence, to reject what you don't like or misunderstand.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior You simply reject the definitions of evidence because they do not suit your purposes. You define evidence to be: what I think is true. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe  Your baseless claims don't hide the fact you're moving the goalposts on evidence because you dislike what you don't understand.  It's weak if you ask me.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior  You define evidence to be: what I think is true. The rest of us do not.

Again with the projections - you are moving the goal posts.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe provide the place where i've defined that.  Oh sorry you won't be able to, because the projections are all your own, son.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior You just did! LOL. Just scroll up this page. It's right there staring you in the face. You said:

"What I think is true is the only evidence I need."

What is wrong with your brain?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe clutching at straws?  As anyone can ctrl+f, plug in your quote and see: 1 match (your post above ^)
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior lol, made you look, buttercup.

Now ctrl+f my dick in yo mouth bitch.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along buttercup, being a troll is sinking you.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior "sinking?" Trolls live under bridges not on water.

Are you high right now? 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I have reduced you to three words. 

God, this is FUN!
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along snowflake, your trolling is too juvenile to be successful.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I will.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe then run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup troll
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior What are you talking about? Every religion has a holy book that is "the living word of God". And most of them contradict each other.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Sorry, there is a root lesson among all religions that is pointing them to love one another, as Christ commanded.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior I'm calling bullshit again. First of all, a lot of religions say they are the one and only true religion. And second what are you doing throwing Christ into the equation?  A huge chunk of the world's religions don't even believe in Christ.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Say as much profanity as you want, it's your life, your choice, and your freedom.  Yet the true religion is love, and Christ has been declared the king of humankind, who still today guides many people to God.  

Your petty and exclusive understanding of religion is definitely a weakness in your ability to discuss or debate on this topic.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior I'm petty? I have an exclusive understanding of religion? You are the one saying yours is the only true religion and that Christ is the king of human kind, when half the worlds religions don't even believe in him. That's about as exclusive and unloving as you can get. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 You've employed division with religions, when there is only one true religion:  love
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior No, you employed division with religions, when talking about all religions you ruined a wonder statement about love being the one true religion, by including Christ in the mix.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Just because you reject the shining star of humankind, who brings salvation to this world, doesn't mean He is not true.  it simply means you reject Him, as many in this day and age hate Him without cause (as He was hated when he lived).  Your reaction goes on to prove His word.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior That is your religion. Your faith. In a conversation about all the worlds religions it is you who is being narrow minded by saying yours is the one true religion. If I had this conversation with someone else from another religion, they would also come from a stance that theirs is the one true religion. That is the biggest problem I have with organized religions. They all believe they are the one true religion, which makes it hard for me to believe any of them. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God. My ex's mom is a recovering Christian. She has said on multiple occasions that I am a very spiritual person. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 Sorry, you're the one being narrow minded by putting words where there is none, out of your poor understanding of scripture and faith, along with your petty and exclusive take on religion that you still don't understand but think you do.
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior Whatever. You lost this one.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 No doubt you would have to claim that, since after all, as I've noted many times through this thread: your poor understanding of things you reject only hurts you.  Better luck next time.  Try building on a solid foundation
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior no doubt your derp is derp, one day please save us from your derp
0
Reply
Male 11,554
rumham It's your vortex, tell us of how it afflcits you o'flotyham.
0
Reply
Male 5,637
0
Reply
Male 11,554
0
Reply
Male 6,496
monkwarrior You stopped debating because you know you lost the argument. I'm surprised you didn't pull your old standby of deleting the thread. 
0
Reply
Male 11,554
markust123 newsflash, there was no argument, you were the one who was arguing over the things you don't understand, i was simply trying to point out how you can know what others know too.  But clearly you don't want to know, and now you're upset the 'win' in your mind is void.
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior newsflash : Derp
0
Reply
Male 11,554
rumham Still struggling with your vortex huh?
0
Reply
Male 5,637
0
Reply
Male 11,554
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior buttercup?
0
Reply
Male 11,554
0
Reply
Male 5,637
monkwarrior sad dunning sad boy son buttercup
0
Reply
Male 11,554
rumham there there, float along o'flotyham
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior derpderp fucktard. wakie wakie.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along buttercup
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior nothing you gots.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior I will.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe then run along snowflake.
0
Reply
Male 717
monkwarrior Naa, gonna stay.
0
Reply
Male 11,554
BuckeyeJoe suit yourself buttercup troll
0
Reply
Male 1,416
So what is the term for those that do not care if there are gods or not ?  I see no difference between monotheist and polytheists - whether you believe in one or many is irrelevant, its still theism.
0
Reply
Male 1,030
punko "Apatheism is an attitude that the very question of whether or not deities exist is not relevant or meaningful in life."
Does that sound about right?
0
Reply
Male 1,416
boredhuman on point  +1 internets to you

0
Reply
Male 9,188
Argh WE DON'T LIKE NUANCE HERE!  Just kidding I like nuance!
0
Reply