RolePlayGateway™

[Fallacy]

I thoroughly love talking about life, being, knowledge, etc...I like to think that thoughts like these are what bring poetry about. Am I wrong?

But I keep seeing errors that irk me, so I think I'm gonna be a reference guide.

Categories:
Theism
Atheism
Agnosticism

Actually, that's false. Agnosticism is not a third category.

All agnostics are either theists, or atheists. You either believe something to be true, or you don't.

To put it in other terms, atheism and theism concern belief, and agnosticism concerns knowledge.

Theism = I believe in a god/I believe a god exists
Atheism = I don't believe in a god/I believe no gods exist
Agnosticism = I can not know for sure whether any gods exist or not

Moving along. Many times I've heard said there's no proof of god(s), but I think that should be qualified. Empirically (as of now). But you cannot prove that he doesn't. Now, epistemologically, the burden of proof cannot be on anyone to prove a negative. However, too many times I've read "I'm logical" and quite frankly, you're using the term incorrectly. Logic doesn't stand on either side. It is an objective study of arguments.

Logically, you can't say "I believe in god because you can't prove there is none." Logically, you also cannot say "I don't believe in god because you can't prove there is one." Because both of those fall under the same category. Informal fallacies, appeals to ignorance.

I agree with this, although I think it is possible to prove that specific gods don't exist.

To your point about two sides to the same coin: actually, yes, they are two sides to the same coin, but science still is the antithesis of religion, at least in my opinion. Religion requires you to take something on faith. Science learns things through empirical evidence, logic, etc. Scientists can still be religious, but I think they should acknowledge the stark contrast between science and religion.

That's also false. To pit the existence of god vs. science is a categorical error. Science is the discussion ground on which the debate is conducted. Logic is a science. "God v. Science" is also a logical fallacy. Begging the question. Science is the discipline of experimentation (and some other things, I'll edit this when I get home). You can't say "1+1=2" is wrong. It's self evident. That's science. God is an ultimate personified being (postulated), not a discipline; much the same way science isn't an ultimate personified being. Moreover, the two are not mutually exclusive.

It seems to me that he was talking about religion, not God, in his post, so you're actually the one committing a fallacy (straw man).

[Lukisod]

How I see it is that although you can't disprove the God, you can observe how everything else in the universe acts without the need for a God. So the practical side is, why believe there is a God if one is not needed to explain how things work? No one these days believes that Zeus throws lightning bolts anymore, because we now have an understanding of how lightning works. We understand that humans came about through an evolutionary process so why do we need the tale of Adam and Eve? There are plenty of things we don't know about the universe and how it works but so far we've proven that given enough time and intelligent people, we can delve into the inner workings of just about anything. I'll be one of the first to admit we don't know how the universe started (pre-big bang). Does that automatically need to be attributed to a God? I think we'll work it out given the time and slowly, "God" will run out of places to hide.

Now that's just my worldview. Belief in God is alright by me. Adherence to religion is alright too. They are psychologically beneficial to certain people and often form strong communities of pleasant people. They can guide people to moral certainty and provide comfort in hard times. Just so long as your religion stops at my doorstep, I never have a problem with people.

[NightBlaze]

I am a Wiccan. Proud of it. I believe in a God and Goddess and Magick, and all that. Wicca is witchcraft. Witchcraft has nothing to do with the Devil. In fact, I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, so therefore, I do not believe in a Devil. I have always believed in Magick, and something more mystical than christian God.

About this whole debate: It doesn't have to end in flamming if people are civil and respectful and actually are patient.

[Aniihya]

Lukisod: Not every belief has a deity who needs worship and not every belief believes that deities are all-powerful. I can be a theist, find evolution to be fact, the theory of evolution to be very likely and be a transhumanist without it contradicting itself. It is more of a question: What theists think god is/gods are everything? I have gods as a simple guidance. It boosts morale and helps against depression, even if they are just your imagination. A person who is slightly delusional in a good way is more mentally stable than someone who isnt. An example for being a theist in a bad way is Anders Behring Breivik or Osama bin Laden. I wouldn't say I am delusional since it is a thing of perspective. As long as the question of divinity is uncertain, being delusional as a theist is uncertain. What harm have polytheists, weak/soft christians/muslims/jews done? With polytheists, we know that Romans have done many bad things but Romans are also the source of harmful ideologies in many ways. If you verbally attack a theist make sure that the sense they see their ideology in is harmful. No one likes fundies or fascists anyways.

[dealing with it]

A person who is slightly delusional in a good way is more mentally stable than someone who isnt. An example for being a theist in a bad way is Anders Behring Breivik or Osama bin Laden.

I agree that being delusional in a good way is better than being delusional in a bad way. That's basically true by definition. But why not avoid delusion altogether? For instance:

I wouldn't say I am delusional since it is a thing of perspective. As long as the question of divinity is uncertain, being delusional as a theist is uncertain.

Do you have to believe in anything when truth is uncertain? Wouldn't the best option be to be exactly as uncertain as the truth claim is? I know two-valued logic requires you to hold that something is true or false, but is it really that necessary to think like a computer?

[Aniihya]

If I didn't have an unconventional concept of gods, then I would be an apatheist, a discordian or an apathetic agnostic. There is my best explanation. Not everything goes a simple and direct way. For me, thinking around the corner got me far. I am not the type of person who thinks: "What I cant see, cant exist, not even in a parallel reality." I am more like: "By that logic, I didnt see the big bang so I dont have to believe in its existence. You are stupid. Like I would care anyways. How knows what [enter random philosophical or scientific area of expertise] paradox awaits us." Many will never understand what I talk about due to their inability to think around the corner. It is pure logic and skeptical logic at the same time. To make a conclusion, you shouldn't come with assumptions. I asked multiple questions (sometimes even hundreds or thousands) to come to a conclusion. Did the relativity theory come to be overnight? No. It was a matter of thinking around the corner and being open to every conclusion. Such progress took months or years. So I dont side with a particular assumption. I label it as uncertain until the evidence is sufficient. The god/gods question is probably the most tricky one, since neither side can prove anything. All that can be proven is that nearly all scriptures are hokey, but it doesn't answer the question: "Is there a/no god (or gods)?"

Since my position is neutral, I pick the stance that suits me best until a real and absolute result is found: I am a hard polytheist, more like an apathetic polyist henopolytheist (the belief that if there are gods, then gods are the same with just different names in cultures such a Allat, Ishtar, Astarte and Aphrodite being the same deity).

Under questions of the "Is there a god?" question:

If there was a god, would it be a slice of bacon with powers?
If gods dont exist, then is the universe infinite and continuous or did it come by random chance?

It isnt an impossible question such as:

What is the difference between a duck?
and
What is the square root of a negative numeral? (Seriously cubed root works but square root wouldn't on a negative number.)

[dealing with it]

YES, if you don't understand the Big Bang theory, you should be neutral toward it. If you personally don't have access to a "sufficient reason", taking the middle course between true and false is good. You should likewise have no opinion about complex theoretical physics unless you are very skilled at calculus; nor should you "take the side" of any other scientific theory you don't have the knowledge to properly defend (because you just gotta believe). Unless you are an engineer, you probably don't know how to build a bridge sturdy enough for cars, so please don't risk your life and the lives of others building a bridge; and, unless you are a trained pharmacist, you shouldn't be dispensing me my medication. Nobody needs to know everything: knowing your limits is important.

And one of these limits is that you do not know whether God or gods exist. You've admitted such yourself. Not only is it unknown to you, it is in principle unknowable. And besides, it is inconsistent of you both to know and not to know the exact same thing.

In another thread, I declared "sufficient reason" the be-all-and-end-all of whether I should accept something as true. This might be near-incontrovertible evidence. This might be logic. Frankly, I don't see you as having a sufficient reason to be polytheist. So, either I'm missing something (say, something you neglected to tell me), or you really didn't have a good reason to choose this identity for yourself.

[Aniihya]

It choose to be a polytheist out of a reason that you might not understand at all. My concept of gods is impersonal and doesnt take a material form. It is more like I see gods as personal and non-personal traits and values. For example: Luck (Roman goddess fortuna), which is in fact random chance. Love (Aphrodite/Allat), where I ask myself, will I overcome myself to ask someone out. Same thing with family, out of belief in a "goddess", I see that having/creating a family is important. It is rather spirituality or mysticism that religiosity.

Imagine the world is nothing. Things that make you happy come from self initiative. A meaning in life is not possible to be found. What do you have from a life where your early death might make a difference on an emotional level but in the world itself it wont make a significant difference since you are a rather unimportant part of the world. Making anthromorphisations of common factors, values or such, improves your imagination. A life without imagination is lame. But not everything needs a cause. Everyone has personal reasons and since personal reasons often contribute to sustaining ones own life while general reasons is just a reason that is commonly accepted, is towards a communal progression.

Although there is the third way of neither taking one way or the other, some people choose a fourth way that seems like one of the previous two ways although its not. With more insight in apatheism, you will find that it isnt uncommon. I know many people who are superficially theists but do not believe in the certainty of gods.

The way this is thought might seem like a scribble on a paper with no certain end but personally it makes sense to me. I have encountered people who described it as backwards logic, but rather as intimidation that they themselves believed to be infallible. It is rather a different logic, not on a scientific level but on a social level.

If you have any questions, then feel free to ask them.

[dealing with it]

Aniihya,

The Greek Logos actually influenced early Christian mystics as they tried to explain God. God is, under some interpretations, the literal anthropomorphization of logic.

How else, but through the action of some God, can you explain the mysteries of modus ponens?

1) If Socrates is a man, he is mortal.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is universally valid. If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 is true.

That claim, the one I just made above, is all it takes to anthropomorphize the world. We take the only way a human can think, and claim that's how the world must work. How the world "thinks".

My agnosticism is the understanding that modus ponens can be mistaken. The world could be so bizarre and otherworldly that even the most carefully constructed bit of formal logic is utterly incorrect. I leave the possibility open. I can't guarantee the existence of some God that imparts certainty to logic; we are left to figure that out ourselves. If logic is perfect, humans cannot know.

I don't really see any point to creatively interpreting the world in terms of anthropomorphized entities, when the most stern logician -- some prodigal, autistic savant whose only goal is truth -- already does it.

I guess that's my question. What's the point? You say that there is "no certain end", but I find that hard to believe. I don't see any reason to believe something if I can't justify it with some sort of benefit. (Not necessarily a monetary benefit.)

[loowman141414]

I am very catholic I have been lived with it so of course I believe in it.