Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Atheism vs. Theism Epistemological approach.

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would like to discuss this topic with atheists and theists alike.

Can each of you define your epistemological approach?

I need to find a better way of conveying points to this particular "tough" group.

In real life, my face to face discussions with atheists/agnostics are rarely treated with suck fecklessness for the truth.

But I do realize that our approach's to knowledge are very very different.

It is why the vast majority of atheists wind up being liberals as they share a fundamental approach.

Can you guys summarize how you approach "reality" or your search for knowledge?

Now please do not make childish statements like
"We atheists use science! yoik yoik."

Clearly many theists use science where it applies.

What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.

I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.

Thank you.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 5:50:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am an atheist because i reject the claim that a God exists.

The claim has not met its burden of proof. There is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists. Therefore i am an atheist.

Go ahead, ask your questions.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 5:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Epistemology is about what is possible to know. We can't be 100% certain of much(to put it lightly).

Everything one thinks they know should be questioned. Everything one "knows" they know should be questioned.

When put under a good enough deal of scrutiny, pretty much any assertion can be said to be unknowable to an extent. Some beliefs clearly require a larger suspension of disbelief than others.

It is no fallacy to "presuppose" naturalism, because the natural is the state of the universe. It can't be anything BUT natural, because anything that appears to be "supernatural" would ultimately have to be natural. The supernatural, by definition isn't possible.

It is a matter of semantics. The universe is the totality of existence. The universe is natural. If God exists, God is part of the universe, and thus natural. If God does not exist, God still exists on some natural plane(the one that the human mind operates on), that is contained within the universe.

The rationality of believing God is entirely dependent on the understanding one has of God. When God is defined as something that requires a substantial leap of faith, it is both unreasonable to expect another to believe it, and unreasonable to argue for it. It would be as absurd as arguing over whether we are brains floating in giant test tubes(which depending on how semantical you get, can be a reasonable belief).

But it is all semantics. People don't even understand what they are arguing about. Why should they? It's just mental masturbation.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:04:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 5:50:39 PM, tkubok wrote:
I am an atheist because i reject the claim that a God exists.

The claim has not met its burden of proof. There is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists. Therefore i am an atheist.

Go ahead, ask your questions.

Please lay out your approach to discovering knowledge as I did above.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:11:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 6:04:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 5:50:39 PM, tkubok wrote:
I am an atheist because i reject the claim that a God exists.

The claim has not met its burden of proof. There is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists. Therefore i am an atheist.

Go ahead, ask your questions.

Please lay out your approach to discovering knowledge as I did above.

Evidence. I require evidence or reasoned arguments that is sufficient to me, in order to be convinced. This evidence must have no contradicting evidence, and must be able to withstand scrutiny. only then, will i claim that this is knowledge, and most likely true.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:26:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 6:11:51 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:04:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 5:50:39 PM, tkubok wrote:
I am an atheist because i reject the claim that a God exists.

The claim has not met its burden of proof. There is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists. Therefore i am an atheist.

Go ahead, ask your questions.

Please lay out your approach to discovering knowledge as I did above.

Evidence. I require evidence or reasoned arguments that is sufficient to me, in order to be convinced. This evidence must have no contradicting evidence, and must be able to withstand scrutiny. only then, will i claim that this is knowledge, and most likely true.

Thank you.
To repeat it back to you, to ensure I understand:

1: Sufficiency is necessary. Sufficient evidence is evidence that does not contradict other points of evidence.

Please expand and define scrutiny as it applies to sufficiency.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:27:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 6:26:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:11:51 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:04:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 5:50:39 PM, tkubok wrote:
I am an atheist because i reject the claim that a God exists.

The claim has not met its burden of proof. There is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists. Therefore i am an atheist.

Go ahead, ask your questions.

Please lay out your approach to discovering knowledge as I did above.

Evidence. I require evidence or reasoned arguments that is sufficient to me, in order to be convinced. This evidence must have no contradicting evidence, and must be able to withstand scrutiny. only then, will i claim that this is knowledge, and most likely true.

Thank you.
To repeat it back to you, to ensure I understand:

1: Sufficiency is necessary. Sufficient evidence is evidence that does not contradict other points of evidence.

Please expand and define scrutiny as it applies to sufficiency.

Sufficiency depends on the claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the higher the sufficient evidence required.

If you tell me your name is Bob, it would take very very very little evidence to convince me. If you tell me that an invisible dragon lives in your basement, i would require tons of evidence to convince me.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 6:27:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:26:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:11:51 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:04:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 5:50:39 PM, tkubok wrote:
I am an atheist because i reject the claim that a God exists.

The claim has not met its burden of proof. There is insufficient evidence to convince me that a God exists. Therefore i am an atheist.

Go ahead, ask your questions.

Please lay out your approach to discovering knowledge as I did above.

Evidence. I require evidence or reasoned arguments that is sufficient to me, in order to be convinced. This evidence must have no contradicting evidence, and must be able to withstand scrutiny. only then, will i claim that this is knowledge, and most likely true.

Thank you.
To repeat it back to you, to ensure I understand:

1: Sufficiency is necessary. Sufficient evidence is evidence that does not contradict other points of evidence.

Please expand and define scrutiny as it applies to sufficiency.

Sufficiency depends on the claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the higher the sufficient evidence required.

If you tell me your name is Bob, it would take very very very little evidence to convince me. If you tell me that an invisible dragon lives in your basement, i would require tons of evidence to convince me.

To ensure I have it:
1: Sufficiency depends purely on the claim. The extraordinary I find the claim the more positive evidence I require to validate the claim.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:42:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:

I don't see this as an atheist vs theist question, cause what I am about to say could be agreed to by theists or atheists.

Seeing that YOU asked ,I think I will show where I disagree with your statements about how YOU approach thus showing how I think people should approach certain things.


What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

Dis agree, what has been believed in the past means nothing, and is open to the charge of committing the argument from tradition fallacy. The question isn't what people have believed, its why ? Beliefs which have evidence and are vulnerable to dis proof and can be tested rank higher than beliefs which have no evidence and can't be testable and are not vulnerable to disproof.


2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

Again, its not a question of new vs old, its evidence and test ability. Whether new vs old means nothing to me.

3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

Works both ways, I have plenty of experience of religious nut jobs talking a good game about how God speaks to them, of course they have nothing to show for it....

I have personal experience how religion (specifically modern evangelical, biblical Christianity) indoctrinates even to the point of brainwashing and has people thinking that things that have been repeated to them add nausem is actually God/holy spirit speaking to them.

I will be impressed with the person who claims God speaks to them where they can show...........

1) Making specific claims that are true or come true. The more specific the better.

Claiming that on the 25th october, 2011 the world will end, is a good specific claim cause if false it can be easily proven false.

Claiming that God told you great things will happen in your life..........not so good.

2) Making claims that if false, could be easily proven false. (falsifiable). Again the more specific the claim the better as it more vulnerable to disproof.

3) Do it repeatably

The same criteria that is used by science, go fig ?


4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.



Probably not that important to me, what is important is the option that what ever "test" can be possibly replicated by others. If some one claims praying in Jesus name in latin will restore a lost limb, then we can test that.

If some one claims praying in the name of Jesus only works for them and they aren't going to do it to prove it, but hey take there word for it.......................no thanks.

I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.

I don't claim to have a fully develop system. But I certainly deem it important the distinction between claims that have evidence and are vulnerable to dis proof vs claims which can never (or practically impossible) to prove false if false.

The more vulnerable to disproof the better. The more evidence the better. The more "testing" of a claim that is vulnerable to dis proof but still is not proven false the better. They go to the top of the list on the things we should or can believe scale. At the bottom of the list is things which can't or are practically impossible to be proven false if false, with no evidence of it and no way to test it.



Thank you.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:56:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 6:42:21 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:

I don't see this as an atheist vs theist question, cause what I am about to say could be agreed to by theists or atheists.

Seeing that YOU asked ,I think I will show where I disagree with your statements about how YOU approach thus showing how I think people should approach certain things.


What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

Dis agree, what has been believed in the past means nothing, and is open to the charge of committing the argument from tradition fallacy. The question isn't what people have believed, its why ? Beliefs which have evidence and are vulnerable to dis proof and can be tested rank higher than beliefs which have no evidence and can't be testable and are not vulnerable to disproof.

Nothing is wrong in what you said, but clearly the concept is that these people had "reasons" to believe what they believed.
This principle governs past claims, non recurring events.
Like historical claims.

As we are clearly dimensionally limited by time and space, I cannot go and "verify" historical claims. No scientist can test this.
Take the Miracle of Calada, the famous limb being regrown.
It was by all accounts well attested. I have personally seen similiar miracles and I have no reason to distrust these individuals. I assume they are all competent men.

Seeing that I cannot personally duplicate this exact event in all its variables, the principles I listed govern past, unduplicatable, non recurring events.



2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

Again, its not a question of new vs old, its evidence and test ability. Whether new vs old means nothing to me.

This one governs the interpretative process of things like history, government, constitution, scripture, data sets with undertermined variable sets....

A more recent view of these things will automatically place a view on shaky ground. Primary source documentation and viewpoint of events holds a superior view to my mind.
For example Eusebius was present during the reign of Constantine. A 20th century historians view of Constantine will be need certain proof to override the claims of Eusebius who was present.


3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

Works both ways, I have plenty of experience of religious nut jobs talking a good game about how God speaks to them, of course they have nothing to show for it....

Again you are asserting "Because I have not experienced supernatural events, they do not happen."
You want a videotape, but at this point you have already asserted that all video evidence or testimonies are all fake? Not one is of interest to you and can be a building block for evidence?
You have had no supernatural experience to build on so no one else could have either?

A quantitative form of evidence in this point here is the sheer number of personal testimonies that mirror my own to a relative degree (given differences in circumstances and time).
Quantitative and quality of these testimonies in fact confirm my personal experience.


I have personal experience how religion (specifically modern evangelical, biblical Christianity) indoctrinates even to the point of brainwashing and has people thinking that things that have been repeated to them add nausem is actually God/holy spirit speaking to them.

Your claim here seems to me to be deliberately harsh.
You also seem to equate repetitive "preaching" as the Holy Spirit. The actual process of the Holy Spirit speaking is called illumination and this is within your spirit. As you have not experienced a Spiritual awakening you could not relate to your "spirit" hearing God's spirit.

Again the fact that I have quantitative evidence from countless people who mirror my experience, I would need a significant number to counter the experience combined with quality.


I will be impressed with the person who claims God speaks to them where they can show...........

1) Making specific claims that are true or come true. The more specific the better.

Claiming that on the 25th october, 2011 the world will end, is a good specific claim cause if false it can be easily proven false.

Claiming that God told you great things will happen in your life..........not so good.

2) Making claims that if false, could be easily proven false. (falsifiable). Again the more specific the claim the better as it more vulnerable to disproof.

3) Do it repeatably

The same criteria that is used by science, go fig ?

Well, again its qualitative and quantitative evidence that applies here for me.
Take Pat Robertson, most people point out where he was wrong, but MANY times he has specific prophecies where he was right.

Given that he has a shared experience with me (quality) and that he has so many correct, he merits a hearing each time he speaks. I would not blame him for being wrong if in fact he was wrong sometimes.



4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.



Probably not that important to me, what is important is the option that what ever "test" can be possibly replicated by others. If some one claims praying in Jesus name in latin will restore a lost limb, then we can test that.

If some one claims praying in the name of Jesus only works for them and they aren't going to do it to prove it, but hey take there word for it.......................no thanks.

Have you hung out with a faith healer personally?

Point number 4 shows that I can indeed test these claims. They have been videotaped, recorded, written down countless times.

I can actively participate, however, I am not so arrogant that I will demand on the spot proof of someone's God's ability to heal my confidant.

I recognize that I will submit, to a degree, to their approach.


I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.

I don't claim to have a fully develop system. But I certainly deem it important the distinction between claims that have evidence and are vulnerable to dis proof vs claims which can never (or practically impossible) to prove false if false.

The more vulnerable to disproof the better. The more evidence the better. The more "testing" of a claim that is vulnerable to dis proof but still is not proven false the better. They go to the top of the list on the things we should or can believe scale. At the bottom of the list is things which can't or are practically impossible to be proven false if false, with no evidence of it and no way to test it.

Hopefully, I have shown that we must take into account that we are limited due to space and time.

All of your responses to my points only focussed on present and reoccurring events with specifically duplicatable variables.

Is this the only thing you believe to be verifiable?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 8:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 5:57:22 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Epistemology is about what is possible to know. We can't be 100% certain of much(to put it lightly).

I am sad for you. You exist in a place not many people live.


Everything one thinks they know should be questioned. Everything one "knows" they know should be questioned.

Self contradictory concept. Should I question your approach above?


When put under a good enough deal of scrutiny, pretty much any assertion can be said to be unknowable to an extent. Some beliefs clearly require a larger suspension of disbelief than others.

I do not necessarily disagree.


It is no fallacy to "presuppose" naturalism, because the natural is the state of the universe. It can't be anything BUT natural, because anything that appears to be "supernatural" would ultimately have to be natural. The supernatural, by definition isn't possible.

That is being too rigid in your understanding of the etymology of words. Would it not be a better approach to read what the author intends, not necessary your hardline definition?


It is a matter of semantics. The universe is the totality of existence. The universe is natural. If God exists, God is part of the universe, and thus natural. If God does not exist, God still exists on some natural plane(the one that the human mind operates on), that is contained within the universe.

Again a hardline definition of universe, not used by anyone else. Would it not be better to read the intent of those who use the definition differently?


The rationality of believing God is entirely dependent on the understanding one has of God. When God is defined as something that requires a substantial leap of faith, it is both unreasonable to expect another to believe it, and unreasonable to argue for it. It would be as absurd as arguing over whether we are brains floating in giant test tubes(which depending on how semantical you get, can be a reasonable belief).

Hence, the discussion of epistomology.....


But it is all semantics. People don't even understand what they are arguing about. Why should they? It's just mental masturbation.

I do not think you "even understand what others are arguing about". You see that claim can be easily applied to you.

Nothing you stated prior to your final sentence above showed your final claim to be true.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 8:51:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:56:51 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 6:42:21 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:

I don't see this as an atheist vs theist question, cause what I am about to say could be agreed to by theists or atheists.

Seeing that YOU asked ,I think I will show where I disagree with your statements about how YOU approach thus showing how I think people should approach certain things.


What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or




Nothing is wrong in what you said, but clearly the concept is that these people had "reasons" to believe what they believed.
This principle governs past claims, non recurring events.
Like historical claims.

Of course they had reasons, but whether those reasons are based on testable and falsifiable claims or not is the point here.

As we are clearly dimensionally limited by time and space, I cannot go and "verify" historical claims. No scientist can test this.
Take the Miracle of Calada, the famous limb being regrown.
It was by all accounts well attested. I have personally seen similiar miracles and I have no reason to distrust these individuals. I assume they are all competent men.

I have no reason to believe it is false, therefore it must be true, cmon Gil, don't lecture me on logic then go and do something like that. But in anycase I have reasons to distrust them

I can't argue against your personal experience claim, just like I can't argue against the personal experience claim of an alien abduction. I will only say your claim is not enough to establish a miracle happened.

Seeing that I cannot personally duplicate this exact event in all its variables, the principles I listed govern past, unduplicatable, non recurring events.

non recurring events are a problem. This is why "historical" claims are lower on the scale than testable claims.



2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

Again, its not a question of new vs old, its evidence and test ability. Whether new vs old means nothing to me.

This one governs the interpretative process of things like history, government, constitution, scripture, data sets with undertermined variable sets....


Again, historical claims if not vulnerable to dis proof............well you know my view on that.




Works both ways, I have plenty of experience of religious nut jobs talking a good game about how God speaks to them, of course they have nothing to show for it....

Again you are asserting "Because I have not experienced supernatural events, they do not happen."

Not my argument.

You want a videotape, but at this point you have already asserted that all video evidence or testimonies are all fake? Not one is of interest to you and can be a building block for evidence?

Nope, but testimony is not enough in of it self to establish a miracle. I just grew a third hand....................see ?

No, I would say that
You have had no supernatural experience to build on so no one else could have either?

Not my argument.

A quantitative form of evidence in this point here is the sheer number of personal testimonies that mirror my own to a relative degree (given differences in circumstances and time).
Quantitative and quality of these testimonies in fact confirm my personal experience.


I have personal experience how religion (specifically modern evangelical, biblical Christianity) indoctrinates even to the point of brainwashing and has people thinking that things that have been repeated to them add nausem is actually God/holy spirit speaking to them.

Your claim here seems to me to be deliberately harsh.

Maybe not harsh enough.

You also seem to equate repetitive "preaching" as the Holy Spirit.

Re-read what I said. That's not what I said.

The actual process of the Holy Spirit speaking is called illumination and this is within your spirit. As you have not experienced a Spiritual awakening you could not relate to your "spirit" hearing God's spirit.

maybe, or how about, you are the one who has not experienced a spiritual awakening. See I can make assertions too.

Again the fact that I have quantitative evidence from countless people who mirror my experience, I would need a significant number to counter the experience combined with quality.

Peer review it then.


I will be impressed with the person who claims God speaks to them where they can show...........

1) Making specific claims that are true or come true. The more specific the better.



Well, again its qualitative and quantitative evidence that applies here for me.
Take Pat Robertson, most people point out where he was wrong, but MANY times he has specific prophecies where he was right.

I forgot something there, obvious you can be right many times, its been right many times without also been wrong many times. I got a prediction.......the USA will be entangled in the middle eastern affairs...........Am I a prophet now ?

Given that he has a shared experience with me (quality) and that he has so many correct, he merits a hearing each time he speaks. I would not blame him for being wrong if in fact he was wrong sometimes.



4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.



Probably not that important to me, what is important is the option that what ever "test" can be possibly replicated by others. If some one claims praying in Jesus name in latin will restore a lost limb, then we can test that.

If some one claims praying in the name of Jesus only works for them and they aren't going to do it to prove it, but hey take there word for it.......................no thanks.

Have you hung out with a faith healer personally?

No, cause if I form the view some one is a fake healer, screwing over people in Gods name, I may want to show this person my dis-pleasure. Maybe I will write then a strongly worded letter, maybe more.

Point number 4 shows that I can indeed test these claims. They have been videotaped, recorded, written down countless times.

Test means if false it can be proven false. Evidence and test ability are different things.

I can actively participate, however, I am not so arrogant that I will demand on the spot proof of someone's God's ability to heal my confidant.

I recognize that I will submit, to a degree, to their approach.

I am not so stupid as to lower the bar of proof. If the person is already making or is setting the seen to make excuses that should tell you something. As in the hood they say, put up or shut up.


I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.

I don't claim to have a fully develop system. But I certainly deem it important the distinction between claims that have evidence and are vulnerable to dis proof vs claims which can never (or practically impossible) to prove false if false.

The more vulnerable to disproof the better. The more evidence the better. The more "testing" of a claim that is vulnerable to dis proof but still is not proven false the better. They go to the top of the list on the things we should or can believe scale. At the bottom of the list is things which can't or are practically impossible to be proven false if false, with no evidence of it and no way to test it.


All of your responses to my points only focused on present and reoccurring events with specifically duplicate's variables.

Is this the only thing you beli
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 10:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I would like to discuss this topic with atheists and theists alike.

Can each of you define your epistemological approach?

I need to find a better way of conveying points to this particular "tough" group.

In real life, my face to face discussions with atheists/agnostics are rarely treated with suck fecklessness for the truth.

But I do realize that our approach's to knowledge are very very different.

It is why the vast majority of atheists wind up being liberals as they share a fundamental approach.

Can you guys summarize how you approach "reality" or your search for knowledge?

Now please do not make childish statements like
"We atheists use science! yoik yoik."

Clearly many theists use science where it applies.

What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.


I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.


Thank you.

I believe in an evidence-based approach. I also believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 11:41:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 10:06:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I would like to discuss this topic with atheists and theists alike.

Can each of you define your epistemological approach?

I need to find a better way of conveying points to this particular "tough" group.

In real life, my face to face discussions with atheists/agnostics are rarely treated with suck fecklessness for the truth.

But I do realize that our approach's to knowledge are very very different.

It is why the vast majority of atheists wind up being liberals as they share a fundamental approach.

Can you guys summarize how you approach "reality" or your search for knowledge?

Now please do not make childish statements like
"We atheists use science! yoik yoik."

Clearly many theists use science where it applies.

What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.


I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.


Thank you.

I believe in an evidence-based approach. I also believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thank you for that.
It seems to be Illegal's statement as well.

Do you feel that theists do not have this same requirement?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 12:21:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can't reply to your long post with all them quotes and line by line responses. My phone browser doesn't let me scroll the reply text input window.... or I don't know how to yet..

Anyway, there is nothing sad or unusual about my understanding of epistemology. I believe it is not only accurate, but the very type of thinking that created the scientific method. Questioning everything is part of honing one's epistemelogical understanding, and the contradiction is only semantic in nature.

Did I claim that I am somehow exempt from the communication limitations that humans are cursed with? No, but I am very aware of it, and a great deal of my philosophy deals with this particular aspect of the human condition. It is not only present in communications between humans, but in the communication we have with the external world and the internal. It is a major aspect of the cognitive process.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:31:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 12:21:50 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I can't reply to your long post with all them quotes and line by line responses. My phone browser doesn't let me scroll the reply text input window.... or I don't know how to yet..

Anyway, there is nothing sad or unusual about my understanding of epistemology. I believe it is not only accurate, but the very type of thinking that created the scientific method. Questioning everything is part of honing one's epistemelogical understanding, and the contradiction is only semantic in nature.

Did I claim that I am somehow exempt from the communication limitations that humans are cursed with? No, but I am very aware of it, and a great deal of my philosophy deals with this particular aspect of the human condition. It is not only present in communications between humans, but in the communication we have with the external world and the internal. It is a major aspect of the cognitive process.

The overarching point I made is a skeptic can not make skepticism his sole epistemological approach.
It is self contradictory.

When it comes to extraordinary claims, I agree with the previous posters, that you need extraordinary proof.
Example
"I believe everything should is up for grabs as truth."
Is that statement up for grabs too?

I am not skeptical that I am getting older.
I do not challenge the fact I had a mother.

Such an approach would be limiting to science and personal development.

It is completely reasonable to go forward with these obvious working truths.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 10:55:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Epistemology will tell you that you can be 99% sure of something, but to claim 100% certainty over anything short of existence itself is naive.

Hard skepticism is necessary to develop epistemelogical understanding. This does not mean that one stops at a solipsist type state, and renounces any knowledge of anything.

You only have to gain from examining your assumptions. If you are honest, and they are solid, you will gain a deeper understanding of them, and you will find other things at the root of the assumptions you make.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:08:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 10:55:59 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Epistemology will tell you that you can be 99% sure of something, but to claim 100% certainty over anything short of existence itself is naive.

I am 100% certain my phyisical body is getting older.
I am 100% certain I had a mother.

Does this make me Naive?

Hard skepticism is necessary to develop epistemelogical understanding. This does not mean that one stops at a solipsist type state, and renounces any knowledge of anything.

You are advocating a 'near' solipsist state?

Most people would only question a Truth if there was a reasonable challenge to it.
For example.
It is Truth that the world does not appear to be moving to me.
Yet a reasonable challenge was made to that Truth.

However, though currently I accept the earth is rotating, and it only seems to be non moving, a reasonable challenge to the concept of a moving earth, I would be open to.

You only have to gain from examining your assumptions. If you are honest, and they are solid, you will gain a deeper understanding of them, and you will find other things at the root of the assumptions you make.

That is like saying, when you eat each of the individual ingredients of a cake you will have a deeper understanding of the taste of cake.

This is corporately untrue.
If you taste a mouthful of raw cinnamon you would say a cinnamon Cake tastes bad?

You would have a complete understanding of the taste of cake having NEVER put a mouthful of raw cinnamon in your mouth.

However, you do get a better understanding of cinnamon having tasted both, the raw form and cinnamon incorporated into the cake.

Getting more deep about the ingredient does not change the Truth of the experience of the taste of cake you are familiar with.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:16:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, naive realism is an understandable perspective, but it ultimately does not survive deeper scrutiny.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:48:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 11:16:14 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Yes, naive realism is an understandable perspective, but it ultimately does not survive deeper scrutiny.

Ah, should I be deeply skeptical and scrutinize your claim above?

I do not know how I could be clearer.
But thank you for the insight into the mind of a near solopsist.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 11:58:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 11:41:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 10:06:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I would like to discuss this topic with atheists and theists alike.

Can each of you define your epistemological approach?

I need to find a better way of conveying points to this particular "tough" group.

In real life, my face to face discussions with atheists/agnostics are rarely treated with suck fecklessness for the truth.

But I do realize that our approach's to knowledge are very very different.

It is why the vast majority of atheists wind up being liberals as they share a fundamental approach.

Can you guys summarize how you approach "reality" or your search for knowledge?

Now please do not make childish statements like
"We atheists use science! yoik yoik."

Clearly many theists use science where it applies.

What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.


I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.


Thank you.

I believe in an evidence-based approach. I also believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thank you for that.
It seems to be Illegal's statement as well.

Do you feel that theists do not have this same requirement?

It really depends on the theist and on the religion. However generally most Christians don't have a lot of evidence for their beliefs, and have not taken a serious look at alternative views. Their main source of belief is near-blind faith, which goes against the evidence part.

Nearly all Christians violate the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence part. Many "evidences" of the supernatural are just too weak.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 12:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 11:58:29 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/23/2011 11:41:37 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/23/2011 10:06:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/23/2011 4:41:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I would like to discuss this topic with atheists and theists alike.

Can each of you define your epistemological approach?

I need to find a better way of conveying points to this particular "tough" group.

In real life, my face to face discussions with atheists/agnostics are rarely treated with suck fecklessness for the truth.

But I do realize that our approach's to knowledge are very very different.

It is why the vast majority of atheists wind up being liberals as they share a fundamental approach.

Can you guys summarize how you approach "reality" or your search for knowledge?

Now please do not make childish statements like
"We atheists use science! yoik yoik."

Clearly many theists use science where it applies.

What I am looking for is a synopsis that I can use to tackle the heart of an argument better.

For example
"I an an atheist presuppose naturalism for the following reasons....."
or

1: I as a theist (conservative) rarely change my viewpoint from all of the people who came before me (cumulative history), that indeed for a viewpoint to change the burden of proof does lie on the "new" view or minority view first.
Any knew information must meet a rigorous process before being accepted as truth.

2: Any view that is a "recent" mainstream view on very shaky ground in my view.

3: I as a theist need a higher quality evidence and quantitative evidence to deny my obvious personal experience. This change of view will be directly proportional to the "quality" and merit of that evidence.

4: Before I accept a new view, It must be tested by those I trust or me personally.


I would like to ask you more questions that completely allows for you to add fundamentals to your approach.


Thank you.

I believe in an evidence-based approach. I also believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thank you for that.
It seems to be Illegal's statement as well.

Do you feel that theists do not have this same requirement?

It really depends on the theist and on the religion. However generally most Christians don't have a lot of evidence for their beliefs, and have not taken a serious look at alternative views. Their main source of belief is near-blind faith, which goes against the evidence part.

Nearly all Christians violate the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence part. Many "evidences" of the supernatural are just too weak.

Thank you for the feedback. Please respond to this post as a whole.

I would think that most people, no matter the belief set, do not define religion with such a rigid Sagan concept.

All claims are tested the same way.

We see the difference here between a bald phenomena, like claiming a dragon in my basement.

Religious supernatural events are not a bald phenomena. They are in a broad religious context.

Pointing to a hair on a full head of hair does not require extra distinction from the others.

We see so many religious claims is impossible to count them.

So we define a scale in the approach to claims.

Dragons in basements = So rare as to never have happened, but could be possible
Alien sightings = rare
Bigfoot/Yeti sightings = less rare but not commonplace
Religious interactions = commonplace
Natural occurances = Minute by minute interaction.

When a religous person who has experienced a commonplace religous interaction, there is little need for overwhelming evidence to support it.

The weak naturalist or strong, view anything out of the natural as an extraordinary event.
The supernaturalist, takes into context his personal experiences, the commonplace experiences of those he trusts, the commonplace experiences the world over and does not require a massive layout of evidence.

So I have no need to distinguish religious experiences out of the context of all claims. Especially, as I have shared them.

I can understand why a person who has not experienced a religious event would desire evidence
but
to claim a religious interaction is akin to a bald phenomena and should be held to the same standards will not be agreed upon by the majority of people.

You would have to give warrant to the classification as it is obviously not a bald phenomena.

Do you personally equate religious interaction with the supernatural as a bald phenomena?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 1:11:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 12:41:25 PM, Gileandos wrote:

We see the difference here between a bald phenomena, like claiming a dragon in my basement.

Religious supernatural events are not a bald phenomena. They are in a broad religious context.

Pointing to a hair on a full head of hair does not require extra distinction from the others.

We see so many religious claims is impossible to count them.

So we define a scale in the approach to claims.

Dragons in basements = So rare as to never have happened, but could be possible
Alien sightings = rare
Bigfoot/Yeti sightings = less rare but not commonplace
Religious interactions = commonplace
Natural occurances = Minute by minute interaction.


When a religous person who has experienced a commonplace religous interaction, there is little need for overwhelming evidence to support it.

The weak naturalist or strong, view anything out of the natural as an extraordinary event.
The supernaturalist, takes into context his personal experiences, the commonplace experiences of those he trusts, the commonplace experiences the world over and does not require a massive layout of evidence.


So I have no need to distinguish religious experiences out of the context of all claims. Especially, as I have shared them.


I can understand why a person who has not experienced a religious event would desire evidence
but
to claim a religious interaction is akin to a bald phenomena and should be held to the same standards will not be agreed upon by the majority of people.

You would have to give warrant to the classification as it is obviously not a bald phenomena.

Do you personally equate religious interaction with the supernatural as a bald phenomena?

What is a bald phenomena and what does this distinction have to do with evidence? Does a religious context suddenly boost the evidence? I am very sceptical of that idea. I guess I am wondering why a religious context is any more authoritative than bald phenomena when both have no good evidence.

Alien sightings are very very common. So are big-foot sightings. In fact some people have built theories and contexts to explain the phenomena they see. The same goes for psychic experiences. Indeed you must not forget that there are other religions out there like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek Polytheism, etc. The evidence for Christianity is comparable for the evidence for all these claims, and that is why I use them as an analogy.

You say that religious experience are commonplace. What kinds of religious experiences are we talking about? I do not question the fact that people may have had feelings or impressions, I am just sceptical over whether this is enough to be extraordinary evidence of the supernatural. In fact I am doubtful over whether this is evidence for the supernatural at all.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 1:46:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 1:11:31 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/24/2011 12:41:25 PM, Gileandos wrote:

We see the difference here between a bald phenomena, like claiming a dragon in my basement.

Religious supernatural events are not a bald phenomena. They are in a broad religious context.

Pointing to a hair on a full head of hair does not require extra distinction from the others.

We see so many religious claims is impossible to count them.

So we define a scale in the approach to claims -


Dragons in basements = So rare as to never have happened, but could be possible
Alien sightings = rare
Bigfoot/Yeti sightings = less rare but not commonplace
Religious interactions = commonplace
Natural occurances = Minute by minute interaction.


When a religous person who has experienced a commonplace religous interaction, there is little need for overwhelming evidence to support it.

The weak naturalist or strong, view anything out of the natural as an extraordinary event.
The supernaturalist, takes into context his personal experiences, the commonplace experiences of those he trusts, the commonplace experiences the world over and does not require a massive layout of evidence.


So I have no need to distinguish religious experiences out of the context of all claims. Especially, as I have shared them.


I can understand why a person who has not experienced a religious event would desire evidence
but
to claim a religious interaction is akin to a bald phenomena and should be held to the same standards will not be agreed upon by the majority of people.

You would have to give warrant to the classification as it is obviously not a bald phenomena.

Do you personally equate religious interaction with the supernatural as a bald phenomena?

What is a bald phenomena and what does this distinction have to do with evidence? Does a religious context suddenly boost the evidence? I am very sceptical of that idea. I guess I am wondering why a religious context is any more authoritative than bald phenomena when both have no good evidence.

Alien sightings are very very common. So are big-foot sightings. In fact some people have built theories and contexts to explain the phenomena they see. The same goes for psychic experiences. Indeed you must not forget that there are other religions out there like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek Polytheism, etc. The evidence for Christianity is comparable for the evidence for all these claims, and that is why I use them as an analogy.

You say that religious experience are commonplace. What kinds of religious experiences are we talking about? I do not question the fact that people may have had feelings or impressions, I am just sceptical over whether this is enough to be extraordinary evidence of the supernatural. In fact I am doubtful over whether this is evidence for the supernatural at all.

A bald phenomena would be equated to the concept of hairs on a bald man's head. The more rare the phenomena the more bald, or rare it is to see hair in a folicle.

I showed the scale above. : Dragons in basements = So rare as to never have happened, but could be possible
Alien sightings = rare
Bigfoot/Yeti sightings = less rare but not commonplace
Religious interactions = commonplace
Natural occurances = Minute by minute interaction.

You pointed out alien sightings were common. I believe you mean UFO sightings were fairly common. I would agree, but meeting little green men is not a common occurance. Physic experiences can be placed somewhere on the scale, your impression as to the numbers of claims would directly place it on the scale.

We are discussing the concept of quality and quantity.

The numbers of people claiming to see little green men come nowhere close to the numbers of people claiming religious interaction.

As to the definition of religious interaction, I do not mind any particular definition for this purpose. It can be anything that is experienced in a broad religious context that is not something you deal with on a minute by minute basis.

So when we approach a claim we do not ignore the fact that the vast majority of people have a belief in the supernatural or something other than natural.
For example just one Pew research poll, shows that fully half of Americans alone have had a mystical experience that is not accounted for by naturalistic explanation.
http://pewresearch.org...

Many other countries will be incredibly higher.
So to me the religion itself does not matter as an agnostic.

Now I was clear on the scale no matter what, If I have a Christian religious experience then all other claims immediately jump in merit.
Now as a Christian, I share a very common experience with billions around the world. Africans are converting to cover now 62% of Africa up from 9% in 1910. This is huge as the reason for conversion to the pastorate is visions and communications from Jesus.

I recognize you have not had those.

So we need to ensure that we approach evidence in accordance with the reality of what is in fact being displayed out there.

Nothing about religion is a bald phenomena like someone claims a dragon in the basement or such.

To give an idea, Joseph Smith's claim of tablets was a historical bald phenomena. I agree with you it needs massive amounts of evidence. Some religious claims will be drilled down to its individual parts but the overall approach will be the same at each level.

To summarize your viewpoint:
This whole concept is why you resist the supernatural. In your personal life, a religious experience is a bald phenomena, it if happened even once, it should be highly doubted by your innerself as it has never happened before or as yet.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 2:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/24/2011 1:46:15 PM, Gileandos wrote:

You pointed out alien sightings were common. I believe you mean UFO sightings were fairly common. I would agree, but meeting little green men is not a common occurance. Physic experiences can be placed somewhere on the scale, your impression as to the numbers of claims would directly place it on the scale.

We are discussing the concept of quality and quantity.

The numbers of people claiming to see little green men come nowhere close to the numbers of people claiming religious interaction.

As to the definition of religious interaction, I do not mind any particular definition for this purpose. It can be anything that is experienced in a broad religious context that is not something you deal with on a minute by minute basis.


So when we approach a claim we do not ignore the fact that the vast majority of people have a belief in the supernatural or something other than natural.
For example just one Pew research poll, shows that fully half of Americans alone have had a mystical experience that is not accounted for by naturalistic explanation.
http://pewresearch.org...

Many other countries will be incredibly higher.
So to me the religion itself does not matter as an agnostic.


Now I was clear on the scale no matter what, If I have a Christian religious experience then all other claims immediately jump in merit.
Now as a Christian, I share a very common experience with billions around the world. Africans are converting to cover now 62% of Africa up from 9% in 1910. This is huge as the reason for conversion to the pastorate is visions and communications from Jesus.

I recognize you have not had those.

So we need to ensure that we approach evidence in accordance with the reality of what is in fact being displayed out there.

Nothing about religion is a bald phenomena like someone claims a dragon in the basement or such.

To give an idea, Joseph Smith's claim of tablets was a historical bald phenomena. I agree with you it needs massive amounts of evidence. Some religious claims will be drilled down to its individual parts but the overall approach will be the same at each level.


To summarize your viewpoint:
This whole concept is why you resist the supernatural. In your personal life, a religious experience is a bald phenomena, it if happened even once, it should be highly doubted by your innerself as it has never happened before or as yet.

Yes, there are more religious claims than alien experiences. But where do you draw that line between aliens and religion? Are there not enough alien experiences?

There are thousands of alien abduction experiences alone.

I noticed that you did not describe the religious experiences that are commonly felt among believers. If I am to respond to your next post, you must describe the most common religious experiences among believers.

My doubts are that these religious experiences have nothing to do with the supernatural. They are simply coincidence or emotional. So you may have the quantity but you do not have the quality. Also you need to explain why we get religious experiences from non-Christians too.