1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. TALK.ORIGINS

  • Faith Shows

    From Glenn@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 4 16:15:35 2023
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some
    definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawyer Daggett@21:1/5 to Glenn on Fri Aug 4 17:07:58 2023
    On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god.
    Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the
    lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    It takes a special kind is broken mind to adopt the false dichotomy which asserts that a lack of belief in god(s) is a belief that there is no god.

    I do note that it seems to accompany those who just don't understand the
    basics of science, where "I just don't know" is the default starting position. "I don't know" is neither a belief in the existence of X, or a belief it doesn't exist.

    I concede, I tried multiple times to explain this to a talk.origins design advocate, and completely failed to communicate it in multiple attempts.
    I've given up the attempt as ultimately hopeless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Lawyer Daggett on Fri Aug 4 17:56:21 2023
    On 8/4/23 5:07 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
    On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god.
    Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the
    lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    It takes a special kind is broken mind to adopt the false dichotomy which asserts that a lack of belief in god(s) is a belief that there is no god.

    I do note that it seems to accompany those who just don't understand the basics of science, where "I just don't know" is the default starting position.
    "I don't know" is neither a belief in the existence of X, or a belief it doesn't exist.

    I concede, I tried multiple times to explain this to a talk.origins design advocate, and completely failed to communicate it in multiple attempts.
    I've given up the attempt as ultimately hopeless.

    The problem in determining that there is no god is that the hypothesis
    is not well formed. What do we mean by "god"? What would we expect to
    see if one existed? What would we expect to see if one did not exist?
    There are way too many possible answers to these questions, depending on
    what we mean by god, and there are too many conceivable gods. Even
    worse, many of these conceivable gods would entail no difference in expectations for the two questions.

    Still, we can probably rule out the set of gods for which the
    expectations are different.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?=@21:1/5 to Glenn on Fri Aug 4 19:33:12 2023
    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in some
    definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to Lawyer Daggett on Fri Aug 4 20:37:42 2023
    On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 5:11:03 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
    On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 7:16:03 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god.
    Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the
    lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.
    It takes a special kind is broken mind to adopt the false dichotomy which asserts that a lack of belief in god(s) is a belief that there is no god.

    And where is your supporting argument? Or don't you think you need one?

    "For example, Robin Le Poidevin writes, “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being”"

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

    I do note that it seems to accompany those who just don't understand the basics of science, where "I just don't know" is the default starting position.
    "I don't know" is neither a belief in the existence of X, or a belief it doesn't exist.

    Riiight, you don't believe in evolution.

    I concede, I tried multiple times to explain this to a talk.origins design advocate, and completely failed to communicate it in multiple attempts.
    I've given up the attempt as ultimately hopeless.

    Your mind is so cluttered with trash that you "gave up" long ago.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 4 21:55:59 2023
    On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:

    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. " >>
    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.

    I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic (classical meaning). The
    single thing I think any rational person can accept is that
    if a deity exists, *and has the attributes assumed by
    Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs*, no human does or can
    understand that deity, either motives or methods. Which is
    why all of the "God can't/won't do that!", or "If God exists
    he/she/it should do that!" is at best ignorant and at worst
    arrogantly pretentious.

    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Fri Aug 4 22:35:26 2023
    On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:01:03 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
    On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.

    I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic (classical meaning). The
    single thing I think any rational person can accept is that
    if a deity exists, *and has the attributes assumed by Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs*, no human does or can
    understand that deity, either motives or methods. Which is
    why all of the "God can't/won't do that!", or "If God exists
    he/she/it should do that!" is at best ignorant and at worst
    arrogantly pretentious.

    Sounds like something Darwin would have said. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge, separate and removed from belief or faith. There is no such thing as "an agnostic". And you don't distinguish between knowledge or lack of it, and belief. Darwin was "
    inclined" to "look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."

    https://evolutionnews.org/2023/08/a-debate-on-the-randomness-of-mutation/

    In Darwin, faith shows. So does yours. You're an atheist and so was he. Claiming agnosticism is simply to avoid the label of atheist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?=@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Sat Aug 5 15:53:11 2023
    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 08:01:03 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
    On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.


    I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic (classical meaning). The
    single thing I think any rational person can accept is that
    if a deity exists, *and has the attributes assumed by Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs*, no human does or can
    understand that deity, either motives or methods. Which is
    why all of the "God can't/won't do that!", or "If God exists
    he/she/it should do that!" is at best ignorant and at worst
    arrogantly pretentious.

    That can be indeed viewed both ways. I have read theistic
    stories and do not believe those. I am atheist, I don't believe
    God as described. But there may be is God like nowhere
    described just that I've never heard of it.

    You are uncertain because God might be is still what was
    described, but even the writers of description did not
    understand what they were describing. It can't be their
    fault as close enough to full truth is unknowable.
    So you are agnostic.

    But I'm unsure how deep the difference is, as for Glenn
    we are both atheists, maybe Peter is true agnostic for
    him. Maybe difference is that I believe that if God exists
    then there may be chance to find it out and to understand,
    but you don't?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 5 21:43:09 2023
    On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>:

    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 08:01:03 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
    On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. " >> >>
    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.


    I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic (classical meaning). The
    single thing I think any rational person can accept is that
    if a deity exists, *and has the attributes assumed by
    Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs*, no human does or can
    understand that deity, either motives or methods. Which is
    why all of the "God can't/won't do that!", or "If God exists
    he/she/it should do that!" is at best ignorant and at worst
    arrogantly pretentious.

    That can be indeed viewed both ways. I have read theistic
    stories and do not believe those. I am atheist, I don't believe
    God as described. But there may be is God like nowhere
    described just that I've never heard of it.

    You are uncertain because God might be is still what was
    described, but even the writers of description did not
    understand what they were describing. It can't be their
    fault as close enough to full truth is unknowable.
    So you are agnostic.

    But I'm unsure how deep the difference is, as for Glenn
    we are both atheists, maybe Peter is true agnostic for
    him. Maybe difference is that I believe that if God exists
    then there may be chance to find it out and to understand,
    but you don't?

    You missed part of what I wrote. I said I'm agnostic *in the
    classical meaning*. From OED online:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------- agnostic
    [ ag-nos-tik ]
    noun

    1 a person who holds that the answers to the basic
    questions of existence, such as the nature of the ultimate
    cause and whether or not there is a supreme being, are
    unknown or unknowable.

    2 a person who denies or doubts the possibility of
    ultimate knowledge in some area of study. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agnostics can be atheists, firm religious believers, or
    anything in between; it's not about uncertainty; it's about
    the perceived/assumed limits of human knowledge.

    Granted, it has come to mean,to some people, more like
    "undecided", but that's not what it was coined to indicate:
    a-gnostic, as in "not possessing esoteric knowledge".

    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From IDentity@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 11 20:18:04 2023
    On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT), Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. " >>
    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.

    "The reason why we don't see God is we're thinking God is something
    else." - Mooji

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IepIu3CbzXc&t=73s

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?=@21:1/5 to IDentity on Fri Aug 11 20:58:06 2023
    On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 21:21:11 UTC+3, IDentity wrote:
    On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 19:33:12 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
    wrote:
    On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 02:16:03 UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
    "Even if you are a vocal atheist, you still believe in your creed that there is no god. Given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to say that the lack of evidence for a supernatural being is enough to rule out its existence in
    some definitive sense is, well, an act of faith. It is belief in non-belief. "

    https://bigthink.com/13-8/belief-science-religion/

    Consider this with all the blabbing going on recently here.

    I am atheist. Just recently read "The Shack" of William Paul
    Young. Can't believe in such a God, come on. But I think that
    maybe there actually is God. Just totally different from what is
    described by humans and fortunately not too annoyed about
    idiocies that humans write about Him.

    "The reason why we don't see God is we're thinking God is something
    else." - Mooji

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IepIu3CbzXc&t=73s

    Explanations like Everything is God, Universe is God
    explain really nothing. After that claim however comes
    the hard to believe gibberish.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)