As an aside, "******" replacing cuss words doesn't change the meaning. You are pissed, so why sugar coat it? If one were posting at a Disney website, I'd find it appropriate. Here, I don't don't think you need to cuss in every post, but if you spell out a word instead of dancing around it, it doesn't change the meaning.

And as far as your P.S.

Why? I think you confuse the fact when atheists state that not every utterance in human history is automatically a 50/50 proposition with claiming  "absolute knowledge".

FOR EXAMPLE:

If person A claims: "I can fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass"

Is that automatically a 50/50 proposition because Lamborghini's exist and human's have sphincters?

So the problem becomes when person A claims this and person B claims something else and person C claims yet another thing, HOW DO WE as a species get beyond those different claims?

I don't think it would be arrogant of you to scoff at someone claiming that the sun was a thinking being. Yet for over 3,000 years the Ancient Egyptians would have punished you, if not executed you for stating otherwise. Is the sun a thinking being? No.

So why would it be "arrogant" to go further and scoff at claims of brains with no brains, no cerebellum, no neurons with magical powers that floats out in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time?

You might as well call Galileo "arrogant" for telling the ignorant people of his time that the earth rotated around the sun and was not flat.

Actually, what the pragmatist/skeptic would call "imagination" the theist uses the same word but doesn't understand when they use it, credulity is fueling their imagination.

Evolution "cant be true" because they cant "imagine" which really should be replaced with "comprehend" that myth doesn't compete with reality.

AtheistExtremist- Holy crap!  I'd never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect before.  It explains SO much of my frustration!  Thanks for pointing me toward that!

Brian37-  I replace cuss words with asterixes (asterices?) for one simple reason.  My 7 year-old comes over to my computer just about every time I start typing to see what I'm doing.  If I fill the screen with expletives, I'm just giving him an excuse to try them out at unfortunate times.  Rest assured, I don't think you all can't take the odd nasty phrase as it may occur to me.

As for my P.S.  I cannot say for certain that the sun is not a thinking being.  Just because I haven't communicated with it doesn't mean it isn't possible.  Not that I BELIEVE it's possible, but I will allow that I cannot know with complete certainty.  The only statement I CAN hold to unequivocally is this:  Nobody can know anything at all with 100% certainty because reality itself is changing constantly along with the perspective of the viewer and any "fact" is only a fact until it is disproven or it changes.

Therefore, my arrogance is in knowing that I know nothing.

Now, if I can only get more people to move over to my religion...

Robb

My religion is better.

Insofar as the logically contradictory nature of the definition/proposition in question is clearly demonstrated, it is arrogant *not* to claim absolute knowledge as to its non-existence.  Not only arrogant, but profoundly closed-minded-- the most closed minded one can possibly be, in fact:

The acceptance of possible dialetheism is the flaccid-minded acceptance of all fact, contradictory or not, and the subsequent slamming shut of the mind to logic, reason, and all falsifiability.

So long as you are ignorant of logical disproofs, you get a pass.  So long as you are uncertain about *only* definitions of a 'god' which have not been disproven, you get a pass.

Sorry: Lacking certainty about the non-existence of a particular god for which the very assumed nature is impossible is just idiotic.  It's not "open-minded", it's not "humble", it's just plain mindless irrationality.

Those who go around pretending to be rational, free-thinkers, while copping out with that kind of absurdity and refusing to acknowledge logical disproofs 'irritate the crap out of me'.

Ciarin - In my religion, you get to sleep in on Sundays. 

Hmm?  Hmm?

Robb

"In my religion you get to sleep in every day. And you get lots of beer and mead."

Mead?  You ARE a goth, aren't you?  Cool.

All right, send me a pamphlet, although I'm not promising anything.

Robb

No, I'm heathen. Goth would be absynthe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BBy5exUMXs

I'm afraid that may be all he can do Robb, Sorry if you're disappointed, but maybe sharing my experience will save you the time waste of trying to have civil conversation with, Blake.

Good for you; then you might understand the following:

Yes, it is possible that the world is flat.  Do you know why?  Because the notion of a flat Earth and conspiracy theorists, while far out and extremely unlikely, is not logically self-contradictory.

This cannot be said for the dominant interpretations of 'god'.

This is a marginally popular topic of debate among those who have studied these fields.  It turns out, as I understand, that they're all reconciled by being mathematically equivalent.  There's even a way to do it using the angular momentum of wind coming off behind the wings.  So, in a way, they're all correct- what they all simultaneously failed to realize was that none of them were really contradicting the others.

That said, this really has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand.

These are empirical observations; empiricism is known to be imperfect- that's really the point of science, as attempting correct for at least part of it (human observation bias). 

We could very well be in "the matrix" with everything we see patently false.

If, as you suggest, you *are* practiced in the "arts" of logic, then you should know not only that conclusions that depend on empirical premises being true may not be true if those premises turn out not to be, but also that conclusions made from reasoning alone is not subject to this potential flaw.

A primary conclusion that can be reached from logic alone is demonstrating the impossibility of a proposition based on internal logical contradiction.  This requires only clear, unambiguous statement of the proposition to do (that's why we can only disprove the common definitions, and not necessarily every way the word could be interpreted).

If you really don't understand that after I've stated it in every post, please let me know how I can explain this for you to help you do so.

I have no problem with this.  I have no problem with you saying a flat earth is possible.  Or that mice actually rule the planet, which was made by a large machine.  I have no problem with any proposition that has not been logically demonstrated to be false through internal contradiction- as long as it is only acknowledged as possible, and not insisted upon as probable or factual (in which case there are considerations for evidence).

The reason you are unable to do so is likely for ignorance of logical disproofs.  Would you like me to present you with some, or link you to some?

Sorry, but if you're ignorant of the facts, you get a pass on irrationality whether you like it or not.

Assuming you have read and understood what I wrote, and are as open-minded as you claim to be, that ignorance has been slightly diminished.  Otherwise, perhaps it has been replaced by willful ignorance for the sake of pride.

Either way you put it, though, you're the one who came around to fling the first hand full of grade-A monkey poo at all of the positive atheists here.

I'm fully willing to forgive that action, however, if you're willing to wise up and be a little more considerate of us- and recognize that you don't know everything about how knowledge is gained, and that we very well may have good reason to believe, positively, that particular gods can not possibly exist.

Yes, Blake.  You win.  I'm ever so sorry I DARED step on your land of superiority.

Hope you don't talk to your friends this way.  You're gonna be a lonely, lonely person.

Robb.

Well, whaddya know.  You do understand sarcasm.

Next step?  Humility...

Robb

No not exactly.

What you don't take into account, and many atheists don't as well is "time frame in regards to past, present and future"

The only thing that my "agnostic atheism" refers to is the future because I dont know the future I cant say for certain that my position won't change. But as far as the past and right now, the present I am an outright atheist. The past and current utterances throughout humanity, in regards to claiming a brain with no brain, are patently absurd and cannot logically exist.

But just because the future is uncertain doesn't mean my brains have to fall out and allow all utterances an equal 50/50 proposition. Good use of logic and reason do not default to that.

The future is uncertain, but the trash can of bad claims ON ALL ISSUES, has been used and should be used. And the wise discard bad ideas once debunked. You don't know the future, but yet you don't dwell on claims of volcano gods or Ouija boards actually working.

Why do you need a religion to do that? I have no god or religion and I work on Sundays although I would like the day off so I can drink beer and wallow in the misery that I call my Redskins. But it doesn't take a religion or a god/s to do that.

There is nothing special about a 24 hour period other than what the individual wants it to be.

It depends on the particular god's definition- the exact wording of the proposition.

If that contains an internal contradiction, then we can know it is false.

Otherwise, lacking a contradiction, you are correct.

I am technically 'agnostic' to all non-contradictory gods.  The definitions in common usage, however, make non-contradictory gods an extreme minority of belief.

If not the same, 'knowing' can only be gained from strict logical proof. 

In this case, a god can be proved false (through demonstrating contradiction)- and be known not to exist.  That is only if that god is contradictory, though.

Any evidence that relies on perception or experience- no matter the type- is subject to some marginal uncertainty.  So any god, no matter how unlikely given the evidence, can not be proved false unless its definition expresses a self-contradiction.

Thankyou.  My beliefs, exactly.

Robb

No, it isn't, because you ignored logical contradiction as an avenue of proof that does not rely on empiricism.  This is something I have been consistently clear on.

No, you left things out, and added insults.

Quantum physics is not self-contradictory; those possibilities are divergent as per many-worlds.  They do not negate each other because of this.

And even if you reject many-worlds and accept Copenhagen, wave collapse is a matter of statistics, and still does not allow contradiction in the reality formed upon that.

As little respect I have for Eloise's grasp of reasoning, even she seems to understand non-contradiction (although I wouldn't be surprised if she waffles on it).

The bottom line:

Falsifiability through internal-contradiction is the very cornerstone of logic.  If you knew the first thing about it, you would know that. 

Without non-contradiction and the falsifiability it provides, logic means jack-shit, and we get logical explosion, where any and all propositions are proved from contradiction.

Non-contradiction is the one and only place where Pascal's wager actually and unequivocally works.  Observe:

If non-contradiction:  Self-contradictory things are falsifiable to the degree of absolute disproof.

If contradiction: Square[circle] / monkey + (hat! : beans - (yellow/0) * (hello * plum)) ^ goose = true.

Decision theory analysis:

                                             Non-contradiction                             Contradiction

Things can be known  |                 True.                                  |     True.  And false.  And flue.

If logically proven        |   You can benefit from reason.          |    Also Monkey.  You are a meat popsicle.

                                   |                                                           |   Everything benefits you!  Everything kills you!

                                   |                                                           |  Submarines are made from cauliflower shoes.

_________________|______________________________|_________________________

                                   |                 False.                                |    False.  Also Trueeeeee! 

Nothing is knowable   |  You go through life as a nutter.       |   You can has square circle! 

                                   |  You do not benefit from reason.       |  Nose bleeds form mountains of paste.  Cinnamon!

                                   |                                                           |  You will also melt if you touch mice. 

                                   |                                                           |  The floor is mice.

Make of that what you will.

Absolutely, but this is not what you said.  Being closed minded to possibilities is a mark of closed-mindedness.  Being 'closed minded' to impossibilities is a mark of sanity and rationality.

Accepting the impossible as possible- and when I say impossible, I mean logically impossible, and not just improbable- IS closed minded, because it is rejection of falsifiability.

With what you said, you were attacking all positive atheists.  This community is founded largely on positive atheism.

Look- if you want to admit you were mistaken, that's GREAT.  Open minded people can change their mineds- they can usually admit that they over-reacted, or misunderstood something, too.

I'm not going to call you ignorant if you admit that, because that would obviously indicate that any temporary case of ignorance you may have suffered has been cured.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of as long as you're willing to learn.

What I do not suggest is waffling around the issue out of pride. 

I won't think any less of you if you can admit you made a mistake- and I suspect on that, at least, I speak for most of us here.  The majority of us will think *more* of you for it.  Rationalizing it, though, and playing it down to make it look like you weren't mistaken... not a good move.

You were attacking open minded people as being closed minded because you didn't understand the principle of logical falsifiability and mistakenly believed that all "disproofs" were based on empirical premises (some atheists may have led you to believe this by only making empirical-based arguments). 

If it were true that all of our disproofs were based on empirical premises, then you would have been right- but that is not the case.  Those are the most common arguments you may hear, but they are not the only ones.

A simple "Sorry, my bad; I didn't realize that you guys were talking about logical disproofs too." would be more than sufficient.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I can only explain to you what you said, not what you were thinking while you were saying it.

So much for your supposed "open-mindedness"; you evidently didn't read or understand my post- and I simplified the concepts as much as I could for you.  Was the formatting broken in the table I made?

I should make a visual of a diagram like that, though.  It could be beneficial to dialetheists like yourself.

Paraphrasing incorrectly.  I have persistently said "this" community. 

I'm not angry at you, but critical of your actions- particularly as you have come here, seemingly, expressly for the purpose of telling people off.  One of your first actions is to start a thread issuing an insult to a large portion of this community- the one upon which it was founded.

I don't find you funny at all; this is a sad thing that you are displaying this behavior.  I make jokes, but it's always disturbing to see dogmatic, willfully ignorant "agnostics".

Why would you even care if god is proven false?  You don't even believe in it. 

I do at least understand why Eloise is delusional; she has particular supernatural beliefs about a pantheistic deity concept and "free will" she's trying to justify, and infect other people with, because she's afraid of a world in which it isn't true, or is for some reason pleased by a world where it is.

But you- you have no reason to care.  That lends me to believe that it's strictly an issue of your pride, which is so overwhelming as to induce delusions, and push you into a position of willful ignorance in order for you to validate your own tirades against knowledge. 

Pride?  Could you really be that arrogant?  It seems almost inconceivable, but it is possible.  I'll second guess myself by saying you may just not be smart enough to understand the concepts, but these are things a seven-year-old could easily grasp... more likely than not, it's pride.

In the case that this is a matter of your pride, I certainly prefer Christians' mindsets to ideologies like yours- at least the motivations for their delusions are less arrogant.  And insofar as the Christians in question accept logic (which you have persistently denied on the basis of your pride), their world views are even more realistic than yours are.

David Henson is a good example of one such- he even rejects illogical qualities of YHWH, such as omni-qualities usually ascribed to YHWH by modern Christians (those "omni-" and "ultimate" qualities are the primary sources of logical impossibility in the standard definition of 'God'). 

If he would just use a more honest definition of "god" when referring to the context of the positive atheist's proposition [he defines it trivially as including Rock-stars and fictional characters], I would have very little contention with him.

 I don't think it's arrogant of a skeptic to ask someone to substantiate their claims. If a person tells me he has exclusive and life-changing information, I would ask that person for proof. I will then assess his proof-claiming arguments using the skills of critical analysis I have gained over my life. If the proofs are found wanting I will reject that person's claims as false.

I do not see where the arrogance is in this ... seriously. My view is that the onus is on Believers to prove to the rest of us reprobates that their claims are true. So far, none have done so. I don't think this makes me "arrogantly certain" of my views - it just makes Believers "ignorantly uncertain" of theirs.

" I don't think it's arrogant of a skeptic to ask someone to substantiate their claims. If a person tells me he has exclusive and life-changing information, I would ask that person for proof. I will then assess his proof-claiming arguments using the skills of critical analysis I have gained over my life. If the proofs are found wanting I will reject that person's claims as false." - SteveMuso

This is exacly what I would do.  I have no problem with asking for proof.  I'm simply saying that, sometimes, proof may not be available, and that just because somebody can't prove something doesn't conclusively mean they're lying, or wrong.

"I do not see where the arrogance is in this ... seriously. My view is that the onus is on Believers to prove to the rest of us reprobates that their claims are true. So far, none have done so. I don't think this makes me "arrogantly certain" of my views - it just makes Believers "ignorantly uncertain" of theirs." - SteveMuso (Bold mine)

This is the case for me also.  Just because someone may believe they are right (even, paradoxically, with all available evidence stacked up against them) doesn't mean I'll necessarily believe them.  I will, however, allow the possibility (howvever slim) that they aren't totally wrong.

Robb

Logic is just another clever mindfuck that clever people use in order to appear clever.

I could punch you on the nose and no amount of logic in this world would explain that to you. But you wouldn't feel clever.

My rejection of religion as valid ethical parameter has got fuck all to do with logic, this is war. Or, in a reverse von Clausewitz: The continuation of war into politics, i.e. it is a political standpoint that in and of itself requires no "logic". And the strategy at hand is to isolate and reject all political ramifications of having faith, whilst leaving the issue of "faith" to remain a personal choice of perversion du jour. Let people believe what the fuck they want - but don't let them get away with creating politics that are based in irrational concepts.

We are not going to live our lives together, because you people are going to die.

And "politics" is the polite name for how I am at any given point in time and space ready to crush any Christian skull with my battle axe, quite without feeling any need to explain or justify myself other than stating that "we need to rid the earth of these vermin". No, I am not kidding. I mean that most seriously and literally. You people will never be forgiven, much less forgotten. So what do you expect? To be forgiven? Yeah dream on...

I did not bring it - but I am ready.

Did you notice how our avatars are kind of opposites?