tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post6568194291580488234..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open thread on episode #695Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger259125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11236371921093504962011-02-16T08:34:12.021-06:002011-02-16T08:34:12.021-06:00The nub of his argument seems to be that an atheis...The nub of his argument seems to be that an atheist who accepts evolution cannot rule trust any evidence at all. I asked him how HE can rule out the possibility that he isn't just a brain in a jar (in either a Godless or God-goverened universe). <br /><br />His response:<br /><br />"by faith in the revelation of the Judeo-Christian God."<br /><br />His defence at adopting a faith position is that atheists must do the same:<br /><br />"i have argued that my position rests on faith repeatedly. the evolutionary argument does not suggest otherwise. atheists, like Christians, have faith in their rationality leading to true belief. the argument argues that this atheistic faith is irrational."<br /><br />As I see it then, his position is that one must adopt a faith position before one can accept any evidence at all. Therefore one must adopt one's faith position WITHOUT reference to evidence (as any evidence is suspect until one HAS the faith).<br /><br />This means that all faith positions would be equally valid. Even if one rules out self-contradiction faith positions, one is still left with an infinity of possible positions, to which one must grant equivalency. The Judeo-Christian God is no more rational than a God who created us all ten minutes ago with false memories.Andrew Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538930429790154512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45221431429443073772011-02-15T22:07:47.198-06:002011-02-15T22:07:47.198-06:00Sungyak is just so convinced that his position is ...Sungyak is just so convinced that his position is justified and correct, he just kept it up despite numerous people pointing out the logical fallacies and irrational points in his argument...I think he is finally done though.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76215253208024292512011-02-15T19:13:17.162-06:002011-02-15T19:13:17.162-06:00Holy crap!
I'm out of circulation for a week ...Holy crap!<br /><br />I'm out of circulation for a week and you all go and blow the thread to pieces. I thought this conversation had died and now it's more bloated than ever.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49886693882353115042011-02-14T07:56:18.087-06:002011-02-14T07:56:18.087-06:00I'd like to know how he translates "point...I'd like to know how he translates "pointing out the flaws in an argument" into "emotional rhetoric". <br /><br />By "repetition of digressions" he seems to mean "Continually point out where you're going wrong, because you ignored it the first, second and third time". If he makes the same mistake each time, then yes, it may sound repetitive when we point out that mistake.Andrew Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538930429790154512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11146262946389619512011-02-14T07:23:16.750-06:002011-02-14T07:23:16.750-06:00don't carry their dialogue through argumentati...<i>don't carry their dialogue through argumentation/counter-argumentation</i><br /><br />And of course, he's lying yet again.<br /><br />His powers of willfull ignorance are so honed as to be able to perform selective amnesia on cue. It's impressive, really.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35036136839083528272011-02-14T06:40:40.424-06:002011-02-14T06:40:40.424-06:00By the way, Sungyak is a bit of a hypocrite. He sa...By the way, Sungyak is a bit of a hypocrite. He says above:<br /><br />"You have a consistent number of folks who do drive-bys on my blog and come here to brag about it, like they're reporting to you their latest conquests. it's quite hilarious."<br /><br />And yet he's describing pretty well what he says on his own blog:<br /><br />"My brief visits to the Atheist Experience website has been a learning experience. firstly, i learned that there are a wholly different type of atheists than the ones i have encountered throughout my life. these people (on the internet) don't carry their dialogue through argumentation/counter-argumentation, but by emotional rhetoric and repetition of digressions." etc etc<br /> <br />Hilarious indeed.Andrew Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538930429790154512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52486777594316797922011-02-14T03:35:46.921-06:002011-02-14T03:35:46.921-06:00Koh: "He clearly stated that his faith in the...Koh: "He clearly stated that his faith in the Christian God gives him and Christians a rational basis to perceive the world accurately, while we atheists have naught but "blind faith" in science to stumble along. He certainly did not state "EVERYONE"."<br /><br />Koh, sorry but I still think you're missing what Sungyak is saying. As you quote, he's saying they're the only ones with 'a rational basis', he's not saying they're the only ones who CAN perceive it accurately, only that they're the only ones who can rationally EXPLAIN why they can.<br /><br />He is not saying that only Christians can HAVE reason, he's saying that only Christians can justify and explain where it comes from. <br /><br />It's the same as William Lane Craig's argument that only theists/Christians can explain and justify morality, in that he's not claiming that atheists cannot BE moral, only that they can't 'ground' or 'justify' what morality is.<br /><br />Obviously I don't agree with either, but I believe that properly understanding their argument is important when refuting it. That's why atheists fail when they try to point out to WLC moral atheists, or immoral Christians.Andrew Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538930429790154512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24374409492890783712011-02-14T00:27:37.054-06:002011-02-14T00:27:37.054-06:00Turns out Mark called back today and just got owne...Turns out Mark called back today and just got owned by Matt and Jeff. Mark ended up listening to Matt go off on one of his intellectual tirades and after Matt was done talking he just gave a big sigh and hung up....I hope the kids of the Austin Stone Church were listening to that so they could see how intellectually deprived one of their leaders is and how bad he is at defending their beliefs.Mamba24https://www.blogger.com/profile/05946274556360577420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26625431938617707682011-02-13T20:00:18.827-06:002011-02-13T20:00:18.827-06:00@Andrew: Well, I did quote him directly from one o...@Andrew: Well, I did quote him directly from one of his earliest comments. He clearly stated that his faith in the Christian God gives him and Christians a rational basis to perceive the world accurately, while we atheists have naught but "blind faith" in science to stumble along. He certainly did not state "EVERYONE". His God ain't that "generous".<br /><br />I say let him try out the experiment I postulated. Since he *supposedly* has the Christian God as a rational basis and hence *supposedly* has a rational mind while we atheists don't. IF he really perceives differently than the atheists, then he could move on to compare his perception with the Pope, and in the process most likely antagonizing the entire Catholic church (good luck with that). On the other hand, IF he actually perceives the just same as us, then we atheists are just as sane and capable of perceiving accurately as he is with his Christian God! Come, Sungyak, prove your point!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06931084892387770223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21283017402768353202011-02-13T15:05:58.558-06:002011-02-13T15:05:58.558-06:00I see undertones of Pascal's wager, too. If y...I see undertones of Pascal's wager, too. If you have to have "faith" either way, you might as well put your faith in god.<br /><br />@Sungyak - You said that you feel people are <i>itching to find something you can disagree with</i>. That is not the case here, what I take issue with is someone misrepresenting what atheism is. When I make mistakes, I would expect people to correct me as well. So when someone claims atheism as a worldview, and then makes numerous statements based on that, I ask for clarifications.MAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12489281535410681576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13088171496439378212011-02-13T14:30:05.296-06:002011-02-13T14:30:05.296-06:00"You always need faith, so better have it in ..."You always need faith, so better have it in god, because then at least you have a rational basis for all those other instances when you need to have faith in other things."<br /><br />Even if you agree that everything is "faith" based, Sungyak's jump from god therefore rationalism is a non sequitur. He sounds like he's retracing Descartes' footsteps in to solipsism, only to repeat his mistakes and invoke god as the "get out of epistemological angst free" card.<br /><br />Amateur...John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74413914819370576212011-02-13T12:45:17.502-06:002011-02-13T12:45:17.502-06:00@John S: "He would therefore need the same &q...@John S: "He would therefore need the same "faith" in reality as if there was no god."<br /><br />Yes, that seems to be his point. You always need faith, so better have it in god, because then at least you have a rational basis for all those other instances when you need to have faith in other things. At least, I think that's his point, since he likes to make a difference between "rational faith" and "blind faith".Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12262656773683552962011-02-13T12:41:29.776-06:002011-02-13T12:41:29.776-06:00"It's almost as if god is used as an &quo..."It's almost as if god is used as an "get out of epistemological angst free" card."<br /><br />LOLJohn Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20554709500564290962011-02-13T12:40:07.897-06:002011-02-13T12:40:07.897-06:00@Plain
"I don't think he does suggest tha...@Plain<br />"I don't think he does suggest that. His point <br />*seems* to be that a world view without god is not rational since you would have no basis to assume logic and/or your senses would be trustworthy enough to know that something is true."<br /><br />What he doesn't realise is that even if god exists he would still need to assume that god created him in an objective reality with a mind capable of obtaining reality of it. He would therefore need the same "faith" in reality as if there was no god.<br /><br />In other words, he says to us: "you've no way of knowing you're in the matrix." My reply is: "you have no way of knowing that your not being deceived by an evil demon."John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61178960193556173142011-02-13T12:30:52.094-06:002011-02-13T12:30:52.094-06:00It's almost as if god is used as an "get ...It's almost as if god is used as an "get out of epistemological angst free" card.Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29536550050306845612011-02-13T12:27:38.107-06:002011-02-13T12:27:38.107-06:00@Andrew Ryan: "Problem is that I don't se...@Andrew Ryan: "Problem is that I don't see how he suggests one can determine which situation is the one we are in."<br /><br />I don't think he does suggest that. His point <br />*seems* to be that a world view without god is not rational since you would have no basis to assume logic and/or your senses would be trustworthy enough to know that something is true. So he's not saying he can determine there is a god or not, he says it is irrational not to belief in one and once you belief in one then you can trust your own conclusion that there is one. Where all this goes wrong is that he hinges everything on the "knowing something is true" part. On the one hand he accepts that we cannot have absolute certainty, but then on the other he demands that we do, in his implicit definition of the words "true" and "trustworthy".Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47527544052056127652011-02-13T12:21:45.825-06:002011-02-13T12:21:45.825-06:00@Los: "There cannot logically be a third opti...@Los: "There cannot logically be a third option."<br /><br />That entirely depends on which axioms and rules of inference you allow into your logic. Since over on his blog Sungyak claims that it is even unreasonable to include the principle of non-contradiction into your logic unless your world view contains a god (at least, I think that's what he claims in his LNC post), I highly doubt that he would accept the law of the excluded middle since that is a more debatable law anyway.<br /><br />From the point of view of logic you can include any axiom or rule you want, but not everything is equally useful or even consistent. I would argue that when we want to use that logic to discuss reality we should try to include those axioms and rules that, to the best of our abilities to discern such thing, are in correspondence with reality. As far as I know our observations and measurements of reality do suggest that reality is non-contradictory and for most correctly stated propositions middles are excluded as well.<br /><br />But, if I have to extrapolate Sungyak's reply from his previous answers, it would go something like this: we cannot have absolute certainty without god planting it in our brains, therefore your observational justification for non-contradiction cannot be trusted, therefore if there is no god your world view is irrational and finally that leads to the conclusion that believing in something *for which there is absolutely no evidence at all, trustworthy or otherwise* (the part in *...* is usually disguised as a bible quote or something alike), is the most rational thing to do.<br /><br />Now, I would normally not do this, i.e. assign words to other people, but after going round and round and round on this same argument for way too many posts on his blog I feel I got a pretty good understanding of what his position seems to be and it was going nowhere except in circles. If my interpretation of his position is correct, it is useless to have a discussion with him, since he doesn't accept anything as a basis for logic, which is a necessary tool to even have a discussion, except belief in a god. That's I why I stopped the discussion at some point. And if my interpretation is not correct, I'm sure he'll let me know.Plain Simplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940189133658347463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28858819547478327332011-02-13T12:03:07.858-06:002011-02-13T12:03:07.858-06:00Koh: "If the Christians perceived differently...Koh: "If the Christians perceived differently... they either have absolutely accurate God-endowed senses(WOW!), or they're delusional."<br /><br />That's not what Sungyak was saying. He was positing as a possibility that God gave EVERYONE the ability to perceive correctly vs a naturalistic world where none of us can trust our senses.<br /><br />Problem is that I don't see how he suggests one can determine which situation is the one we are in. He can assert that being in a naturalist only world would mean one couldn't trust one's senses, but I don't see how he can know whether or not that is truly the situation he is or is not in. It seems to be an unfalsifiable situation. He could THINK he was in the 'God' situation, but could equally be in the 'natural' situation without realising it.<br /><br />Unless he can explain otherwise.Andrew Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538930429790154512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83339126285793696942011-02-13T11:14:25.748-06:002011-02-13T11:14:25.748-06:00Simple enough; if faith in the Christian God endow...Simple enough; if faith in the Christian God endows us with "a rational mind and a basis for Christians to believe that all they percieve are trustworthy", while absence of faith leaves us with a "blind faith", I say let Sungyak pick any statistically satisfying number of worthy Christians while we send an equal number of atheists. Then show both groups an item, play a sound, etc. In short, provide an identical stimulus to both groups. Then ask both groups what did they perceive. <br /><br />If the Christians perceived differently... they either have absolutely accurate God-endowed senses(WOW!), or they're delusional. If they perceived exactly as the atheists did, then.. LOL.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06931084892387770223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26354861864874019032011-02-13T10:50:39.650-06:002011-02-13T10:50:39.650-06:00Sungyak, could you clarify something. Would you sa...Sungyak, could you clarify something. Would you say that the statement is a falsifiable proposition or an unfalsifiable one:<br />"I might be just brain in a vat and none of the stimulus I receive is reliable".<br /><br />I get the feeling that your reply might clarify matters a bit.<br /><br />If it's falsifiable, can you expand on how?<br />If it's unfalsifiable, to what extent in our philosophies should we factor in the possibility that it's true?Andrew Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538930429790154512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52242135706166378392011-02-13T07:09:24.634-06:002011-02-13T07:09:24.634-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10905950892367639262011-02-13T06:57:20.157-06:002011-02-13T06:57:20.157-06:00Sungyak revealing his straw man of atheism 230 pos...Sungyak revealing his straw man of atheism 230 posts in; surely some kind of trolling award is deserved? Misquoting and misunderstanding me on a different blog is also dishonest behaviour.<br /><br />The argument is basically: "I know there is no such thing as absolute certainty. But until you show me how empiricism/science gives us absolute certainty I am going to believe whatever I want and pretend that it is knowledge."<br /><br />The irony is that sungyak has basically said that we can't trust anything based on axioms and yet employs an attempt at logical argument; logic itself being axiomatic.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88144604257114739942011-02-13T06:05:29.572-06:002011-02-13T06:05:29.572-06:00@Los;
What you say about the survival advantage o...@Los;<br /><br />What you say about the survival advantage of being over-sensitive to various stimuli can be true. It depends on the actual danger of the real threat.<br /><br />For example, running away when you see something which looks like a snake is entirely logical in an environment with dangerous snakes. It is not logical, and would therefore potentially lead to an evolutionary disadvantage, in an environment absent snakes, absent dangerous snakes, and perhaps in environments with only few dangerous snakes.<br /><br />The *best* course of action (running away or not running away) can be taken only be correctly perceiving whether it truly is a snake or not. Or course, there may be a cost associated with that - perhaps in terms of escape time, or perhaps in terms of evolutionary design work. This cost may lead the correct decision becoming to be overly cautious, since as you note, a lack of caution can lead to death. Too much caution may also lead to death. However, this is a difference in decision making (i.e. benefit of correct knowledge vs. cost of lost escape time), not in perception. Improvements in perception mechanisms will shift the balance.<br /><br />Ultimately, whether one runs away or not probably depends on more on the chemistry of the brain of the individual (for example, I hate snakes with a passion, and would certainly run away at the slightest hint of one, while others would be less bothered, and may be more susceptible to being eaten), with evolution performing a meta-analysis of which strategy was optimal.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08165695979185282802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27914688116470460792011-02-13T02:41:36.222-06:002011-02-13T02:41:36.222-06:00Sungyak, your latest post reveals why you’ve had s...Sungyak, your latest post reveals why you’ve had such a problem communicating on here: you keep using the word “atheism” when you actually mean “materialistic naturalism.”<br /><br />The words don’t mean the same things. An atheist is someone who doesn’t accept claims about gods, while a materialistic naturalist is someone who believes that the material world is all that is (or, rather, that all things can ultimately be reduced to material).<br /><br />All materialistic naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists are materialistic naturalists. I, for example, am an atheist, but I would not label myself a “materialistic naturalist.”<br /><br />I accept that the natural world exists – because I have plenty of evidence that it does – and, thus far, no one has presented any evidence to me that any worlds exist besides the natural world. So, in that sense, I’m a “naturalist,” but I don’t hold the belief that “Only the natural world exists,” at least not in any dogmatic way.<br /><br />If I had to label myself at all, I would call myself something like a “Skeptical Naturalist.” I’m a skeptic – meaning that I insist on evidence before I accept a claim as true – and my skepticism leads me to the conclusion that the natural world is the only one I’m justified in believing in.<br /><br />Atheism is something entirely different. Your conflation of atheism and materialistic naturalism is not only leading you to logical errors in your argument – it’s making you look like an uninformed fool on this blog.<br /><br />I think you will find that my thoughts on this matter echo the thoughts of many other atheists reading this blog. You’re not going to find all that many “materialist naturalists” out there hankering for a fight on this subject, so at best, you’re fighting windmills.<br /><br />You would be better served by getting a better grasp on the definitions you’re using before you start attempting to convince other people of your position. Take some time, think through your arguments, and then have a go at putting together an argument again some time in the future.Loshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03552150840148273277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91655426585736558832011-02-13T02:28:49.075-06:002011-02-13T02:28:49.075-06:00I will answer your points in reverse order so as t...I will answer your points in reverse order so as to foreground an important clarification:<br /><br />Sungyak wrote: “los, it seems that you agree with the argument to the extent that it casts serious doubt on atheism. you're only saying that theism isn't any better. so the argument still succeeds in this case. whether theism is likewise a failure will require another argument to demonstrate that it is so. argument.”<br /><br />No, you’ve misread me. I’m saying that your argument fails to establish theism as true in either case (i.e. whether or not it’s true that we cannot trust our senses and/or tools, we still do not have a good reason to accept theism as true in either case). Thus, not believing in theism is the *superior* option. <br /><br />The word for not believing in theism is “atheism.” I am telling you that atheism – not believing in theism – is the superior option because your arguments do not provide any basis at all for believing in theism.<br /><br />Now, I originally wrote, quite eloquently: "So take your pick: either we live in a world where we cannot correct our subjective perception errors – in which there is no reason to think that your god is real – or we live in a world where we *can* correct our subjective perception errors…in which case, there *still* is no reason to think that your god is real."<br /><br />You responded: “this dichotomy is true if and only if you assume a naturalistic worldview.”<br /><br />No, you are incorrect. Here is the true dichotomy again: either we are capable of correcting our subjective perception errors, or we are not capable of correcting them.<br /><br />When it comes to a question of whether humans are capable of doing something (no matter what it is), there are only two options: either we are or we aren’t.<br /><br />There cannot logically be a third option. Even if you are claiming that there is some supernatural method of correcting the errors of our subjective perception, that would put you squarely in camp one (“humans are capable of correcting [in this case, through supernatural tools/methods] our subjective perception errors”).<br /><br />Now, if you go the route of claiming that humans are capable of correcting their subjective perceptions and that your supposed supernatural tools are *superior* to other tools such as reason and evidence-based inquiry, then you are then in a position where you have to demonstrate that your supernatural tools are the superior ones if you want people to take your god claims seriously.<br /><br />I get the impression that you think – mistakenly – that you if you can demonstrate that reason and evidence-based inquiry are not absolute tools, or rather that they can’t be trusted any more than our senses can, then your claims about supernatural methods of knowing somehow win by default.<br /><br />They don’t.<br /><br />If you’re advancing a claim like theism, then you need to provide good reason to accept your claim about a god existing. In the absence of such a reason, the best position to take is *not* to accept the claim. <br /><br />But what you’re doing here is not providing any reason at all – all you’re doing is calling into question certain epistemological assumptions that we all hold for pragmatic reasons, and while it might be entertaining to sit back and stroke our beards and speculate about being brains in a vat, these vague undergraduate ramblings don’t come anywhere NEAR demonstrating that you actually have a *superior* tool for correcting the errors of our subjective perceptions.Loshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03552150840148273277noreply@blogger.com