A Gutsy Preacher

[Rens]

Yeah, that's a tried and refuted (by an actual expert in the field) argument:

The Information Challenge

Hahaha that reminds me. Once I thought I could convince atheists with creation arguments to prove that evolution was wrong, because I saw a movie of Carl Baugh with Kenneth Copeland. Lately someone wanted to show that movie in church. I said: better not do that. I heard he's a fraud. Even Answers in Genesis tells people not to use arguments from Carl Baugh.

 

[MarkFL]

Please bear in mind though, the fact of evolution has no bearing on whether there is/are god/gods or not. There is no legitimate scientific dispute about evolution. As far as explaining the diversity of life, the scientific theory of evolution is the only horse in the race.

 

[psalms 91]

nope not the only one

 

[MarkFL]

nope not the only one

What are the other viable scientific theory/theories (or anything with any actual evidence and/or applied methodology)? And note that creationism (life being magically created in its present diversity) has already been cleanly knocked out of the race due to being nothing more than an assertion (no theoretical framework and no backing evidence). So, what's left? A scientific theory (with mountains of evidence to back it) and...?

 

[Josiah]

"Agnostic atheist" seems like a noun turned into an adjective and then applied to a noun. Agnostic is usually accounted to be a noun. Atheist is usually accounted to be a noun. So agnostic atheist reads like "horse cow".

Exactly.

Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all nouns. Positions. Articles. Declarations.


Theism is a proposition, a position, a declaration: God is.
Atheism is the negation of that - equally a proposiiton but the antithesis: God is not.
Agnosticism is a non-stance, a position of neutrality, holding to neither.


There is life on Mars. Position one.
There is is NOT life on Mars. Position two, equal but opposite of position one.
I hold to no position on this, I have no proposition or article or declaration - both are possible, either is affirmed or denied. Position three.
Different positions.
Mutually exclusive.
Nonsensical to invent a forth position: There is life on Mars I hold no position on the whether Mars has or has not life. It's just nonsensical.



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Friend Mark....


1. You are the one who stated that these few folks have recently "stripped" the words of their meaning. It's your claim, not mine.


2. IMO you stated that the reason is so that Atheist can avoid the "burden of proof" that they insist the opposite position has. It's YOUR claim (not mine) that some Atheists have now insist their position has no burden of proof - the same burden of proof or at all.


3. IMO, I've simply noted what you said. For a long, long time I asked WHY this gymnastics, this "stripping" you stated has been recently done by some, the REASON for this recent creation of this (to me entirely nonsensical) postion of "Atheist - Agnsotic" and for just as long, you evaded it. Tigger wrote a powerful post (he's a former Atheist) which you chose to ignore but eventually, it seems to me, you confirmed exactly what he stated.




Mark, OBVIOUSLY.... ALL propositions carry a "burden of proof" - it's just as you noted, some "Atheists" recently have stripped words and now claim that positions have a burden of proof - except one: Atheism. Hum. They now insist the theists (God is) have an extreme, radical burden of proof - but the antithesis (Atheism) does not - they've decided recently to exit the boat, to not place themselves in "the same boat." I think the reason for that is obvious.



You ask why this newly created position of Atheist/Agnostic is a contradiction, nonsensical. Well....AGAIN........ "the number of sands on the beach is odd and I have no position on whether the number of grains of sand on the beach is odd or even." "There is no life on Mars and I have no position on whether there is life on Mars." "There is no God and I have no position on whether the divine is or is not." You see those as consistent, logical. I see them as nonsensical, illogical, absurd.... and surely done with some intent. Honestly Mark, you can't see the nonsense of that, the intellectual dishonest of that ???????????????? Really?



Mark, you confuse verbs with nouns.... And again.... "BELIEVE" is not a proposition and NEVER has ANY burden of proof. I can say "I BELIEVE my wife will cook tonight" but it is impossible to prove whether I BELEIVE that or not, but it's irrelevant since BELIEF is not a proposition and has no burden. What we are discussing are the two opposite, antithetical propositions: GOD IS..... GOD IS NOT. One is called "Theism" and one is, by necessity, called "Atheism." In epistemology, the antithesis always has an "A" in front (from the Greek meaning NO, NOT). And yes, there is a third option: No position, no verdict "I don't know if there is life on Mars or not - both are possible, neither seems confirmed" a position that is called "Agnosticism" (a term that applies in epistemology to ALL propositional statements - the "neutral" position is always "Agnosticism" (it's not just a term used in this debate over the divine). But these are 3 mutually exclusive positions, impossible and illogical and nonsensical to combine.

But as you noted, these few who recently played this semantic gymnastics, who recently invented this new position of Atheism/Agnosticism was invented so that the one so labeling his/her proposition can leave the boat of accountability, can deny SELF the burden of proof - but no other. See Tigger's very insightful post (that you eventually seemed to verify).




.

You are wrong and why and not learn from it. I have absolutely no respect for that.

Mark ...... please consider......



1. Again, verbs are not nouns. Believes are not articles, propositions, positions, declarations. "I/we believe ________ (some unknown, unstated, whatever dangling out there in outer space)" is not a position. I agree with you the verb "belief" (void of any article) has no burden of proof. But come on, my friend: A sentence cannot be made up entierly of a verb. There, by necessity, must be a NOUN that the verb has as it's subject. "I believe there is life on Mars" is not only now a sentence but we now see the proposition, the position - it is an affirmation of a proposition, an ARTICLE - namely - life on Mars. Your desire to suggest that the Theist has a great "burden of proof" because there's a position there (God is) but that the Atheism has no burden of proof because it's just a verb with no subject, no article.... it is just .... well...... nonsense and intellectually dishonest (and no, not respectable). The issue is not belief, the issue is GOD. Theism: God is. ATheism: God is not. THOSE are both propositions, articles, positions - and they equally have an equal burden of proof.



2. There is a third option in epistemology: neutrality. Neither affirming OR denying the proposition, the declaration, the article of other parts of speech. One CAN be neutral. One CAN indicate insufficient evidence for EITHER stance. In ALL propositions, this is called "Agnosticism". One could hold, "I take no stance on whether life exists on Mars or not - the verdict is out - I do not deny or embrace either position.



3. Of course, this means there are 3 DIFFERENT, MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE positions: 1. God IS. 2. God is NOT. 3. Neutral - neither affirming or denying either position (likely because the holder concludes there is insufficent evidence). It's just intellectually dishonest, nonsensical, illogical for a few to now insist on a new, 4th position: God is not I have no position on whether God is or is not. (Again, see point # 1).



4. So why the semantic gymnastics? The "stripping" of meaning that you insist a few have recently done to the word "Atheist?" Perhaps to dodge responsibility/accountability for the POSITION, the DECLARATION of the article? Ah. I think you yourself clearly said: So that the burden of proof can be placed enormously on the Theist (because insisting GOD IS is a position) but "jump ship" and make a "180" when the Atheist proposition is raised - rush over to the Agnostic side of the label as soon as it is noted that the Atheist too has an equal burden of proof for the equal (but opposite) proposition. You want to insist that the one who says there is life of Mars PROVES that while the position that that there is no life on Mars is free from any burden of proof, free from all responsibility, truthfulness, honesty, accountability - no burden of proof on me, just on everyone else. See Tigger's post (and his illustration of boxing)




- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

...Nonsensical to invent a forth position...

A fourth position is in fact necessary and logically consistent. Let's call the claim that there is life on Mars "martianbioism."

Position 1: I know there is life on Mars (gnostic martianbioist - makes a claim of knowledge, has a burden of proof).
Position 2: I accept the claim that there is life on Mars, although I have no evidence to back it (agnostic martianbioist - makes no claim of knowledge, therefore has no burden of proof).
Position 3: I reject the claim that there is life on Mars, because I have no evidence to back it (agnostic amartianbioist - makes no claim of knowledge, therefore has no burden of proof).
Position 4: I know there is no life on Mars (gnostic amartianbioist - makes a claim of knowledge, has a burden of proof).

We have two attributes here...claim and knowledge, and two states for each. Claim (accept or reject) and knowledge (either state knowledge regarding the claim or not). By the fundamental counting principle, this dictates that there are 2*2 = 4 positions.

 

[tango]

But the sand still exists though. Proof or not. It's not like once proof is given that sand suddenly exists.

Very true.

One major point that needs to be addressed is that mere knowing that God exists is not salvation to man. Salvation points to the Savior and the forgiveness won at the cross. The first commandment God gave in the Old Testament was about Him being the Lord our God but the entire bible points to His plan to save us from our sins.

... which is why the invitation to come and see the sand and experience it directly makes more sense than a proof on paper that creates nothing more than a theoretical knowledge of this yellowish stuff on the beach.

Going back to the unicorn example I used before, if someone doesn't want to believe it doesn't matter how many pictures or descriptions you offer. But if the unicorn always shows up in the evenings you can invite them to see it for themselves. If they come along and see the unicorn for themselves you don't need to worry about never ending attempts to provide a theoretical proof.

 

[tango]

A fourth position is in fact necessary and logically consistent. Let's call the claim that there is life on Mars "martianbioism."

Position 1: I know there is life on Mars (gnostic martianbioist - makes a claim of knowledge, has a burden of proof).
Position 2: I accept the claim that there is life on Mars, although I have no evidence to back it (agnostic martianbioist - makes no claim of knowledge, therefore has no burden of proof).
Position 3: I reject the claim that there is life on Mars, because I have no evidence to back it (agnostic amartianbioist - makes no claim of knowledge, therefore has no burden of proof).
Position 4: I know there is no life on Mars (gnostic amartianbioist - makes a claim of knowledge, has a burden of proof).

We have two attributes here...claim and knowledge, and two states for each. Claim (accept or reject) and knowledge (either state knowledge regarding the claim or not). By the fundamental counting principle, this dictates that there are 2*2 = 4 positions.

This makes logical sense. However, when applying it to some things that may create a theoretical burden of proof it falls over simply because if I've seen something with my own eyes that's all the proof I need. Trying to prove to someone else that I have, in fact, seen what I claim to have seen is nigh on impossible. Even in a court of law the testimony of a credible eyewitness is assigned a certain value, and if multiple eyewitnesses give comparable stories that's pretty much all that is needed. In a court of law the whole thing of testifying under oath is enough, unless there's a specific reason to doubt the claims of an eyewitness there is no burden of proof upon them.

Hence, if I testify under oath in court that "whodunnit" was MarkFL, with the protractor, in the drawing room, I don't need to provide any further proof of the man's deadly agility with mathematical instruments.

 

[MarkFL]

If I testify that I saw someone sink a protractor into someone's head, that may be believable and my testimony accepted into evidence, if I am deemed a credible witness. However, if I claim that I saw the same person levitate by sheer will and fly across the room, overtaking their victim, and then sinking the same protractor into the victim's head, I will be viewed with a great deal more skepticism, as I should be, since people are not known to levitate in such a manner.

 

[Josiah]

Mark ...... please consider......



1. Again, verbs are not nouns. Believes are not articles, propositions, positions, declarations. "I/we believe ________ (some unknown, unstated, whatever dangling out there in outer space)" is not a position. I agree with you the verb "belief" (void of any article) has no burden of proof. But come on, my friend: A sentence cannot be made up entierly of a verb. There, by necessity, must be a NOUN that the verb has as it's subject. "I believe there is life on Mars" is not only now a sentence but we now see the proposition, the position - it is an affirmation of a proposition, an ARTICLE - namely - life on Mars. Your desire to suggest that the Theist has a great "burden of proof" because there's a position there (God is) but that the Atheism has no burden of proof because it's just a verb with no subject, no article.... it is just .... well...... nonsense and intellectually dishonest (and no, not respectable). The issue is not belief, the issue is GOD. Theism: God is. ATheism: God is not. THOSE are both propositions, articles, positions - and they equally have an equal burden of proof.



2. There is a third option in epistemology: neutrality. Neither affirming OR denying the proposition, the declaration, the article of other parts of speech. One CAN be neutral. One CAN indicate insufficient evidence for EITHER stance. In ALL propositions, this is called "Agnosticism". One could hold, "I take no stance on whether life exists on Mars or not - the verdict is out - I do not deny or embrace either position.



3. Of course, this means there are 3 DIFFERENT, MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE positions: 1. God IS. 2. God is NOT. 3. Neutral - neither affirming or denying either position (likely because the holder concludes there is insufficent evidence). It's just intellectually dishonest, nonsensical, illogical for a few to now insist on a new, 4th position: God is not I have no position on whether God is or is not. (Again, see point # 1).



4. So why the semantic gymnastics? The "stripping" of meaning that you insist a few have recently done to the word "Atheist?" Perhaps to dodge responsibility/accountability for the POSITION, the DECLARATION of the article? Ah. I think you yourself clearly said: So that the burden of proof can be placed enormously on the Theist (because insisting GOD IS is a position) but "jump ship" and make a "180" when the Atheist proposition is raised - rush over to the Agnostic side of the label as soon as it is noted that the Atheist too has an equal burden of proof for the equal (but opposite) proposition. You want to insist that the one who says there is life of Mars PROVES that while the position that that there is no life on Mars is free from any burden of proof, free from all responsibility, truthfulness, honesty, accountability - no burden of proof on me, just on everyone else. See Tigger's post (and his illustration of boxing)




.

A fourth position is in fact necessary and logically consistent. Let's call the claim that there is life on Mars "martianbioism."

Position 1: I know there is life on Mars (gnostic martianbioist - makes a claim of knowledge, has a burden of proof).
Position 2: I accept the claim that there is life on Mars, although I have no evidence to back it (agnostic martianbioist - makes no claim of knowledge, therefore has no burden of proof).
Position 3: I reject the claim that there is life on Mars, because I have no evidence to back it (agnostic amartianbioist - makes no claim of knowledge, therefore has no burden of proof).
Position 4: I know there is no life on Mars (gnostic amartianbioist - makes a claim of knowledge, has a burden of proof).

We have two attributes here...claim and knowledge, and two states for each. Claim (accept or reject) and knowledge (either state knowledge regarding the claim or not). By the fundamental counting principle, this dictates that there are 2*2 = 4 positions.

No, Mark. Again, you are confusing verbs with nouns. To claim or believe is a verb.... see point #1 in what you didn't quote from me but evaded. Positions are not verbs.


There are only three possibilities: Yes, no, neutral. Yes, there is life on Mars. No, there is not. No position - neither view rejected or affirmed. Bioism. Abioism. Agnosticism. All mutually exclusive. See points # 2, 3 and 4 in my posts that you didn't quote from me. This new 4th position that evidently a few have recently invented is nonsensical: BOTH, equally, concurrently Atheist AND Agnostic is impossible - but proposed for a purpose that you identified: so that the Theist can be held to a standard of absolute proof (HAVING a burden of proof) but the Atheist can hide under the Agnostic part and completely dodge the very thing he demands of the Theist, the Atheist can "jump ship" of accountability - demand a double standard. I find that intellectually dishonest, as well as nonsensical.



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Believe is a verb. A person believes a proposition. For example I believe that the doctrine of the most holy and blessed Trinity is true.

To not believe is not a verb. A person need do nothing to not believe a proposition. For example I do not believe that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden. I do not need to do anything to maintain that state of non-belief in faeries at the bottom of my garden. In fact I do not believe in faeries anywhere in any place on Earth and need not actively maintain this state of non-belief since the matter almost never arises in my thoughts.

I also do not believe in the Great Pumpkin

 

[MarkFL]

...There are only three possibilities...

No, you are simply continuing to stubbornly refuse to see how one can reject a belief without believing the negation. It's very strange that you won't see this.

 

[popsthebuilder]

What I meant was that as a natural phenomenon and hence because it could be measured, electricity came to be understood. This is not the case with the supernatural.

Because one doesn't have the capacity to readily observe and measure a thing, doesn't technically make it supernatural.

Indeed the limits of one's own knowledge limits what they consider natural.

The word supernatural is misleading and vague as it can refer to a thing simply not understood and too a thing of total fantasy.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

Because one doesn't have the capacity to readily observe and measure a thing, doesn't technically make it supernatural.

Yes, and I never implied it does.

 

[Josiah]

Mark ...... please consider......



1. Again, verbs are not nouns. Believes are not articles, propositions, positions, declarations. "I/we believe ________ (some unknown, unstated, whatever dangling out there in outer space)" is not a position. I agree with you the verb "belief" (void of any article) has no burden of proof. But come on, my friend: A sentence cannot be made up entierly of a verb. There, by necessity, must be a NOUN that the verb has as it's subject. "I believe there is life on Mars" is not only now a sentence but we now see the proposition, the position - it is an affirmation of a proposition, an ARTICLE - namely - life on Mars. Your desire to suggest that the Theist has a great "burden of proof" because there's a position there (God is) but that the Atheism has no burden of proof because it's just a verb with no subject, no article.... it is just .... well...... nonsense and intellectually dishonest (and no, not respectable). The issue is not belief, the issue is GOD. Theism: God is. ATheism: God is not. THOSE are both propositions, articles, positions - and they equally have an equal burden of proof.



2. There is a third option in epistemology: neutrality. Neither affirming OR denying the proposition, the declaration, the article of other parts of speech. One CAN be neutral. One CAN indicate insufficient evidence for EITHER stance. In ALL propositions, this is called "Agnosticism". One could hold, "I take no stance on whether life exists on Mars or not - the verdict is out - I do not deny or embrace either position.



3. Of course, this means there are 3 DIFFERENT, MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE positions: 1. God IS. 2. God is NOT. 3. Neutral - neither affirming or denying either position (likely because the holder concludes there is insufficent evidence). It's just intellectually dishonest, nonsensical, illogical for a few to now insist on a new, 4th position: God is not I have no position on whether God is or is not. (Again, see point # 1).



4. So why the semantic gymnastics? The "stripping" of meaning that you insist a few have recently done to the word "Atheist?" Perhaps to dodge responsibility/accountability for the POSITION, the DECLARATION of the article? Ah. I think you yourself clearly said: So that the burden of proof can be placed enormously on the Theist (because insisting GOD IS is a position) but "jump ship" and make a "180" when the Atheist proposition is raised - rush over to the Agnostic side of the label as soon as it is noted that the Atheist too has an equal burden of proof for the equal (but opposite) proposition. You want to insist that the one who says there is life of Mars PROVES that while the position that that there is no life on Mars is free from any burden of proof, free from all responsibility, truthfulness, honesty, accountability - no burden of proof on me, just on everyone else. See Tigger's post (and his illustration of boxing)


.

No, you are simply continuing to stubbornly refuse to see how one can reject a belief without believing the negation.

No, Mark. Again, you are confusing verbs with nouns. To claim or believe is a verb.... see point #1 in what you didn't quote from me but evaded. Positions are not verbs. You seem to want to combine two DIFFERENT things.... a verb (belief in some dangling nothingism which is not identified - a verb without a subject) with the subject. You can't have it both ways. IF the discussion is whether a verb exists or not is one thing, a discussion in whether a proposition (the article of the verb) is correct or not is a whole other enchildada. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.


There are only three possibilities: Yes, no, neutral. Yes, there is life on Mars. No, there is not. No position - neither view rejected or affirmed. Bioism. Abioism. Agnosticism. All mutually exclusive. See points # 2, 3 and 4 in my posts that you didn't quote from me. This new 4th position that evidently a few have recently invented is nonsensical: BOTH, equally, concurrently Atheist AND Agnostic is nonsensical and impossible - but proposed for a purpose that you identified: so that the Theist can be held to a standard of absolute proof (HAVING a burden of proof) but the Atheist can hide under the Agnostic part and completely dodge the very thing he demands of the Theist - the burden of proof. I find that intellectually dishonest, as well as nonsensical



- Josiah


.

 

[MarkFL]

Okay, Josiah...I have tried to enlighten you as to the way things are and you refuse to be taught. At some point it becomes counter productive to try to teach, and we reached that point before this thread even started. Your mind is set in stone and there's no changing it even in the face of being shown to be wrong by several here. We have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong, and as i said being wrong is fine (we are all wrong at times), but not owning it is not fine.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, and I never implied it does.

I know... I was just making a statement.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Okay, Josiah...I have tried to enlighten you as to the way things are and you refuse to be taught. At some point it becomes counter productive to try to teach, and we reached that point before this thread even started. Your mind is set in stone and there's no changing it even in the face of being shown to be wrong by several here. We have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong, and as i said being wrong is fine (we are all wrong at times), but not owning it is not fine.

Mark,

You didn't indicate that I was wrong. In fact, you STATED that the Atheist position has recently been "STRIPPED" by some - an admission of semantic gymnastics IMO - and you STATED the reason for this: so the Atheist can dodge the "burden of proof" that he insists the Theist has. I've noted that (and you never challenged that). I've noted that positions are nouns and positions all have the "burden of proof" - you've agreed and disagreed.

It IS nonsensical and illogical. I think you've also noted that - with the point that one cannot state the number of sands on the beaches is NOT odd and also currently and equally state neutrality on that same issue. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

I think you've made it clear the whole point of this is so that Atheist can dodge the issue of proof, the "burden of proof" that they insist the Theist has. These have recently "stripped meanings" (YOUR insistence, not mine..... YOUR word, not mine....) and for this reason of evading the burden of proof.

I gave 2 or 3 posts TRYING to break through this, as esteemed friends and worthly posters, each indicated as "please consider" but they were all evaded. And I have noted that I STILL can't find a single thing you've stated about your position that seems remotely "Atheistic" - it's all classic Agnosticism - and so have asked why you want to embrace this very new, very odd (and to me never heard of) 4th position (which IMO isn't a position AT ALL just a contradiction), and all I can gather is this felt need for the "burden of proof" to be disapplied to Atheism. See Tigger's post that you much later confirmed.


- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Josiah...if you have never heard of the standard definition I am using, then all I can say is you need to get out there and explore. That's what I did when I came to find I was wrong about it. Instead of claiming deception on the part of the rest of the world, I embraced this new knowledge. I learned that I am an atheist without making any positive claim, it is based only on my rejection of the positive claim made by theists, and does not depend on me making the opposing claim.