Seriously, Dawkins?

[Kai]

Are you using my definitions of those terms or are you using your undefined ones?

You know what? fuck it. Taboo "know" and "truth", and tell me what you mean again.

Truth = Reality.  

Opinions are beliefs and ideas about reality.  Facts are the truth about reality.

Less wrong, as great as it is has a specialized language for ideas about ideas about what people think are true and false ad nauseum... all of that is unnecessary.  

No, it's really necessary, if you're interested in self honesty. Which I am.

Now, taboo "reality", "beliefs" "ideas" and "truth" and do it again. Because I still don't understand what the hell you are getting at.

Edit: because if you can't do it, I'll assume you can't communicate what you are really talking about.

Also, why the hell shouldn't I claim to know reality? I see my shoe is untied, therefore my shoe is untied. I don't fucking need to say "well, it could be untied or it could not be untied or this could all be brains in a jar". That's a load of useless muddle headed bullshit.

[Pope Lecherous]

I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.

[Kai]

Now, having visited this mentally for a while, I think I know what you're really saying. You're upset with people you deem to be acting as authority figures. That's all it is really. Because when it comes down to it, you do seem to recognize that A) there's no evidence for god(s) (though you don't take it through Bayesian reasoning to a conclusion), B) Maps are not equal to territory, and C) maps can correlate with territory. So what it really comes down to is you don't like it when people don't privilege hypotheses that have no evidence to support, and especially when they speak out against hypotheses that are often privileged and have no supporting evidence. You don't like what you anticipate to be unrighteous behavior of publicly decrying hypotheses that are overwhelmingly favored despite having no supporting evidence. And your reasoning is, either it's not nice, or it's authoritarian of them to do so, or, possibly, you're deceiving yourself by privileging your own personal hypotheses that have no supporting evidence.

[Kai]

I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.

That's a meaningless tautology. And no, what you're saying is incredibly stupid. I can think of a thousand different things that would raise my probability of deities. Obviously, none of those are occurring. There's no evidence. You're just privileging hypotheses. You might as well say "there could be a giant invisible sentient teapot", but why? Why do you postulate things for which there are no evidence? And why, if you do, do you allow them to be privileged as okay? Because they fucking aren't. It's so fucking close to Solipsism I can smell it. And you know what has been said of those types:

The solipsist sits unassailable in his impenetrable fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we shall pass him by.

I.e. I'm wasting my fucking time talking with you.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.

I dont know that there is no God. But Im perfectly happy to go through my life under the assumption that there is none. The reason for this is there is there simply is no good goddamn reason to believe in one. The only evidence is:

A) I know this guy who knew this guy who saw a miracle happen
B) I myself have talked to God(9.999999/10 times either a con-man or batshit insane)
C) I once read a book(pick one) that said God exists.

Let us, for purely sceintific reasons, compare this to the evidence for Bigfoot.

A) I know this guy who knew this guy who saw a miracle happenBigfoot
B) I myself have talkedseen to GodBigfoot(9.999999/10 times either a con-man or batshit insane)
C) I once read a book(at the grocery store checkout) that said GodBigfoot exists.

You notice how there are no Bigfoot agnostics going around saying how we shouldnt "claim to know the unknowable"? Thats because Bigfoot is stupid.

[Pope Lecherous]

Now, having visited this mentally for a while, I think I know what you're really saying. You're upset with people you deem to be acting as authority figures. That's all it is really. Because when it comes down to it, you do seem to recognize that A) there's no evidence for god(s) (though you don't take it through Bayesian reasoning to a conclusion), B) Maps are not equal to territory, and C) maps can correlate with territory. So what it really comes down to is you don't like it when people don't privilege hypotheses that have no evidence to support, and especially when they speak out against hypotheses that are often privileged and have no supporting evidence. You don't like what you anticipate to be unrighteous behavior of publicly decrying hypotheses that are overwhelmingly favored despite having no supporting evidence. And your reasoning is, either it's not nice, or it's authoritarian of them to do so, or, possibly, you're deceiving yourself by privileging your own personal hypotheses that have no supporting evidence.

This is pretty accurate.  Thanks for taking the time to understand.

[Pope Lecherous]

I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.

That's a meaningless tautology. And no, what you're saying is incredibly stupid. I can think of a thousand different things that would raise my probability of deities. Obviously, none of those are occurring. There's no evidence. You're just privileging hypotheses. You might as well say "there could be a giant invisible sentient teapot", but why? Why do you postulate things for which there are no evidence? And why, if you do, do you allow them to be privileged as okay? Because they fucking aren't. It's so fucking close to Solipsism I can smell it. And you know what has been said of those types:

The solipsist sits unassailable in his impenetrable fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we shall pass him by.

I.e. I'm wasting my fucking time talking with you.

Get over yourself.  I criticized solipsism earlier in this thread.  At best the entire concept is irrelevant. 

Furthermore, you cant get it through your head the difference between a fact and opinion.  Never did i say "don't weigh and consider evidence to make decisions"

If you dont know whether something is true,m you dont fucking know.  PERIOD.  How you live life and make decisions is a separate matter.  Claiming you have knowledge of some unknowable Truth is ridiculous by definition

Quit being so fucking dramatic.  Quit try to make logical leaps from a simple statement. 

[Telarus]

I have to agree with Kai. You're conception of "Truth" seems to have a load of Aristotelian baggage along for the ride. Are you familiar with the quote from PD about little-t-truth and Capitol-T-Truth?

[Thurnez Isa]

Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."

Agree, though would like to add that unless there is a specific claim being made the God question is essentially meaningless. Like if you claim a deity flooded the earth that could be examined by looking for flood deposits world wide. If you claim a deity carries the sun on his penis then you could examine the sun looking for a penis. It forces the deity into a position of being a "personal god", which losses much of it's sexiness. Also "personal gods" are so vague that I couldn't even begin to imagine what I could examine in that situation.

[Thurnez Isa]

Also before i read the rest of the threat. Go to his website and try to get yourself banned. Take it from me it's actually quite easy.
Goes to show that just like a preacher who goes on about the gays ruining america and then is caught with gay prostitutes, people who go on and on about "free speech" and "free thinking" believe in no such thing.

[LMNO]

Kai nailed it.   

Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").

I hold that we currently do not NEED an undiscovered Truth in order to correctly model an accurate anticipation of reality. Therefore, we do not currently need to keep that spot open in our reasoning with a big question mark.

For example, I anticipate f=ma. I do not need to say "f=ma(+mysterious action)".  When I anticipate f=ma, it turns out that f=ma. I can eliminate "mysterious actions" from my equation.

If ever there comes a time that I anticipate f=ma, and it turns out that f=\=ma, I MUST add "(+mysterious action)". The fact that my anticipation of reality is wrong forces me to add a question mark.

So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.

Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.

The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.

[Kai]

Kai nailed it.   

Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").

I hold that we currently do not NEED an undiscovered Truth in order to correctly model an accurate anticipation of reality. Therefore, we do not currently need to keep that spot open in our reasoning with a big question mark.

For example, I anticipate f=ma. I do not need to say "f=ma(+mysterious action)".  When I anticipate f=ma, it turns out that f=ma. I can eliminate "mysterious actions" from my equation.

If ever there comes a time that I anticipate f=ma, and it turns out that f=\=ma, I MUST add "(+mysterious action)". The fact that my anticipation of reality is wrong forces me to add a question mark.

So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.

Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.

The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.

Exactly. Anything else is just privileging hypotheses.

But I'll add to that, I don't anticipate any such evidence appearing.

[Kai]

I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.

That's a meaningless tautology. And no, what you're saying is incredibly stupid. I can think of a thousand different things that would raise my probability of deities. Obviously, none of those are occurring. There's no evidence. You're just privileging hypotheses. You might as well say "there could be a giant invisible sentient teapot", but why? Why do you postulate things for which there are no evidence? And why, if you do, do you allow them to be privileged as okay? Because they fucking aren't. It's so fucking close to Solipsism I can smell it. And you know what has been said of those types:

The solipsist sits unassailable in his impenetrable fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we shall pass him by.

I.e. I'm wasting my fucking time talking with you.

Get over yourself.  I criticized solipsism earlier in this thread.  At best the entire concept is irrelevant. 

Furthermore, you cant get it through your head the difference between a fact and opinion.  Never did i say "don't weigh and consider evidence to make decisions"

If you dont know whether something is true,m you dont fucking know.  PERIOD.  How you live life and make decisions is a separate matter.  Claiming you have knowledge of some unknowable Truth is ridiculous by definition

Quit being so fucking dramatic.  Quit try to make logical leaps from a simple statement. 

I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.

Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.

[Elder Iptuous]

Solipsism enjoys quite a convincing argument, and as one myself, i'm surprised there aren't more of us!

[Kai]

Solipsism enjoys quite a convincing argument, and as one myself, i'm surprised there aren't more of us!

So, given the possibility that you might bounce upon impact, why don't you go jump off a cliff?