Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[oxmixmudd]

Not so. If I am blind and a fellow prays for me and then I can then see, then a miracle is fully verified in my understanding of the world. Those that are not me or are not present at the time of prayer must rely on the testimony of those that were there, and also the unpredictable nature of miracles themselves coupled with the impossibility of validating that an event did not occur as the result of a natural process renders scientfic validation of anything other than the fact I once was blind but now can see impossible.


Jim

[Sparko]

Neither, I'm asking you, since it is your assertion, how it is that you can know, without empirical evidence, what is or isn't living on planets in far away galaxies?

So since you make the claim there is no God, how can you know without empirical evidence that there isn't one? It's the same situation, right?

[JimL]

So since you make the claim there is no God, how can you know without empirical evidence that there isn't one? It's the same situation, right?

You can't know, there is just no good reason to believe in a god, and there is certainly no good reason to believe in the reality of any of the thousands of particular cultural gods believed in over time. Adrifts claim wasn't that he didn't believe, his assertion was that he knew what did not exist in far away galaxies. He erred i think, and just can't admit it.

[Sparko]

You can't know, there is just no good reason to believe in a god, and there is certainly no good reason to believe in the reality of any of the thousands of particular cultural gods believed in over time. Adrifts claim wasn't that he didn't believe, his assertion was that he knew what did not exist in far away galaxies. He erred i think, and just can't admit it.

He said, "And no, I don't have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no Buddhas living on them, anymore than I have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no pink unicorns living on them."

It's called rhetoric. Look it up.

I think he was merely talking about the odds of another planet having developed the same species as us, and a completely parallel society complete with Buddhas is so slim as to be impossible. Of course he can't know. And if the universe IS indeed infinite then the possibility of a an identical Earth(s) rises to 100%, but as far as we know the universe is not infinite.

Yet you were demanding evidence from him to prove that there were no Buddhas. So, in return it is fair for us to demand proof from you that there is no God as you and Tassman claim. To toss the burden of proof on you. But you don't like that do you?

[JimL]

He said, "And no, I don't have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no Buddhas living on them, anymore than I have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no pink unicorns living on them."

It's called rhetoric. Look it up.

I think he was merely talking about the odds of another planet having developed the same species as us, and a completely parallel society complete with Buddhas is so slim as to be impossible. Of course he can't know. And if the universe IS indeed infinite then the possibility of a an identical Earth(s) rises to 100%, but as far as we know the universe is not infinite.

Yet you were demanding evidence from him to prove that there were no Buddhas. So, in return it is fair for us to demand proof from you that there is no God as you and Tassman claim. To toss the burden of proof on you. But you don't like that do you?

No, I didn't demand anything of him, I merely asked him how he could know what does or does not live in other galaxies without going there. There's a big difference between what non-believers in god, like myself and Tass say, and what Adrift said. We don't say that we know there is no god, we say that we don't believe there is a god, because we don't see any evidence of a god, and we find evidence to the contrary of creation much more compelling. Adrift asserted knowledge, and I don't care whether you want to call it rhetoric or not, he has no such knowledge.

[rossum]

So since you make the claim there is no God, how can you know without empirical evidence that there isn't one? It's the same situation, right?

So since you, presumably, make the claim there is no Vishnu, how can you know without empirical evidence that he doesn't exist? It's the same situation, right?

Repeat for as many god/esses as you don't believe in.

A monotheist is only one God removed from atheism, remember.

rossum

[rossum]

I think he was merely talking about the odds of another planet having developed the same species as us, and a completely parallel society complete with Buddhas is so slim as to be impossible.

Buddhas do not have to be human, they merely have to be intelligent enough to see the Path. A few gods are also Buddhas because they have achieved enlightenment. An intelligent alien species would be capable of attaining Buddhahood also.

rossum

[Sparko]

No, I didn't demand anything of him, I merely asked him how he could know what does or does not live in other galaxies without going there. There's a big difference between what non-believers in god, like myself and Tass say, and what Adrift said. We don't say that we know there is no god, we say that we don't believe there is a god, because we don't see any evidence of a god, and we find evidence to the contrary of creation much more compelling. Adrift asserted knowledge, and I don't care whether you want to call it rhetoric or not, he has no such knowledge.

You as an agnostic say "I don't know if there is a God" - an Atheist says "I know there is no God" - that's the different between an agnostic and an atheist. At least hard atheism. Although you seem to take the stance of a soft atheist more than an agnostic. You don't just say "I don't know" - you actively argue against there being a God every chance you get, but you are still open to the possibility of being wrong. Tassman is not. He knows he is right and nothing will convince him otherwise.

[Adrift]

He said, "And no, I don't have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no Buddhas living on them, anymore than I have to visit other planets in far away galaxies to know that there are no pink unicorns living on them."

It's called rhetoric. Look it up.

I think he was merely talking about the odds of another planet having developed the same species as us, and a completely parallel society complete with Buddhas is so slim as to be impossible. Of course he can't know. And if the universe IS indeed infinite then the possibility of a an identical Earth(s) rises to 100%, but as far as we know the universe is not infinite.

Yet you were demanding evidence from him to prove that there were no Buddhas. So, in return it is fair for us to demand proof from you that there is no God as you and Tassman claim. To toss the burden of proof on you. But you don't like that do you?

Thanks Sparko. Maybe what I'm saying is merely rhetoric, but I think it may actually be more than that. I believe that it is within my epistemic right to say that I KNOW that Buddha's do not live on remote planets sans any reason to accept that they do. As I told JimL, there is absolutely no reason for me to remain in a state of perpetual agnosticism on such things. I am making a claim to knowledge, and I feel I'm well within my right to make such a claim. Unlike the existence of God, for which there is plenty of evidence (even if one does not accept that evidence), I know of absolutely NO evidence or even any logical reasons to accept the proposition "many Buddhas live on many other planets". If someone asked you if the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists, you don't have to put a mental placeholder on such a concept. You don't have to answer "well, it's possible that such a thing exists, but I believe it doesn't." I think you would be well within your epistemological rights to say "I know the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist".

When Huxley coined the word "agnostic", he coined it as a word antithetical to those who had "gnosis" about all sorts of things (but specifically about God). I'm not agnostic about whether Buddhas exist on other planets, or whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster truly exists, or little pink fairies, or whatever. I claim gnosis that they do not exist.

And no JimL, I do not believe I have erred, so there's nothing for me to admit. I sincerely believe that I can know that Buddhas do not live on other planets sans any reason at all to suggest that they do. Now, if we're talking absolute or certain knowledge, well no, I can't probably know anything really. For all I know I'm a brain in a vat. But I think that's a radical form of skepticism.

[Adrift]

So since you, presumably, make the claim there is no Vishnu, how can you know without empirical evidence that he doesn't exist? It's the same situation, right?

Repeat for as many god/esses as you don't believe in.

A monotheist is only one God removed from atheism, remember.

rossum

Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible.

[JimL]

You as an agnostic say "I don't know if there is a God" - an Atheist says "I know there is no God" - that's the different between an agnostic and an atheist. At least hard atheism. Although you seem to take the stance of a soft atheist more than an agnostic. You don't just say "I don't know" - you actively argue against there being a God every chance you get, but you are still open to the possibility of being wrong. Tassman is not. He knows he is right and nothing will convince him otherwise.

Wrong, agnostics say they don't know, atheists say they don't believe. Thats the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. I was at one time an agnostic, I now consider myself more of an atheist, but neither of the two can say that they know.

[Adrift]

Wrong, agnostics say they don't know, atheists say they don't believe. Thats the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. I was at one time an agnostic, I now consider myself more of an atheist, but neither of the two can say that they know.

Huxley expressly coined the phrase "agnostic" as a counter-point to gnosis - knowledge.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took.

[JimL]

Huxley expressly coined the phrase "agnostic" as a counter-point to gnosis - knowledge.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took.

Yep, I believe thats what I said, 'agnostics profess that they don't know".

[Adrift]

Yep, I believe thats what I said, 'agnostics profess that they don't know".

You also said that "atheists say they don't believe". That's not what Huxley says. He says that atheists (and theists, and pantheists, materialists, idealists) have gnosis=knowledge. They know. He coined the word to express that he isn't like an atheist who claims to know/gnosis, to the contrary, he claims agnosticism/without knowledge.

[JimL]

You also said that "atheists say they don't believe". That's not what Huxley says. He says that atheists (and theists, and pantheists, materialists, idealists) have gnosis=knowledge. They know. He coined the word to express that he isn't like an atheist who claims to know/gnosis, to the contrary, he claims agnosticism/without knowledge.

So, why should I or anyone else care how Huxley see's it, atheism isn't knowing whether atheists think it is or not.