Benjamin

I know

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@HistoryBuff

No change can happen instantly.

Witches began to be burnt when Christianity lost power, at the end of the middle ages the dominion of the church was already taken down.

So, burning witches started when Christianity diminished.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@FLRW

During the middle ages, it was the policy of the Church not to burn witches, it was a pagan practice.

That man you described, did not live in the middle ages, and in his time Christianity had less power, that's why pagan practises were reintroduced, like burning witches.

Remember that in most cases it was Christians that stopped the burning of witches, especially in salem.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

I would say that Humans are violent evil and brutal, that all civilisations fought and killed each other, and only the Christian west stopped doing so.

Witches were not burnt in the middle ages, it was a pagan practice and was condemned.

The practice first reappeared when Christianity lost power near the end of the middles ages.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/who-burned-the-witches.html (by the way I am not catholic)

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

Yes, a good idea.

Except, the definition makes it seem like faith is always a result of religious apprehension, and never proof (we have never proven the mind exists btw)

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

WOW, LOL, HAHAHA

Wow, a little too late to convince me.

Do not tell me that all twelve disiples, when they could be saved, rejected to admit the gospel was a myth, and instead chose to be crucified. Wow.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

Wrong, as I have pointed out numerous times, you entire - "Atheists have a lack of faith" is not only a strawman but also assumes the existence of god... if you considered points individually you would see that.

Do you not understand what I am saying?

Atheism: Lack of faith in God or gods

I disagree with that definition, but Sum1hugme wanted to use it in my debate.

Do we both agree that definition is incorrect?

I believe this is more apropriate:

Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Do we both agree the second part of this is better?

My position was always that theism was the belief, strong or weak, in a creator God,

that atheism was the belief, strong or weak, in the nonexistance of a creator God,

and that agnosticism was a state, in which one had refused to believe any of them.

Faith, is not "religious apprehension", as another bad definition told me, but it was "the unproven truts on which ones world view is built"

Do we actually agree?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/

-->

@Theweakeredge

USA was never paganistic, unlles you clasify indian spiritual traditions as paganism. USA was the only country that was created by reformed christian ideas. In Great Britain they called the civil war in america "The calvinist upprising", in other words, they regarded it as a religiously motivated uprising against old institutions like monarchy, the state church, colonialism and unfair taxes. You point out that America was created by "slavery", that is correct, Britain built the colonies, not USA. But as soon as it became independent, it had to struggle to undo the "slavery" Europe had forced it to have. As soon as they signed the paper with the Christian idea: "We believe all men are created equal", they had to struggle to remove it, their economy was dependent on it, not because of the church but because of imperialism.

Are you trying to suggest that imperialism and racism were grounded in the Bible? Then why did the 100% Christian USA abandon it?

There is no denial, science came from Europe. Some scientists were atheist, but most were theists. Newton wrote more about theology than he did science. What is important to state, it was not the church that created science, but the philosophy of the bible. Give me one example of a scientist without influense from Europe. The world was tecnologically stagnant for at least 8 millenia, without any science. The best they did was created tecnology and weapons, something far different. You point out that the church persecuted some scientists that challenged the world view that came from the greek philosophers, for example the flat earth. What you fail to rememeber is that in the non-christian world, there were no scientists to persecute. Yes, math and philosophy came from a pagan greece, but also the mayans and the chineese. The mayans predicted the movement of stars that were correct up untill modern days.

The idea that the world is made for humans to understand, marvel at and manage, it came from the Bible and Christian theology and philosophy

Which pagan religion gave rise to human rights, democracy and capitalism? Greece maybe? They were city states, and based on philosophy more than religion.

Give me one reason, from a pagan religion, to have human rights, democracy and capitalism!

If you cannot, then try with any religion.

Find me examples of any society built upon a pagan (aka polytheistic or spiritual) religion, that respected all humans.

You will find none, the romans killed people for fun, Egypt abused thousands of slaves, India ranked(s) people in a caste system, mayans killed of people as an offering for the gods, the maoris were hostile to everyone, african kings sold their own people as slaves for guns and lastly but not least, greeks used slave prostitutes as priests.

Give me any comparison the Church did?

Give me any atheistic philosophy, pagan religion or any other world view that is a better basis for society than the one Paul wrote: "We are all equal in Christ"

Give me a better world view on which to build civilisation:

"All men are created equall, and endowned by their creator certain inalienble rights", in other words, "We believe in the teachings of Jesus"

One does not need to be Christian to understand that the Christian (Jesus) teachings are far superior to any other, with regards to building a fair society.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

But by definition agnostics believe/have faith...Whereas atheists lack belief/have no faith....Atheists are not "convicted".

I think that you might be confusing Atheism and Agnosticism.

I think we are all confused, at this point.

Agnostics have faith in this statement: "all faith is in vain, there is no way to know what is right, and as such, no faith is deserved for any idea (regarding the ultimate reality)"

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

@Sum1hugme

@Theweakeredge

@Wagyu

As a person that wants to seek truth, I must amit:

Atheism is not based on anti-faith or faith.

I could agree on calling Atheism "lack of faith", because it is applied scepticism.

But then no atheists would really exist, as all humans have a world view, and all world views require faith.

I think the word "atheist" is correctly defined as you said "absence of faith in God".

But I still cannot accept the definition of faith as:

"Strong belief in God or the doctrines of a religion, based not on proof but rather religious apprehension."

It seperates people into two groups: those that believe in religion (philosophy with stories) and those thate believe in philosophy. Why?

We need a word to describe "faith - just extended to everyone"

Also, what is the definition between an agnostic and an atheist really, if they both lack faith in God, and both have a world view without proof.

I found this word:

Antitheism, sometimes spelled anti-theism, is the opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.

I have changed my mind about atheism, but not "faith".

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Wagyu

All people base their world view on faith, even atheists.

For example, even atheist have oppinions on:

Morality
Philosophy
Meaning
etc

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Convicted? Executed? Or more apropriately, impeached.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Your entire argument is a straw man, as you were the one that claimed atheists to have a "lack of belief in god" I never claimed that, I simply said you were wrong. This entire tirade has nothing to do with my response, how about you make a proper rebuttal this time?

What is an atheist then? Clearly, not simply a person that "lack faith in god".

Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

This part cut from wikipedia proves my point. Atheism is "absence of faith", in other words, whatever life philosophy they have, it must be based on proof not faith.

It is ridiculous to call ALL other world view than an atheistic one: "Strong belief in God or religious doctrines, not based on proof but rather religious apprehension", while all atheists are "absent of faith". Why cannot the definition of faith just be "A strong belief in a certain life philosophy"? Because then atheists would also be included. And we cannot have atheism on a level playing field with theism or any other philosophy, can we?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

Can you plesase show me ANY country that was ever great without being Christian or former Christian?

No you cannot.

Sorry, your individual points might be somewhat true, but you are ignoring the larger picture. Yes, the church did bad things, but show me anything that was better than the church at the same time. Also, I also do not like the catholic church, it was oppressing even towards other Christian societies. I am talking about the reformation. Look at USA the only countri created by only christian immigrants (in the early days), did that go well, or did USA not become great untill today?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Medicine ensures everyone survives.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Humans that are better at surviving will be selected.

Currently, all humans survive or live in a place were not all humans survive.

Technology will make sure that all humans survive, making it our own choice of how we want to evolve.

I suggest we make us force-sensitive, very force-sensitive.

Imagina a Jedy that not only had a walkie talkie but a smartphone, he would be unstoppable. He could bring pictures of evidence, thus ensuring that he is taken seriously.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Science is based on the philosophy:

We are rational beings
We have accurate information about the world
The world is comprehensible and intelligently made so that other intelligent beings can understand it
The world will not retaliate, it is not holy, nor dangerous
The world is predictable
etc

All of which are based on Christianity.

"Faith - strong belief in unproven claims" is necesary.

Science denies the existence of anything religious, supernatural or immaterial, even the mind.

But atoms are not objective, just concepts within our minds, thus making science collapse with the removal of the mind.

Its a paradox:

Science denies the mind
The mind supports science

Only a blind faith or religious belief can support both at once.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Yeah, I totally understand.

But it was written from the perspective of Christianity.

Nothing wrong about that, just that atheist do not accept the idea of "substance, evidence or proof" as even possible. That's why they wrote their definition into the dictionary.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

True.

And from America came everything we love today.

Christianity created the West, and now the West is rejecting Christianity, effectively erasing its own foundations.

At least, before you remove religion, have SOMETHING to replace it, so that society does not spiral down into chaos.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

What is the solution.

Today, many people in Norway people become atheist purely because they don't want to be labelled as "indoctrinated" and their ideas discarded.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

I have no problem with atheists not believing in God,

but when they still believe in the same things I believe in:

The mind
Morality
Rationality and reasoning
Democracy
Human rights
etc

Clearly, if any person believes in these things, they have a world view based on the same "strong belief without evidence" that I believe in.

But they are supposedly "free-thinking" purely because their world view is based on more recent literature.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@oromagi

@Sum1hugme

@Theweakeredge

seem?

"Makes it obvious" - without it being true

Prefix "-A" has three meanings, but the one that is relevant to atheism is the meaning "not/without"

Why? So that atheists can have their own world views, but not "rely on faith".

I will just copy-paste my argument, you said nothing against it:

You assume Atheism is "lack of faith" in God

You claim that atheists "lack faith" in God.

Lack of (not faith - sorry)

1 an insufficiency, shortage, or absence of something required or desired

2 something that is required but is absent or in short supply

If that were the case, look at this:

Atheism is the lack of faith in God
Atheism is the insufficiency, shortage or absence of something required or desired, faith in God
Atheists require or desire faith in God
Theists might doubt God without wanting to, thus being both theists and atheists at the same time

How come the dictionary contradicts itself all the time? Because words carry no meaning outside of context.

That is why I could define the definitions so they fitted the situation - Sum1hugme

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Can you demonstrate that the "ultimate reality" even exists? Because you're talking about causes of the big bang, but time words like "before" have no meaning when t=0 (the point at which spacetime are converged into a point with infinite curvature.)

Yes:

I exist
I did not exist in the past
I came to be at some point
My created had a cause
My creator had a cause
My creators' creator had a cause
Etc
We only have two options:

An infinite array of caused causes

Still, a "reality" in which to cause something is needed
That "reality" must have been eternal

A cause that did not have a cause

That "reality" must have no cause
That "reality" must have existed infinitely before becoming the first cause
That "reality" must have been able to choose to create

We can call that first "reality" = the ultimate reality, the reason something exists.

As you can see, I clearly have evidence backing my point.

I'm comfortable sticking with the Oxford definition.

Yeah, me too.

faith
noun
/feɪθ/

[uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in someone's ability or knowledge; trust that someone or something will do what has been promisedI have great faith in you—I know you'll do well.We've lost faith in the government's promises.Her friend's kindness has restored her faith in human nature.He has blind faith (= unreasonable trust) in the doctor's ability to find a cure.
[uncountable, singular] strong religious beliefto lose your faithFaith is stronger than reason.Topic Collocations

[countable] a particular religionthe Christian faithThe children are learning to understand people of different faiths.
[uncountable] good faith the intention to do something rightThey handed over the weapons as a gesture of good faith.

Then I suppose intellectual theism is not based on faith.

I see that the definitions are bent by anyone that wants to "prove a point", as the definition I showed clearly is anti-theistic by only comparing that to religion.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Comically enough it is that you also did only come with assertions.

I just want to point out you made no comment whatsoever to any of my actual facts.

Also, the correlation between better-ness and secularism is the opposite. Rich people tend to trust their wealth, not God.

Christianity created Europe, Europe made everything the world loves today, Europe became rich and Europe left God.

I do not believe we should base our nations on religion, but the underlying philosophy of Christianity has been so positive, that there is almost no similarities between a secular person and a Christian when it comes to nonreligious matters - secularism adopted the Christian values, just as the world did the human rights.

Tell me, what are the richest, most free, least oppressive, most scientifically advanced and most insistent on following the human rights?

The middle east? India? Asia, Afrika? Anywhere without a Christian presence or influence?

No!

It was Europe and the countries where Europeans settled. This is a basic fact, and no rhetoric of yours can unsettle this.

Now, should we be racist like they were while conquering the globe? Are Europeans better than all other people?

NO OF COURSE NOT!!!

What was the difference then? Colonialism? Every continent had its own empires all of the time!

The difference was these beliefs:

All men are created equal and with certain inalienable rights
In the eyes of God, "There is no difference between slave or free, man or woman, greek or jew, they are all equal" as Paul claimed
The universe is not a spirit, god, supernatural, unknowable, irrational, determined or a soul. The universe is ours to administrate and explore

You are bullying me for no reason:

it meas that I give a shit about people, unlike you, who seem to have no problem with the Nazis except for them "Not loving god"

I used it to show that the worst ideology in history was created by a hater, not lover, of God.

Who also hated God and religion? Stalin, Mao and co (co as in communism)

You are misinterpreting my arguments.

I never claimed that the Bible should be the law, you are confusing "stability" with "absolute"

My argument is not that the moral specifically presented in the Bible should be chosen.

I claim that we should make an objective moral code, and not change it every single opportunity we get.

People get mad when morality is changed, they riot, they engage in activities to stop the rapid changes, this destroys stability, and is bad even from the perspective of someone that did not have any moral code.

Also, why are you attacking the church?

Listen, it might be hard to realise it, but NOBODY in the dark ages had a "good" or "not suppressive" regime.

Tell me about a single part of the world were gay people were not "oppressed", were people could live better lives than in oppressive Europe.

Life was awful, but the church was the first entity in history know to be a constant force that enforced "morality" (though I admit their morality is far inferior to the one we have in the present, post-catholic west)

Tell me, WHO actually created human rights?

I know you are not going to answer any of my questions, just throw a bunch of accusations at me.

STOP

I genuinely want to know the truth, and trash-talking me wont help you convert me to the light side of the force

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://romecorruptedchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/a-time-when-the-bible-was-banned-and-burned/

-->

@Theweakeredge

You are correct when reffering to the world.

Why is the world becomming a better place?

Capitalism - Created by christianity https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-3/how-christianity-created-capitalism
Human rights - Created by the Christian countries of Europe and the west
Science - based on the belief that humans can and should explore the universe - a belief held by christians
The ideology of democracy - it only works well in Christian and former chritian countries

The world is becoming more and more secular. And secular means: the western philosophy (christianity) without the religion.

Your statement:

You are factually incorrect, the time whenever the churches had the most power was literally called the dark ages,

You mean the time when the church was a secular state authority? The time when they persecuted anyone that read a bible in their native language? The time where they made deciccions that contradicted any possible interpretation of the bible by putting power in the hands of a corrupt religious leader?

That is not how Christianity works, thats how pagan religions ruled, having a dictator as religious leader. The church was not biblical, but rather political.

The time of the enlightenment, the time when the bible was allowed, the time when christian and secular philosophers alike were allowed, the time when everything was perfectly fine, like the french revolution happened, the time when the church started to burn witches by following the old pagan traditions.

Are you aware of the fact that the roman church ended the practise where children could be killed by their parrents (after birth), they took care of the sick, they created the first universities, they tried to keep wars from happening between christian coutries(before the reformation) and during their time some basic scientific methods were developed. Remember, europe had been barbaric before the roman empire, and the church was way better at keeping "modern" morality enforced than any pagan religion. The good things that started during the "dark ages", were most often a result of the christian world view , rather than a random guy from the future "liberating" people from the church.

NO OTHER RELIGION was more succesfull than christianity at handling a society. The bad things about the church, were things they adapted from pagan religions, not something they invented (except for sexual morality, but come on, there were no reason to believe that anyone claimed to be gay at that time)

You said it yourself:

By the way, some people super duper deserve to be oppressed, and by oppressed, I mean put in jail.

Why the Nazzies, not the Jews?

Because the Nazzies want others to be oppressed?

Should you be oppresed then? What about me?

You see, every group of people "deserve" to be oppressed, so no groups should be oppressed.

Also, Hittles hated God, his people the Jews and also his word the Bible, because they stood in stark contrast to his ideology.

And you make a major mistake:

And some people should be protected, like muslims, from religious prosecution.

Why? When was the last mosque shooting? There is no reason to protect a specific group of people.

General anti terrorism is important though, but some muslim might disagree with that claim.

Honestly, everything you say is a biased assertion, you don't even have real syllogisms....

Biased? Yes!

Assertion? Yes, that does not mean it does not contain fact and logic!

Without syllogism? Yes, you did so as well, when it comes to history and society, we do not need syllogism in a forum.

We do not need pure logic, we can discuss by thinking.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Im apparently spreading true shocking news that are neither shocking, news nor true.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Tooooooooooooooooooo sad

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

What do you mean?

First off all, most "gods" were just a stronger "human" thing, they got babies and married, effectively making them "created", they were created by something else, the ultimate reality.

And again the ultimate reality is either Personal (GOD) or impersonal (not God)

Theists have faith that the ultimate reality is Personal

Atheists have faith that the ultimate reality is not personal.

"I lack faith in climate change. There is evidence, but I do not trust science. I do not have any faith."

Do you disagree with the logic of this statment?

You will probably say there is evidence of global warming. Its true, but there is also evidence for God. Denniers of both need faith.

A has two meanings, which often melt together:

Without
The oposite of

Amoral is both without morality and the opposite of morality, because lack of morality is the definition of being amoral.

The point is, lacking faith in theism, makes you a doubting theist or an agnostic, not an atheist.

Do you believe one cannot have faith God does not exist? Why not?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Theweakeredge

You see, one cannot acomplish utopia. And one cannot build a society on contradictory philosophies.

Society were as stable and peacefull as possible during the Christian dominion.

Christianity brough about human rights, the "regranting" of freedoms, democracy and capitalism.

But even such a "perfect" philosophy: people have inherent values given by God,

has some flaws:

Focus on religion
Objective morality exists, with which one cannot disagree

As I said, utopia is unachieveable.

Why? Amongst other reasons because philosophy always pays a price:

Objective morality cost religious education and or legal enforcement
Freedom of speech costs minorities their comfort, like Gays
People might be prejudiced if they have another philosophy

As we know, society today is far worse (with regards to happiness and stability) than ever before.

Can one claim politicians? No, they are the result of politics, the result of philosophies.

And the philosophy that created the first "democratic" civilisation was Christianity, good democracies are almost exclusively former Christian countries.

Yes, many flaws have been present, but society was not ripped apart and constantly in conflict as it is today.

Why is society (in the west) returning to unstability, inner conflict and almost civil war?

Because the old philosophy has returned: paganism

What has it brought us:

Freedom to break christian morality
Conflict because of this
Freedom to use the goverment to surpress the old and tested philosophy that is the Judeo/Christian values

The sex revolution cannot bring neither peace nor stability, only satisfaction for certain groups of people.

And those groups obviously did not exist while the old philosophy ruled.

So since a country cannot be based on both, we must accept the concequences:

One philosphy must stand alone
Neither groups should be protected nor oppressed by the government

Gay people were not oppressed in the past, they did not know what the concept of "gay" means.

But today, both "gay"s and "moralists" feel oppressed by society, while the government is pulled in a tug of war between them.

This is not a fact, this is history.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

I agree.

But Gay people do not need protection from war, they are still tough humans.

Also, how do you know that gay people are being targeted?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

You assume Atheism is "lack of faith" in God

You claim that atheists "lack faith" in God.

Lack of faith:

1 an insufficiency, shortage, or absence of something required or desired

2 something that is required but is absent or in short supply

If that were the case, then Atheism is the state of not having enough faith in God, making many religious people atheists.

No, atheism is realy the belief in this claim: "God does not exist", thus, lack of faith would make an atheist doubt God nonexistance.

Lack of faith makes people agnostics, not atheists.

Analyse this example:

I lack faith in the existance of objective morality
I am an amoralist

As the example clearly showed by ridiculing the idea, lack of faith does not make anyone have a strong opinion about anything.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ

Wath this 2 minute long video and you will be shocked.

"Gay people should be protected" - strange man in military uniform

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Definition of faith according to the dictionary:

colloquial: "Trusting in something or someone"

religious: "Strong belief in God or religious doctrines, not based on proof but rather religious apprehension"

source: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/faith

This definition can be showed to have strange conclusions.

1. Intelectual theism is based on faith, while atheism is not

2. Faith is a strong belief in God or religious doctrines, not based on proof but rather religious apprehension

3. Intelectual theism is based on a strong belief in God based not on proof but rather religious apprehension

In other words: Intelectuaul theism is based on a strong belief in theism based not on proof but rather religious apprehension

This definition makes all non-atheistic world views seem ungrounded and religious

How can we accept such a definition to exists?

If an intelectual raised an atheist and after a lot of reasoning becomes a theist (not religiou), his world view would be based on "FAITH"

While an atheist raised to believe in randomness or a multiverse, would be considered as "free-thinking, not relying on faith but instead proof"

This attitude brought about by the definition is not a correct perception of neither people nor ideas.

Gods existance is a binary question with only non-emperical evidence from both sides. So both a convicted athesit and a convicted theists use the same"faith-thing-ish"

If one were to be "free thinking, not relying on faith but instead proof", one would be an agnostic not an atheists.

Another argument is that God is kind of like the tooth fairy, something that must not exist but is instead "inserted" into ones world view. In other words, believing in God is not the same as not believing in God with regards to this "faith-thingy". But that assumption, that God is an addition to a world view is not correct:

The basis of a world view:

1. The logic law of causality: every effect has a cause

2. The big bang is an effect which requires a cause

We know that the ultimate reality exists, since "something" must have always existed. This thing could be either personal or impersonal. And the difference between theoretical theism and atheism is not their view of facts, but their interpretation of it. If miracles were documentered the two groups would most likely be split regarding the validity of the doccuments, based purely on their differing world views. Thus we can call this "faith-thingy" the assumption that is regarded as ultimately true, and which other truths or facts are interpreted around. THis would be a much more fair way to talk about world views, as it does not label one group as religiously apprehended people that have no proof to back up their views.

God is not an "addition" to a world view, he is the basis of it. Thus, if God exists the entire world view of all Christians, Jews, Muslims and so forth would collapse. The other way around, if God does exist then all atheistic world views like the multiverse, the infinite universe, the primacy of energy etc would collapse.

Why is are only non-atheistic world views based on faith. Simply put, because atheists want it to be so.

"Those that controll language, controlls ideas, and those that controll ideas, controlll people"

Therefore I want to challenge the basic assuption that only "positive claims" require evidence in order not to be based on faith.

We should have a new word, or change the definition:

Faith-thingy = "The basic lens a man believes in and bends his world view around"

This thing could just as easilly have been called Faith.

Thus I believe any claim or answer to a question not answered (the ultimate reality), should be based on "faith-thingy", not only the positive ones.

Example:

Does a the mind objectively exist as a single thing?

"YES requires faith, no requires no faith" - is this statement honest or true to the nature of the question at hand? I think not!

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

What do people think about healing crystals

The ancient strategy: Try everything, somethings gotta work.

Are you also attending church in order to be prayed for? What about akupuncture? Witchcraft?

Also, plants having "healing" abilities is not religion, it is science.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Could There Really be a Multiverse?

The multiverse can be though of as an atheistic alternative to

"God did it"

to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.

I see no reason to believe in that theory if one is not an atheists, but if one is then it is almost necesary to believe in this theory (or some other one)

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Fun with rhetoric

The pen is stronger than the sword, yet lightsabers are cooler than printers.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@drafterman

You should retreat to this position:

"Quantum mechanics are acausal"

"Radioactive decay is acausal because it is influenced by quantum mechanics"

Or else your theory will fall apart

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drafterman

@3RU7AL

You cannot stop a radioactive nuclei from decaying.

That means that you are admitting this:

"Well, we cannot identify any certain cause for decaying, we just know that once a nucleus becomes radioactive, at some point it will decay no matter what, but it will never happen to a stable nucleus. Surely we know that the time it takes is unpredictable, but there is no reason to believe that randomness comes from a cause like instability.

How could one believe that decaying is not-causal? It only happens to certain types of unstable nuclei. All of us should know enough about science to understand that stability is a very important case for an atom, for which it is willing to become brutal to other atoms. Everything atoms do, are dependent on their stability, and in all other cases, chemistry, for example, we admit it is causal. Every elementary particle carries different amounts of energy which we cannot know, and atoms are complicated. This should provide a much better explanation for why it seems random than:

it has no cause, thus "a wizard inside an atom did it"

Conclusion: We can believe in magical randomness or scientific randomness

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Unstable nuclei allows radioactive decay to happen but is not the cause

Let us apply that logic elsewhere.

We are scientists that have to look at a plane from afar:

Having wings allows a plane to fly, but they are not the cause of it flying
Having an engine allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
Air allows a plane to fly, but it is not the cause
etc
The plane suddenly starts flying - and thus the flight is acausal.

Your logic is flawed. It is based on the assumption that predictable means "possibly" acausal. Since some science will always find something unpredictable and simultaneously hard to study in too much detail. according to your logic, we should always be ready to accept that this thing could be acausal.

You claim that there is a difference between "cause", "allow" and "prevent".

No there is none, they can be defined by each other in a circle, consider this rewriting:

"to prevent" means to cause something that cancels another cause OR to stop allowing a cause to be active
"cause" means to remove a prevention OR allow something you previously did not allow
"allow" means to stop preventing something OR causing an event to be more likely by providing one of the causes necessary
etc - they all have the same concept - condition - at their core

To cause, allow, prevent, stop, hinder, make possible etc...must all be treated equally as the "conditions" that decide if an event is happening or not

The laws of physics are always active in controlling our universe - they make sure nothing happens without "certain conditions" being true.

Unstable nuclei allows radioactive decay to happen but is not the cause, no more so than an open door allows me to go outside but does not cause me to go outside.

In other words:

Unstable nuclei are necessary for radioactive decay to happen but it is not the cause for decaying. As I proved "cause" and "allow" both involve "condition"

In other words:

There is no certain cause (final condition) for radioactive decay, but the first condition is that it must happen in an unstable nuclei

In other words:

Radioactive decay has at least one condition, but it is still acausal because we cannot predict when the "magical" cause happens

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drafterman

@3RU7AL

There is no escape from the big questions.

"God is not playing dice with the universe"
Albert Einstein

"God is playing dice with the universe as a funny prank. He is smart enough to do it only inside atoms, where he could never be caught, or - so he though. "
drafterman

"God is playing dice with the universe, but the dice are still dependent on their initial velocity and spin. The only random thing is the rolling tecnique God uses."
Benjamin

"God is playing dice with the universe. But even though it is random, it still has a cause - God"
3RU7AL

Sorry, Albert Einstein, you are down four to one

XD

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Any possible event will happen anytime anywhere, immediately, where possible.

No event can be delayed, time is nonexistent in this situation, as it is just a part of spacetime.

Acausallity according to you

This is not the cause for radioactivity. Radioactivity just happens.

That is the defining feature of acausality AND causality => Both acasual and causal events "just happen"

The difference between the two is this:

Any "causal" event is based on conditions

Any causal event is defined as being controlled by causality
Causality is to be dependent on conditions - that the event will happen if and only if certain criteria are met
Any causal event requires certain conditions

Any "acausal" event is not

Any acausal event is defined as being based on acausality
Acausality: not involving causation or arising from a cause - thus not being limited by causality
Any acausal event will happen regardless of any conditions

This means that acausal events will happen immediately but without a cause, and will ignore any condition making the even impossible.

If an event can be prevented or caused, it is not acausal.

Thus since stable nuclei prevent the event "radioactive decay" from happening, it is a causal, not acausal, event.

And when talking about these things, time is nonexistent:

Events happen everywhere they are allowed to happen, all times, everywhere, with no exceptions
Acausal events can happen everywhere since they cannot be prevented by causality
Since events happen everywhere every time possible, acausal events would happen at the same time in the entire fabric of space-time

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drafterman

Acausallity according to you

just happens

That is the defining feature of acausality AND causality.=> Both acasual and causal events "just happen"

The laws of physics just happen, so does quantum mechanics, this particular definition is incorrect.

The difference between the two is this:

Any "causal" event is based on conditions

Any causal event is defined as being controlled by causality
Causality is to be dependent on conditions - that the event will happen if and only if certain criteria are met
Any causal event requires certain conditions

Any "acausal" event is not

Any acausal event is defined as being based on acausality
Acausality: not involving causation or arising from a cause - thus not being limited by causality
Any acausal event will happen regardless of any conditions

This means that acausal events will happen immediately but without a cause, and will ignore any condition making the even impossible.

If an event can be prevented or caused, it is not acausal.

Thus since stable nuclei prevent the event "radioactive decay" from happening, it is a causal, not acausal, event.

And NO, when talking about these things, time is nonexistent:

Events happen everywhere they are allowed to happen, all times, everywhere, with no exceptions
Acausal events can happen everywhere since they cannot be prevented by causality
Since events happen everywhere every time possible, acausal events would happen at the same time in the entire fabric of space-time

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@drafterman

@3RU7AL

Again, this is not analogous to radioactive decay. We aren't talking about a complex system that is too difficult for us to model. Whatever example you want to use, be it the behavior of some animal or other living organism, or weather systems, or what have you, that is not what I'm talking about. Everything you've mentioned has an underlying physical process whose unpredictability is a result of its complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions. This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.

It totally is.

We have modelled "matter" on so many levels: gravity, chemistry, quantum mechanics and many fields connected to them

You claim that radioactive decay is acausal, despite it happening seemingly predictable on a grand scale. We can assume that there is a causal relationship between "being a thing with the potential for decaying" and the actual decaying. Also, here is an explanation of what allows decaying to happen:

Radioactive decay is the spontaneous breakdown of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of energy and matter from the nucleus. Remember that a radioisotope has unstable nuclei that does not have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together.

There are at least a few certain "causes", that makes decaying a possibility.

I want to show two possible logical conclusions:

A - We have created a lot of models about the nature of atoms, and all of them except your two examples show a clear causality. If we mix water and salt, there is causality, you cannot disagree on this one. Even though there is causality, we cannot predict which molecules will stick to each ion, it just "happens". So basically there is no causality in this casual relationship of chemistry. This time you cannot rebuke it by claiming that it is just complexity because we are also on the same scale.

B - What if you are correct. We know that everything that is not happening right now is being prevented by a logical law, there is a law that claims that pink flying elephants cannot exist without a quite special cause (maybe even God is necessary for this project). Even radioactive decay has some necessary cause in order to happen, explained earlier. But it could be a possibility that some causes are acausal. Let me explain:

Radioactive decay cannot happen without a cause, one of which is having unstable nuklei
An unstable nuklei does not immediately decay
There are some possibilities

There is a cause which is itself "acasual or random"

Maybe the cause is a mysterious "true randomness", maybe quantum mechanics
Maybe the cause is seemingly random because of the complexity it is dependent on, for example, quantum mechanics

There are many causes that must be true at the same time

Once a new cause becomes present, another one is removed and so fort, it seems acasual because of complexity
The causes are different for every specific atom, and thus unpredictable because of uncertainty

Of these two options, I like number 2 the most

We can conclude:

Causality exists for sure
Acausality can have different explanations:

Complexity
Uncertainty
Theoretical randomness, ( aka: "a wizard did it!" )

There is no reason to automatically assume that theoretical, illogical randomness exists.

Either way, acausality remains nonexistent:

Acausality: "the rejection of the law of cause and effect"

=> "the event will happen without a cause"

=> "the event will happen now as nothing prevents it from happening"

=> It doesn't happen now, so there must be a cause for such a delay

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

OR, you could just call it an AXIOM.

Thank you, that was the word I was looking for

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Athias

This is circular reasoning. You haven't substantiated this premise. The only evidence or proof of this premise is the premise itself.

Exactly

One must have blind faith in something in order to have a world view.

And without a world view, one cannot reason for anything.

The world view I presented:

"Truth and logic exists, untrue and illogical things cannot exist"

Is circular reasoning. But also logically sound, even if your starting point is another world view like theism or atheism.

I do not propose a new idea as much as I presented a way in which most world views can debate based on the same "blind faith", my circularly-reasoned claim.

If untrue or illogical thing existed and had any relevance, how could we ever be certain that truth or logic existed?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

my bad, I meant acausality

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in: