Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Whatever definitions you want to use there are beliefs that are based upon evidence and those which are not. The nature of the belief itself is immaterial to me. As far as the evidence will support it is actually more likely that sapient humanoid blue Na'vi inhabit a moon somewhere out there than that there are some god(s) because we have examples of sapient organisms and no examples of god(s).
Neither has sufficient evidence to warrant rational belief.
If you wish to start referring to faith and knowledge as irrational and rational or justified and unjustified that is fine. You use faith however you want you still have no evidence for yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
So when I say "Babe Ruth was a good player back in his day" you believe Babe Ruth existed for 24 hours sometime in the 20th century? This is what happens when you ignore context and grammatical norms.
You mean when you interpret a sentence instead of taking it at face value.
I suppose we should do away with all belief systems now.
Since this does not logically follow from my argument I didn't really get much further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Did I say it could be dismissed?
Look you can't have your cake and eat it too. Are the rules still in force or are we dismissing that part of the book ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Believe" becomes the extent of what you accept as true when belief, alone, cannot get you there. Belief and faith are not synonymous, and never were. Most think that way, but not this kid.
Indeed if you have evidence you don't need faith to believe and if you have no evidence there is no reason to believe. Faith is what you have instead of a good reason to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
There are many Christians who believe in the old Earth and do not take such accounts (7 Day Creation and the Flood) literally,
Excellent first step. That is exactly how you extract the lessons from aesop's fables instead of dwelling on the fact that lions and mice don't talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
First, you must let go of the idea that death is a permanent condition. It isn't.
Bald assertion. If this is your first premise you must demonstrate it BEFORE the rest of your argument can be considered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
If some god(s) exist and if they do care then it is remarkably similar from my perspective that either there are no god(s) or that no god(s) care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I find it humorous when athiests tell Christians how to interpret their own Holy Book.
I find it humorous that anyone would think that the possibility of interpretation is anything but a problem for any faith with competing sects and competing interpretations. Unless you can somehow demonstrate conclusively that you are correct and your interpretation are correct and all other possible interpretations are incorrect I have no choice but to take the text at its word and the words used are ALL THINGS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Stuff continues to happen. That would seem to suggest that all things are not yet accomplished.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Mathew 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
So please don't pretend that there is a difference between old and new covenant other than your willingness to accept them.
If half your holy book can be dismissed why have that half in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Mathew 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
So please don't pretend that there is a difference between old and new covenant other than your willingness to accept them.
If half your holy book can be dismissed why have that half in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You are surely aware of the common argument that a negative cannot be proved.
Some negatives can be proven. I think what you mean is that some propositions are UNFALSIFIABLE. Any such proposals are impossible to prove or disprove and skepticism is the default.
That's because there is no evidence supporting that which does not exist in the first place. I found this as a description of BoP:"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning."
Ok so you are claiming some god(s) exist so you have a burden of proof. However the existence of god(s) is unfalsifiable unless you can describe exactly what the universe would look like without some god(s).
IF our universe is indistinguishable from a universe without any god(s) THEN we have no rational reason to believe in any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The best method we have so far discovered for separating fact from fiction is the scientific method. The scientific method is to try to DISPROVE your hypothesis. Only if you have exhaustively done so and your hypothesis stands can you rationally believe in your hypothesis. Before we could believe in any god(s) we would have to figure out how to go about DISPROVING any fictional god(s).
That is how evidence works. How would you go about DISPROVING the existence of some god(s)? What would a universe look like if there were none?
In a universe with only fictional gods I would expect many contradictory, flawed and sometimes dangerous beliefs and that is what we see.
I would also expect that if the Yahweh was fictional that there would be multiple competing religions based on the figure and multiple splinter factions within those religions themselves as populations split and ideologies evolve without guidance and that is what we see.
IF our universe is indistinguishable from a universe without any god(s) THEN we have no rational reason to believe in any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
Ah! The tendency towards monopoly! No I regard that as the fatal flaw in capitalism not a necessity of the human condition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If God 2 is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent
I find this to be flawed reasoning. How can god2 be certain that god2 is omniscient rather than simply believing that god2 is omniscient? Indeed true omniscience is made logically incoherent by the double slit experiment regardless of ones personal takeaway. If observing a wave function forces it to collapse into a particle and everything down to the smallest interactions are being observed by some god(s) then we would not eexpect to see wave function in particles at all. We do however see them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Nothing can solve soft solipsism on an individual level.
No knowledge or belief about the universe can be sustained unless we first take it at face value that SOME STUFF exists.
We cannot independently verify that SOME STUFF exists without comparing it with ANOTHER MIND which is a subset of the SOME STUFF that we are trying to verify.
Indeed we are merely brains in jars. Jars known as skulls... if SOME STUFF is real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Not to be argumentative but that isn't how evidence works. What you are talking about is actually the sharpshooter logical fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What evidence have you got?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
There is no solution for soft solipsism. We cannot verify the "realness" of reality without presuming that it is. It really doesn't matter however because even if this is all illusory we can still learn the rules and optimize our experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Ask the source of the inspired, but possibly corrupted words what is the truth.
As far as I know the authors are dead and the dead are not known for being chatty. If you are referencing some other "source" you will have to demonstrate one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The claim can never be evidence of itself. Any holy text is a claim about the supernatural. Evidence would need to come independent of the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You have a personal past and it shapes your attitudes and behaviors. You are only arguing over a matter of degree here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think you have things backwards. The lack 9f evidence shaoes my beliefs. If sufficient evidence were presented I would have no choice but to be convinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I would not expect you to change without a reason to (cause and effect).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
for I have the evidence of God,
Which you are apparently unable or unwilling to present.
the evidence is derived from many examples of Holy Writ, not only the Bible.
And doubtless they are plagued by the same contradictions and inaccuracies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Events which are not concordant with cause and effect are by and large devoid of utility. If that is what you mean by random then that would seem to be separate from "choice" which I understand requires an informed and purposeful course of action (predicated on previous events aka cause and effect aka determinism).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sure.
Biology = everything about you mechanically. Genetics, organ function, biochemistry etc but also any genetically coded behaviors and any behavior predicated upon our physical form.
Circumstances = everything that has ever happened anywhere at any time and also "before" time if that even has any meaning up to and including this moment. Your biology is actually a subset of your circumstances and could technically be left out but I like having the a + b = x structure for the argument.
Behavior = the subset of all things you are or have ever been physically capable of doing that you have actually done or are currently doing. By extrapolation also all the things you actually will do but that is an unknown quantity so let's just stick with past and present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, premise 1, even if proven to be true, doesn't exclude other factors in the choice-making process. It states that past events are part of it.Premise 2 doesn't make clear who 'we' are because if one individual was or wasn't in control of certain past events it doesn't necessariy equate to 'we' being or not being in control as a whole group. Equally, even if 'we' the collective were in control in a hive-mind type thing, free will for the individual surely would be significantly limited.
So perhaps a better syllogism would be
Biology + circumstances = behavior
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
I am not out trying to screw atheists over.At least, not intentionally.
Try establishes intention. You didn't need to repeat what she said. Also Polytheist-Witch is not a member of a religion that is currently doing great harm. They just don't have the membership.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Just as in the Bible, I find truth and error mixed in all of them, exactly as anticipated. It only makes sense, all being the works of men. There is no evidence that God, by whatever name be known, wrote a bloody thing.
Very well stated. I agree the bible is in no way evidence of any god(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Because we mostly create our own limitations, and then blame society. Human nature. However, that nature can be overcome by the free will to do so. But, since you do not accept free will, that is your own self-imposed limitation.
We are both subject to the same physical laws. I am as "free" to "choose" to change or resist behavior I know is unhealthy. I simply recognize the "choice" to do so as a simple consequence of cause and effect to which I have assigned a post hoc rationalization. You are making a distinction without a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for assuming you know what I believe.
I don't need to know specifically what you believe to know that you believe you are correct and anyone who disagrees to strongly is therefore by necessity incorrect. Please detail which of the religious texts I highlighted that you agree is correct in the way you believe your preferred religious text is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's not the first time you have mentioned limitations. How do you imagine I am limited in a way thatdies not also limit you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Which religious texts do we agree are fictional? I've never mentioned any.
The veda? The Quran? The collected works of greek mythology?The gospel of the flying spaghetti monster? Yes? No? Maybe? Besides the point. Presumably you think all religions besides yours are incorrect. I believe all those religions are incorrect and also that one more is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
David Hume does not move in my circle. Sorry.
Reverse argument from authority. Arguments stand or fail independently of the identity of the person who made them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It qasnot an attempt at criticism or even necessarily rebuttal. I was trying to answer your question in regards to the degree to which we control our actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You had no say in you being born. It occurred because of something which happened in the past.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This would suggest that while what we perceive as "free will" does not exist, we have some type of control over our actions. The question is to what degree
We appear to have full control over our voluntary behavior. This does not make freewill other than logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is an argument of internal versus external free will - that is why I no longer consider myself a hard determinist.
Indeterminism (not subject to cause and effect) would be indistinguishable from entirely random and almost certainly lacking in utility. Random events are incompatible with "choice". The alternative is determinism which is incompatible with "choice".
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not sure why anyone thinks I need their help or to be de-converted
This is not actually my intention. I am actually testing the strength of my own arguments first and foremost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When you are dealing with texts that are nowhere and nowhen close to original manuscripts...When no original manuscripts exist to draw any translation from...When you are dealing with a variety of original authors [though no direct examples of same], and some books clearly of differing styles, meaning different authors even in the same books...When you have a series of ecumenical attempts to standardize a canon, and still end up with variable canons...When you should know that dictionary-to-dictionary translation is fraught with potential corruption, even innocently, because culture drives language, and dictionaries do a piss-poor job of teaching culture, particularly when trying to define another language's culture...When you have no assurance of scholarship of the translators in multiple languages...When you are dealing with the potential of intentional corruption in agenda-driven translation...When you are dealing with generational repeat of translations, even to the current era...You expect crystal accuracy and a total lack of contradiction?
Not at all. In fact I find inaccuracy and contradiction wholly unremarkable. It is in fact what I see in all the religion texts which we agree are fictional as well as in your religious text which I find hard to distinguish from fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Premise 1 Every human choice or action is driven by past events.Premise 2 We do not control past events.Conclusion 1 Human free will does not exist.From my perspective, the syllogism seems simple to the point where it is irrefutable. What do we think?
I see no logical flaws in your argument.
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
What if that "oppositional figure" just happens to be right?
That is completely immaterial in the vast majority of cases. In fact most supernatural claims are insulated from reasonable argument by the unfalsifiable nature of the claim itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Determinism =/= freewill
Indeterminism =/= freewill
Determinism + Indeterminism =/= freewill
Created:
-->
@Mandrakel
IF the goal is (de)conversion THEN "help" in "accepting the truth" from someone regarded as an oppositional figure is unlikely the answer.
Created:
-->
@rosends
without God's waving and saying, "yeah, I done did that" it is hard to assess any event, no matter how improbable, and decide that it is the working of God, suspending the odds. If there are billions of people in the world who have diseases and conditions, and the odds against anything in particular happening are 100 million to one. then, over time, we SHOULD see an isolated case, the one. Just my thoughts on it.
Very well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think you misunderstood. Given that we do not have freewill personal freedom under the law becomes more important not less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you know what it makes one when one agrees to disagree with the facts?
It makes one incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You do not choose what you do and do not enjoy no matter how hard you try.
Created: