Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
To tell me that I am nothing more or less than the rest of the universe simply tells me that I am meaningless.
Then you have missed my point. If I am right you get to decide exactly what your life means. Neither atheism nor skepticism necessitates nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What would make that a reasonable assumption?
Skepticism which is necessary in the pursuit of truth. I do not believe in that which cannot be demonstrated.
You started a post about a hypothetical story about a mark under a cup.
No a coin under a cup. You are the mark as in the person being duped or conned.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So tell me - why do think logic and reason is a good place to start? And please do so without using any logic or reason.
This is a nonsensical request. If one could make a case for anything without logic and reason then it might not be the ONLY place to start. You are asking me to disprove my own point. If you really wish to show that logic and reason are not the ONLY place to start why not make literally any point without using logic and reason. Honestly do you even read what you are writing?
This is why evolutionists only ever end up thinking evolution is correct. It is also why they ignore every other bit of information elsewhere. Confirmation Bias.
What are you talking about? The process of evolution (as separate of the theory of evolution through natural selection) is observable and testable in laboratory conditions. Up to and including speciation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I have a feeling our capability of ever getting enough information is incredibly small.
Although enough is kind of a subjective term I can't really say I disagree with the sentiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm just saying a real life phenomenon seems a bit 'too dumbed down in your example.
Sometimes it is useful to create a simplified hypothetical situation in order to view a more complex actual situation without all the mental and emotional baggage that comes from the actual situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I have to conclude that we are having issues with the bible also conflating of terms. A logical consequence and a conscious actor are not necessarily the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Only conscious agents able to communicate in some way imply anything. Either a conclusion is supportable given the evidence or it is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If you have a better tool I would love to know about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think our theories are as correct as we can make them given our current understanding. I have confidence in the germ theory of medicine for example. If new information comes to light, even paradigm shifting information, I will have no choice but to adjust my beliefs in response. I cannot imagine what new information would completely invalidate the germ theory of medicine however given the derth of evidence supporting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
In as much as the universe does not display the ability to reason I suppose I agree as far as it goes. Reason is still the best tool at our disposal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Then what is the problem with any given demonstrable and well documented scientific hypothesis especially those which have graduated to scientific theory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Somehow though, a persons certain belief in God, feels more grounded, than some persons staunch certain in the red ball.
Ignoring for a moment that your "feelings" can ultimately be dismissed unless founded on observable evidence why exactly do you feel like that? Is it really harder to imagine a red ball in a box having seen red balls in our physical reality and knowing they exist than it is to imagine some god(s) in any given container or space (infinite or finite)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What is to be gained is we might eventually figure out how the world really works.
If we were to suddenly figure that put I seriously doubt it would be achieved by abandoning deductive and inductive reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm not sure what you mean. Science is only a method. It works by eliminating untruths more than discovering truths. This is a messy buisness and progress can be choppy but it is the most reliable method humans have so far discovered. If you have an alternative methodology to present I'd love to hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
This isn't a cause and effect universe.
While it is possible that it is not a cause and effect universe it certainly appears to be one and if it is not then we really can't make knowledge claims based on deductive or inductive reasoning anyway so I'm not sure what is to be gained by taking that to be axiomatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
By us I mean those who recognize the efficacy of the scientific method of separating fact from fiction and are aware of the scientific findings, peer review and consensus on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
even if I agree that cause and effect as a general principle does not require consciousness,
Do rocks need intelligence to roll down hill or only gravity? Are snowflakes designed or do ice crystals merely form regular repeating patterns as water freezes?
plan or purpose, this does not mean that a first cause and first effect did not require so.
I do not need to disprove your claim in order to dismiss it you need to demonstrate it before I accept it. That is how the burden of proof works.
And there is significant reason to separate the first cause and effect from all others.
What reason assuming a first cause even exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is no coin. I cannot show you what is not there.
Is it not then reasonable to assume that stance with all propositions? That if you cannot show me it is likely that nothing is there to show?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Again, it always starts with a premise. I have seen the studies which is why I acknowledged that many might disagree. But having seen the studies - I was not persuaded by the science nor of the theories behind them.
You cannot start with a conclusion and work backwards and expect to reliably arrive at truth. That is called confirmation bias and is the reason for your self inflicted scientific ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Cause and effect requires no purpose only one event causing another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I take the view that absolute right and wrong exists as a matter of logic. Hence, if a religion or worldview declares ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion. This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world. Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity. You have yet to refute this logically.
To be fair I don't need to you are the one claiming there is some absolute right and wrong and as the claimant the burden of proof is on you both to show that there iui s such a thing and also to support your claim that any given world view disagrees with you.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?Give me some examples of what you are trying to clarify.a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.This sounds a lot like religion to me.a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation (some god(s)) leading to certain consequences (heaven, hell, Valhalla, nirvana, reincarnation etc.) of an action or event , or a practice based on such a belief (prayer, sacrifice, baptism, ceremony etc.).
Given the similarities between your provided definition and the similarity to religion (and indeed your implication that some religions are superstitious) how do we go about separating a true religion from a superstition?
Atheists have no capacity to offer comfort in death.
I do in fact. You did not exist for billions of years before your birth and were quite unbothered by it so I wager when you don't exist for billions of years after your death you will find it equally untroubling. Also have you heard the good news? No god(s) are waiting to throw you into eternal torment after you die for real or imagined transgressions you can neither avoid nor understand. In fact I find the whole idea of heaven and hell to be very disquieting and I don't think Christians have much to offer that counts as comfort when examined logically whether they are correct or not.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I would take the view that monotheism is the original and that polytheism is the later.
At the risk of wasting my time explaining when you clearly have no interest in scientifically accuracy there is no archeological or sociological evidence that this is the case and quite a bit of evidence that the exact opposite is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.Absolutely and that is why it is majorly flawed. People become atheists and in doing so reject previous worldviews - leaving a big hole in their thinking.
This is a non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that recognizing a lack of sufficient evidence in some claim would leave a hole in ones thinking. Does not believing in big foot leave a sasquatch shaped hole?
Created:
Posted in:
Atheism has no way of dealing with comfort. Atheism is cruel and mean spirited.
Atheism is not anything but the lack of belief in regards to one category of claim. There is no overarching goal or spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Tradesecret
In relation to the Eastern religions - you asked the question about my methodology for rejecting them in respect of the one true religion.
No I did not. I in fact specifically asked that we pit your religion aside for a moment and see if other religions can be proven wrong. I think you had better reform your argument with this in mind.
an absurd causal relationship under that definition may include elements of religions - but also non-religious position.
So how do we tell the difference between religious beliefs that have the same basic elements as superstition and superstition itself?
Think of the Big Bang theory - totally absurd - improbable yet believed by millions of people in faith.
I think with this statement you have proven yourself scientifically illiterate enough that you should avoid using any allusions to science in future discussions with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes. I do not believe you know where the coin is and you are unable to show your coin to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If the universe is deterministic - does that not imply a determiner?
Cause and effect does not require any conciousness, plan or purpose. If you mean something other than that please clarify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The entirety of human behavior throughout history can be explained by cause and effect. Cause and effect is decidedly not chaos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It is not unreasonable to assume that an evolving species would evolve to fit its environment. It is in fact exactly what leads us to believe that evolution through a process of natural selection is the best explanation for the diversity we find in the fossil record and existent life on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
In the hypothetical no one has looked in the box. All you know is that one human who has not looked in the box claims to know that it contains a red ball
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What does chaos mean in this context?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The universe would appear to be deterministic. At the very least it is partially deterministic and we cannot prove that it is anything more. Not a promising prognosis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Only human imagination would seem necessary for a baptism to take place. One simply imagines one participant has the spiritual authority sufficient that the other can imagine they have been somehow cleansed or otherwise made more worthy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Both strange and normal are entirely subjective. What are you really trying to say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm not completely sure what you are asking here but reason and logic exist within the universe in as much as they exist at all. As for things outside the corporeal universe I'm not sure how we could confirm or deny them so I'm afraid any statements made about them will by necessity be arguments from ignorance.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
The principals outlined in the video would appear to be universal and unavoidable but nevertheless worth resisting.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Created:
-->
@Lemming
An interesting stance considering that the culture and history you are referring to was mostly lost to the American tribe and their nationalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Some people might wrongly feel that their carnival experience will have inherently less meaning if they don't find the coin but I assure you that coin or no coin there are other things to do at the carnival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
There may be a coin and there may not. In neither case is it "just" to punish a carnival goer for looking in the wrong cup or even just not playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nathaniel_B
There was at the time jesus is claimed to have lived only one existent (not extinct) race of hominids (people and proto people) homosapiens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) "filled with hate based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation seeking to maximize profits at all costs is not "filled with hate based on skin-tone" and is (THERFORE) NOT "raciest" ("active-racism").HOwEveR,(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) that "implicitly and unintentionally shows preferential treatment based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation (or government or other system or organization) that neglects to consider (and mitigate) whether or not their products and or services disproportionately help people of certain skin-tones over people of other skin-tones is (THEREFORE) "raciest" ("passive-racism").
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yes for example I would like to change the wording to sentient beings for example but if we can agree to the standard then I'm not sure what context changes "all sentient creatures are equal" to "all sentient creatures are equal except for those humans who happen to have been born too far away across arbitrary borders".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings are equal, that they are endowed by their fellow sentient beings with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Is this any better?
Far better than the actual documents wording but any static statement will become less acceptable over time by virtue of our evolving moral awareness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
A persons position/perspective/line of logic. Maybe.
That sounds less than useful for determining more than one's personal ethics which is necessarily divorced from any tribe/city/nation/collective's official policy.
May I suggest that in order have a reasonable discussion we should agree to some standard that is more or less acceptable to both of us for the purposes of this discussion.
May I suggest that if we are discussing American rules and regulations and discussing ought rather than is that we examine the most basic axiom of national policy. Would you agree with this standard
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Accepting that any creator is undemonstrated and in any case unnecessary to hold the other presented "truths" as "self evident".
To me this seems like the base line that all other legislation is "supposed" to be predicated on. That this does not seem to always be the case notwithstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
People value what they value,
What is the difference between a value and a vice other than popular opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I have a lot of impulses and desires that are in conflict with my moral intuition. Their pull can be very strong. That does not mean I should give in to these baser impulses or consider them to be "values".
As for pride and loyalty to culture and history every culture has things in its history to be proud. Every culture also seems to have some pretty horrible things in their history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Tribalism and the labeling of people outside your tribe as the "other" is actually the very thing I'm against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Created: