Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We cannot do this with absolute certainty though we can have higher degrees of confidence about some things (by virtue of their being a method to test their validity) but certainty is unfeasible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The cups and the coin are not the whole carnival my friend. There is a lot to do without ever worrying about the cups. The only real problem is that the human beings presiding over the game insist on the punishment (which even if it only amounts to everyone at the carnival laughing and making fun of you seems a little unfair to me). Without those guys the cups wouldn't appear to matter at all from the perspective of the carnival goer. You could win or lose or not play and it would make zero difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In that case this is an extremely poor analogy for religion (though not a bad one for the scientific method). For a better analogy may I suggest this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I am more mature than I once was and presumably less mature than I shall one day become.
I would however like to abdicate this nomination. For one thing my activity on the site while fairly regular at the moment is actually quite spotty and I am liable to dissapear for weeks or even months if I get bored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So the waging of war on armed soldiers is not genocide. Genocide is by definition the systematic termination of an entire population including unarmed civilians.
To answer the spirit of your question however is
My personal subjective standard includes wellbeing promoted versus harm prevented and an arbitrary sliding scale of importance which places human wellbeing over the wellbeing of other species of animal for no reason other than that I am a human being so I share more empathy with humans. It can objectively be said that my personal moral opinion judges the acts of genocide against a civilian population and the waging of war on armed soldiers that actively support or perpetuate such a genocide differently with a distinct tendency to view one in a very much more favorable light.
So the short answer is I do judge them differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yeah but what if he won't show you or he is a stage magician and it is a trick?
Created:
Posted in:
Imagine I have 3 cups turned over, and ask you to guess which one of these cups has a coin under it. You say that the coin is under a cup, and point to one. I show you that there is no coin under the cup, and then reveal which cup has the coin under it.You can certainly tell that you picked the wrong cup, you were mistaken. You missed the mark.
Ok. Now imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of cups and only one coin. Also imagine that you can only pick one. Naturally you will only win as prize if you choose the cup with the coin under it but the carnival barker also informs you that if you do not find the coin you will be punished, worse if you don't play you can't find the coin so you will certainly be punished.
Still with me? Ok here comes the real meat.
You pick the wrong cup (because of course you do there's thousands of friggin cups) and you will be punished. As they come to administer the punishment the following conversation takes place. (If you refuse to play the game this conversation may still be assumed to have happened).
You: That's not fair! It's nearly impossible to choose the right one at random!
Carnival barker: sorry but you chose this for yourself. I explained the rules and you did not choose the cup with the coin therefore you have chosen punishment.
You: Well can you at least show me the coin?
Carnival barker: oh it's down there. I saw a guy win just last week and guys used to win all the time before I started.
You: Well I don't even think you have a coin!
Carnival barker: well your getting punished anyway and it's your own fault.
Ok that's the whole conversation what do you think? Was the contest fair? Would it be more or less fair if your family and nearly everyone you know is expecting you to choose the same cup? What if the cups are under the table where you cant see them and you just point and as an added wrinkle if the spot you point to doesn't contain a cup it counts as a loss. Now in addition to refusing to show you the coin the barker also refuses to show you the cups. Is it fair now?
Perhaps you think I'm referencing you. If so ask yourself do I make any arguments like the ones in this hypothetical example. If not then this post likely is not aimed at you.
If on the other hand you have ever had a conversation like the one above (from either perspective) then please feel free to share.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
One point at a time. If your first point doesn't hold up then itjust be addressed before we move forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I accept that the laws of physics apply to our local (observable) physical universe. Now you just have to demonstrate that they apply outside/before the universe if outside or before are even applicable words. Unfortunately to do so you would have to be able to observe conditions outside/before the universe and humans cannot do so. It doesn't matter if it is a logical common sense observation based on our current understanding of our local (observable) universe because logic combined with incomplete or inco6data can produce incorrect conclusions.
Take this syllogism.
All Greeks wore beards
Plato was Greek
Therefor Plato were a beard.
It is perfectly logical and it is only common sense that if both premises are true then the conclusion must be also. However the first premise is flawed. We do not know that all Greeks were beards.
Now let's look at your first premise syllagistically.
The laws of thermodynamics apply to whatever came before the big bang
The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed
All energy that makes up the universe must exist eternally.
Perfectly logical but the first premise has not been demonstrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I'm trying here ebuc let's just go point by point ok? Your first point was about eternity which humans can only hypothesize about not actually observe. I reject this first premise on the grounds that it cannot be tested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ignoring everything else you said and just responding to this.Because occupied space is eternally existent ergo the first law of thermoydynammics was discovered and I extend as occupied space.
Eternity cannot be measured so it is outside human epistemology. If anything is eternal it is literally impossible for us to know. If the rest of your post hinges on my believing in something that has any infinite dimensions (including the dimension of time) you would have to demonstrate an infinite and my common sense tells me that this is likely impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hell no. I was mod of the religion section of ddo for awhile. Kind of took all the fun out of it. Better you than me kid.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh probably would mate! I'd pick the wrong one even if it was at the bottom of a pint.
In fact chose a few wrong ones.
Good game.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
And religions that are true or not are brilliant people group pickers. Just look at Constantine eh? Eh? What do you think of him Deb. Wild arse hair and boom. Everyone in Europe is Christian sure as falling out of a plane!
Created:
prophecy as reasonable evidence.
Having an accurate prediction about a future event does not inform us on the source of the prediction or even guarantee any special insight on the part of the predictor. We have discussed this before. Christianity is far from the only religion that claims to have true fulfilled prophecies. What makes your prophecies more impressive than the fulfilled prophecies of jainism for example?
Created:
I am also an abigfootist and an alocknessmonsterist of you would like to discuss those issues.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I do not care about claims I care about sufficient evidence. Any claim which cannot be demonstrated can and should be dismissed.The Bible claims
I have no idea what avoltronism means.
It is the belief that Voltron the galaxy defending robot made of smaller robot lions does not exist outside of fiction. It is not a worldview it is just a lack of belief on a particular issue. If however you can demonstrate Voltron I will have no choice but to accept him. At the moment however I reject him in much the same way and for much the same reasons that I reject god(s)
Created:
Then you can't trust science about how you got here. You have to rely on faith.
How do you independently verify origins?
Again, you are here because of only a few possibilities of origins. Either a mindful Being is responsible or some illogical, unreasoning chance happenstance is irresponsible, or you are living an illusion.
Again atheism is not science and even if it were our current scientific models do not explain the origins of the universe. I am not putting forward any particular hypothesis either. I merely do not accept your hypothesis. What is it about the words "I don't know" that make you so uncomfortable anyway? And how exactly does it clear up the mystery to appeal to a bigger mystery?
Atheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews.Yes, it is. It has the same basis any other belief system has. It tries to answer life's ultimate or basic questions such as why are we here? What or who are we, what does it matter, and what happens to us when we die.
Atheism is not an attempt to answer any of those questions. Atheism is not an attempt to answer any questions. It is only a lack of belief nothing more. Being an atheist does not mean that you must accept science. It does not even guarantee that you will be nonreligious as there are religions with no deity. I would venture that even most atheists that do accept science are not atheists because science is a good way to discover knowledge but because religion is not.
you chose to believe
Beliefs are not a choice. I do not choose to be unconvinced by your arguments they are simply unconvincing to me.
How you look at existence shapes how you look at everything else.Existence isn't everything? What else is there?
There is reasonable evidence for Christianity.
By this I take it you mean the claims made by the bible and not just that evidence exists for the existence of the Christian religion and so I will address it as such. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable a thing being written down does not make it true and having an accurate prediction about a future event does not inform us on the source of the prediction or even guarantee any special insight on the part of the predictor.
Is there some other evidence that I am missing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
This was your previous quote from post #134. But I think that is safe to say that from a materialistic worldview, there is no legitimate reason to condemn acts like genocide, and these acts can even be justified as acceptable.
If you replace legitimate with objective I will agree but I disagree with this statement as ot stands. Humans wanting to live is a legitimate reason even if not an objective one independent of human opinion.
My standard is an objective
What precisely makes your standard objective? Also the Yahweh commands genocide so under the biblical model it is not just excusable but expected. There is no need to address this as it is not in question. The god depicted in the bible allowed, commanded and even committed genocide over and over in the story. Either genocide is not wrong or Yahweh is.
Created:
Posted in:
I do not believe that Voltron exists outside of fiction. You are welcome however to present a case for Voltron's existence outside of fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm sorry I don't know what to tell you. The universe does not care about genocide only humans do. Unfortunately all standards for morality can lead to horrifying consequences. For example if we use wellbeing versus harm we may well harm an innocent person for the wellbeing of two. If survival of the species is our metric we might subscribe to eugenics. If we follow the dictates of the bible we might condone slavery and put a significant portion of the world's population to death. If you have a standard for morality that does not I would love to hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TMFRC)
Imagine if you will, two people in a room.
They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.
The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.
If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.
If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.
Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.
However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam. - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.
Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange (ad hominem).
Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?
Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.
Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).
Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?
Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.
Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
A quote from your source material.To date all these methods have been inconclusive
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Scientifically testable would eliminate origins.
That's right we do not know our origins.
Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence?
the only evidence it is reasonable to accept is that which is independently verifiable. This is because logic is only efficacious if you have sufficient knowledge. In any case it is not reasonable or logical to accept a form of evidence which has been proven unreliable under laboratory conditions and testimonial evidence has been proven unreliable.
If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview
Atheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews.
I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Atheism is not an attempt to make sense of anything. Like avoltronism it is merely the lack of belief on a particular issue. Different atheists have different reasons for their beliefs.
For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance
This is, as it has always been, a straw man. I no more believe in chance than in fate. I believe in causation because it has been demonstrated. Fate, chance, divine intervention and freewill have not been demonstrated.
Strip your explanations back to the basics
What explanation are you referring to? I readily admit that I do not know our origins. To say otherwise is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. If for example I claimed that some omnipotent being had created the entire vastness of the universe for the sole purpose of using a tiny speck in one corner of a smallish galaxy as a testing ground for humans to see which of them get an eternal hallpass and which will get eternal detention that would be am argument from ignorance.
If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???
I do not look for purpose that is a fools errand. Instead I simply accept that in the absence of inherent purpose we must make our own. In any case it is not the concern of science to find purpose in our lives but only to explain the world around us to the best of our knowledge and based on the best availble evidence.
Ow did you want to talk about sciences best current cosmological models (which cannot explain the origin of the universe and do not claim to) or about the entirely separate topic of avoltronism.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have always been very clear about what evidence I will and will not accept. Scientifically testable and independently verifiable. If your 'evidence' does not this criterion then no manipulation is necessary to dismiss it and no amount of manipulation will render it valid.True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
Created:
Posted in:
Ask any government who has ever declared war if this is the case. For example the nazis themselves could be called detrimental to humanity and there was a very large and worldwide push to kill as many as possible.So I would only be incorrect if we both perceived them as detrimental to our survival? So if we agreed, then it would be ok to exterminate them?
Also, why would I have to justify my actions? Why would I even be held responsible for them if I can't control my mental processes and am just a product of my environment?
Because, right or wrong, you will be held accountable for your actions by your fellow human beings.
That implies that I would have to appeal to some sort of morality (which doesn't exist)
Subjective moral standards exist and are enforced by humans.
to show that I was not wrong to do what I did. But who determines that
Prevailing human opinion most generally in the form of laws.
why should I have to comply?
The consequences of actions are generally sufficient cause to compel adherence society's rules. We do not by and large decide what these consequences will be and so no 'choice' made based upon these rules and consequences needs freewill to explain.
The problem is that if there is nothing more to our existence than random clusters of molecules, than human life has absolutely no value. Every time you try to justify why it's not ok to kill people, you have to give them value because the default position you keep going to is that we should not kill them, thus we need a good reason to justify killing them
What assignation of value is not subjective? Food only has value in as much as we need it to live and a society with a surplus will place a lower value on food than a society suffering a famine. Humans tend to value human life. That in no way makes thos an objective fact.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually think that you're ok with genocide or eugenics. I believe you when you say you are empathetic and compassionate toward others.
Good.
But that compassion just doesn't fit with your view that there is nothing more to us then random clusters of molecules and uncontrollable chemical reactions, and that life has no value, meaning, or purpose.
Life does have value to humans. It is just a subjective opinion however not an objectively provable fact. If all life on earth came to an end there is no particular reason to think that the universe or anything inside or outside the universe would notice or care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Unless I too percieved them as detrimental you are incorrect. As a human who wants to live and who has enough empathy with others to know they likewise probably want to live it is in my best interest to foster a political climate that keeps humans alive rather than exterminating them. You perceiving some deficiencies or detriment is insufficient to justify your actions. Also eugenics are not natural by definition therefore they have nothing to do with natural selection. Now can we get back to this soul thing you claimed you could demonstrate? Or has my refusal to let you straw man my position made that difficult?I never said that it was, nor do I believe it is. I am saying that, from the general standpoint of your view, there is no rational reason not to exterminate any group who I perceive is detrimental to my survival, or the survival of my population.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A legal drug is legal and a pregnant woman who is also a legal adult and citizen. You can no more tell them what to put into their bodies than an obese person at a McDonald's. The default in a free society is to allow any behavior and to them limit only those behaviors that can be shown to be detrimental to the freedom of others. For example theft is detrimental to ones right to personal property.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Well why don't we focus on just one point because your posts often overwhelm me in their sheer magnitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
In what way does being Jewish make a population detrimental in any way let alone in the way you are suggesting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Because occupied space is eternally existent ergo the first law of thermodynammics was discovered and I extend as occupied space
If this is all you are trying to say then stop after saying it. I literally can't follow you when you make multiple paragraphs of symbols and numbers.
So just to be clear is this your entire point or is that buried in your graphs and equations somewhere?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You are making a common error concerning the term "survival of the fittest". The term only refers to the ability effectively pass on genes it has literally nothing to do with being the biggest or strongest only the most able to survive and mate in a particular environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
An example of a logical argument would be that something is contrary in regards to a particular goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Well I guess your entitled to the brain-fizz that you call an opinion, but then you have given up any rational reason to be mad about the extermination of those who are detrimental to the survival of a population.
Quite frankly this is incoherent. Being angry is an emotional response and emotional responses are unrelated to logic and reason arguably they anethema.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
When someone has trouble understanding what I'm trying to say I try to reword my statement I don't just produce what is essentially a copy paste (perhaps you type these things out by hand every time I don't know but I see the same symbols over and over and they look indistinguishable to me). Is it really to much to ask that you find a way of saying things that I am capable of following and understanding? You've never even tried. You just keep calling me a stupid egotist with no common sense. That isn't nice ebuc it hurts my feelings. You are not fun to talk with. It is not enjoyable and I do this in part as recreation. I don't know why you treat me this way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It is impossible to have a conversation with you. I am numeralexic and I need you to not use numbers and symbols. It is not my ego it is my disability. Please if you cannot understand that or you do not care then just leave me alone
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Unless they can be demonstrated in a practical and independently verifiable way.
Created:
Posted in:
0............................6.........................12....................................18....................1..................5p......7p.............11p.......13p...................17p................................2p.......4.................8.....10.....................14........16................................................3p.........................9................................15....................................
This is meaningless to me and completely distracts from whatever point you are trying to make. Is it truly impossible to translate this into words?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I do not see that the facts being depressing would change them. I'm not certain I agree with every one of those points but for now I will take it that at least you understand my position. Until it can be proven more than 'brainfiz' if that's what you want to call it, there is no reason to believe it ou s more.
Skepticism is the default position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't accept you as an authority on Hinduism or Indian history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Desire seems to be the foremost control followed by external factors however since we do not choose to desire something nor do we by and large have control over our external circumstances it is difficult to argue that we control our mental processes or our actions. They are at least as likely to be simply the product of cause and effect. In fact since we have demonstrable examples of cause and effect and only anecdotal evidence at best of freewill I would say that causation is easier to accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The word religion is sort of a loaded term and people can and do apply it subjectively. I think however it fits the most widely accepted definition.
Created: