Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
Atheism is a religion
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in one particular kind of claim. A lack of belief in a claim is not the same as endorsing the opposite or indeed any position. There are religious atheists. Toaists and some buhdists among others. Is your contention that these individuals have two religions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
No Falneze rational =/= free. Rational = the ability to recognize logic. Unless you choose what is logical rationality is sufficiently explained by determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
My claim is closer to none of us knows anything. Atheist or theist not knowing most things is one thing we all have in common.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree with this assessment. A five year old child appears to have more "freedom" when playing chess but really they simply do not understand how the peices move while a seasoned chess players can't/won't move the peices in ways that violate the rules. So it is with rationality. A madman would seem to have more "freedom" because he can think and behave irrationally while a rational person can't/won't.I reiterate: assuming free will does not exist, nobody is rational. If nobody is rational, our reasons for believing in the non-existence of free will aren't rational. Therefore, nobody can rationally believe that free will does not exist if free will doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Weather patterns (like human behavior) are difficult to predict. Does the weather have freewill? An unpredictable outcome does not necessarily demonstrate freewill.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps suspecting there is no self is alarming enough without climbing in a transporter and removing alk doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I am try8ng to tell you that if there is no freewill you will/can not just lay down and do nothing if you have a reason to do something. You are the one arguing not only that I am capable of choosing to lie down and do nothing but that I should. I think one of us must misunderstand the other.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
No but it would be wicked awsome if you told me. When I say I it is just a convenient placeholder for referencing my personal subjective experience. I enjoy eating avacados. See.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The atheistic worldview
Atheists have various worldviews but atheism is not a worldview.
Independent of what?
Independent of your desire for it to be true, independent of the source of the claim (in this case the bible), and independently falsifiable.
The Bible is specific on who prophecy comes from.
The bible is the claim not the evidence. How besides the claims of the bible itself have you determined the source of the bible itself? Can you prove That the hypothetical true and accurate prophesy did not come directly from men? Can you prove that it's source was not some "wicked spirit"? Can you prove that it's source was not aliens or the flying spagett monster? Is the source of the prophesy itself even important unless you can somehow demonstrate that all writings in the bible have the same source?
What authority do you have that I should believe you?
I am not asking you to believe anything. I am asking why I should believe in your claim of some personal god(s).
I choose the view that can make sense of it
When did we discuss any view that makes sense of It? You can't solve a mystery by appealing to a larger mystery.
His mercy and compassion for me who believes in Him
Is necessarily anecdotal in nature. You cannot directly demonstrate it only give your subjective account of it.
What authority do you have that I should believe you?
What demonstrable authority do you have that I should believe you?
Also I am not endorsing any particular explanation so I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to get you to believe.
Without Him, we are left in a sea of relativism where our limited knowledge is a hindrance for us.
If some omniscient being does exist how does that in any way prevent us as non-omniscient beings from existing in a sea of relativism where our limited knowledge is a hindrance for us?
Either way I have enjoyed the conversation I'm glad we stumbled past each other however it turns out. I do this in part for recreation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Wanting someone to "pay" for what they have done is called retribution. It is easily conflated with justice but it is not the same. If retribution is as/more important we can include it in your criterion but we must acknowledge the difference in order to get at the root of why you really support the death penalty.An eye for an eye is a form of justice.
Now is it more important to you that people pay for what they have done or justice?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Im not sure I can say it is virtual or personal or spiritual or snything else. All I can say is that I am the only one ecperiencing my "self". This is the same as saying that I cannot prove that I have one.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
Human beings should rejoice at empathy and kindness. If you're not you're doing it wrong. (This seems a much better axiom to operate under than yours if you will forgive me for saying.)
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
As I said only physical continuity and that is very tenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Since your not sure what I'm going to say please don't get ahead of me. That is no way to get at the root of why you support the death penalty which we must do if we are to evaluate it's logical coherence
.if justice is more important than revenge then we can dismiss an eye for an eye as irrelevant as that is simply retribution not reasoned justice..
That leaves us with wanting the punnishment to fit the crime and the deterance of future murder.
Which of these two aspects of your argument would you like to examine next?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I do not know. Science can only evaluate the physical properties of "I" however and so if it is more than physical properties it is indistinguishable any give "I" that acts identically but has no more than physical properties. "I" am only verifiably a series of poorly understood brainstates.
In short if the default in belief is skepticism then believing in a metaphysical self is logically incoherent unless one can be demonstrated. The only thing my past, present and future self verifiably have in common is physical continuity. I do not think it wise to break this very tenuous connection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Even if there's a difference in likelihood that I'll follow through with my decision once I've made up my mind about doing something would disprove hard determinism.
What method shall we use to determine if we could have acted differently after the fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you have no freewill and you are compelled to do things what makes you think it would be possible to instead do nothing?People who argue that free will doesn't exist should just lie down on the floor and do nothing all day and trust that the outcome would've been the same had they decided not to do that. If you aren't willing to put yourself to that test, you don't really believe what you're arguing.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I do not see the world through my eyes. I see it through my brain. The picture my brain makes is partially informed by my eyes. I have no evidence that this experience is anything in particular.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I have no evidence to support the idea of a soul/spirit. I have yet to even get a sensible definition including the one I used to believe in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
If you have any evidence that is not anecdotal in nature I would be happy to see it. I love to learn. That does not however mean that I am able to believe in things that have not been demonstrated and a definition is not a demonstration.
Please explain how you are (more) correct and pga is (less) correct from the perspective of the evidence you each claim to have. He claims to have a book of revealed truth from some god(s) which is purportedly transcendent and necessary and which gives true and accurate prophesy and also that he pga is (more) correct and that you Yessine are (less) correct or perhaps even wrong I'm not sure which.
Given that you make very similar claims with evidence that is anecdotal or based on tautologies that have not been demonstrated how shall I possibly choose between christianity or Islam? That is if either is in fact (more) correct since disproving one would in no way prove the other.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
The current clone of the original captain Kirk (funnier because of the new timeline) is welcome not to think about the existential nightmare. I find the idea of the transporter to fill me with a creeping dread.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I would not for the reasons I have already stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
So even though you told me you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive you actually don't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Before we go any further I would like to remind you that I asked if you can independently demonstrate the trinity.
Islam being wrong aboit the trinity would not necessarily make Christianity right.
Also and as I've said before even if we accept that there is some accurate prophecy in the bible that by itself does not tell us the source of said prophecy not does it prove that anything else in the bible is true.
That is why I ask for independent verification.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-witch
Atheist don't believe in morals.
Blanket statements like this are 9ften at least partially incorrect.
The question is fake.
This is completely unconnected with your first statement. I'm not even sure what a fake question is... perhaps you mean rhetorical?
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
You are a sweet ray of honey drenched sunshine as always.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Goid to have you back poly how was your vacation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
4 + 3 = 7 is a tautology. Niether four nor three exist in and of themselves they are simply a designation relating to the number of items in a grouping. We could define four or three or eight differently and make the number statement 4 + 3 = 7 true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
This does not address the question of whether you chose to desire milk.If it was not me that desired milk, what is it that desired milk?
When i desire milk I can choose to satisfy that desire or to let it pass.
Why would you not satisfy your desire for milk?
A rock cannot choose to ignore the pull of gravity
Neither can you.
I am interested in the difference. Your approach seems a bit timid - it's as if you just want the 'problem of free will' to go away without having to think too much about things like the nature of self and its consequences for moral responsibility and so on.
How does a lack of freewill illuminate consequences? How would it change the fact that ypu r fellow human beings will hold you morally responsible for your actions?
I think that if free will is an illusion - which I think it probably is - then the self must also be an illusion.
I'm not sure how the two are connected but the concept of self is as demonstrable as freewill. I can only ever experience my own anecdotal feeling of self.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok let's focus on just one difference. The trinity. How do you know that Christianity is correct regarding the trinity and Islam is incorrect regarding the trinity? Can you independently verify the trinity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You could believe you will find the winning ticket laying on the ground. This is in line with the belief that you will win the lottery without prompting you to buy a ticket. That example is more in line with the discussion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to christianity then which one is right/true?
So, when another religion teaches something similar to christianity/islam then what makes it right/true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Did you choose to want milk ? Did you choose for it to be available at the shop? Did you choose for the shop to be down the hill? Sounds like you and the rock are both reacting to your circumstances in accordance with your particular natures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I can't imagine my chances at winning the lottery are in any way related to how fervently I believe I'm going to win it
This seems like an important statement. So your contention here is that fervently believing in a proposition does not in and of itself effect how true this proposition is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How strongly did this factor into your determinations?Not at all, it was a joke, I keep having to remind myself that 'tone' doesn't translate to message boards. :)
Your tone came through and I understood you meant it as a joke but I felt it was worth getting you to think about it consciously.
I can't make myself believe stuff
Yes but Why? Why can't you make yourself believe stuff and how does this relate to theistic claims in general?
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't want to be one of those western Buddhist douchebag trendsters
How strongly did this factor into your determinations?
I figured I didn't need to go down the entire checklist
Ok but why not? I feel like we are getting close to the actual reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Actually I guess my agreement with the definition depends on the definition of one word within it. Freely. If by freely we can only mean "by means/ in possession of freewill then I disagree. If by freely you mean not restrained in any way that may change things. Does a person who is tied down have agency? Does a person whose child is being held hostage and doing What the kidnappers demand have agency? Does an insane person with no lucid grip on reality have agency? In all these examples why or why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It also only covers why you don't believe in the Yahweh specifically. Why did you not simply change religions? Perhaps buhdist.That paragraph covers about 13 years!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A rock rolling down a hill needs no special explanation
Since an object at rest tends to stay at rest any rick moving in any way would be expected to have some explanation.
Similarly any human is expected to have some (possibly internalized) explanation for their behavior. Is asking a being with freewill wht they did something sensible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Sorry read your definition again. At the very least we would have to remove the word free and ideally change the word choice to determinatio. So no I don't believe in that specific definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
as far as Islam is concerned.
Ok so demonstrate that Islam is right. Don't just say "this us what Muslims believe" prove it. Why is Allah specifically necessary. Why are Odin and Zeus not necessary. Do you have any have any objective reason to believe or just a prescriptive definition?
Created:
Posted in:
Once such being is proven to exist,
This is the part you skipped. Having a term referring to what a thing would be (Bigfoot/pink unicorn, '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)/god(s)/Allah specifically) is different from demonstrating Bigfoot/pink unicorn/ '&$)(Q$*$&$Q)/god(s)/Allah specifically actually exist. This sort of tautoligical definition does not make anything more likely to be real it only tells us what we are looking for. I for one have no idea how to independently confirm the existence of a being who has the qualities you assign prescriptively to your hypothetical conception of some god(s). If something exists outside of space and time it is by definition unobservable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Bigfoot is a contingent being indeed.
What is to stop someone from defining Bigfoot as a necessary being? That would be prescriptive. Under those circumstances no unnecessary being can be Bigfoot. Any unnecessary being must necessarily be something else by the stated definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Yes your definition is prescriptive not descriptive.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The exploitation of humans is also undesirable to me. I am unaware how to stop the exploitation of humans but dividing them seems counter productive as empathy with someone has direct impact on your treatment of them.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I am under no special obligation to agree with any party on this issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How did the universe come into existence?A great question that no one ever has been able to explain.
Some people claim to have explanations. What makes these explanations insufficient in your eyes?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hey this is pretty serious ok? Keith has been looking for it for awhile now.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If your goal is to play monopoly by the rules you give the money to whomever drew the card. If it was you you give the money to yourself. Yourself... your... self.... your self. Holy crap deb call Keith up. Let him know you just demonstrated self by giving your self monopoly money.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I do not in the end have a (nontyranical) solution to tribalism. I just don't like it and so I will in general offer pushback against it.
Created: