This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

In the beginning

12345679»

Comments

  • So now that you've filled about 200 posts defining terms, can you both present your opening statements?
  • "WHAT DO YOU SEE?"
  • But, I know God exists because Jebus gives me parking spot when I prays! :trollface::
  • edited July 2012
    Colloquial use of language and philosophical discourse are essentially seperate for me. The burden of knowledge is different colloquially, in science, and in philosophy. I "know" I drank too much last night. Colloquially, who would argue with that statement, it's as true as anything else? In science, we can test that as a hypothesis and attempt to verify it. In philosophy, that statement doesn't really mean much of anything, and I don't believe that counts as knowledge there
    Unlike you, I don't draw arbitrary distinctions between different types of truth claims, such as scientific, philosophical, or "colloquial", and nor do I apply different meanings for "knowledge" and "truth" on the basis of such. Instead, I consider all such questions in light of a more general principle that is best termed "rationality" - specifically, belief based on evidence.

    Of course, there are different kinds of evidence; scientific evidence, for example, has restrictions that are needed in order to make it systematically applicable. However, your memory that you drank too much last night is still evidence to you, and your statement that you did so is evidence to me. If you testified to this effect in court, it would be legal evidence. If you pigeonhole different types of questions, you make yourself susceptible to pigeonholing the evidence, which can only stand in the way of actually finding out the truth.

    In discussing the issue of whether God exists, I'm discussing it in the general light of rationality; I haven't arbitrarily chosen to consider it as a philosophical question. I'm using the same standards that I'd apply to any other truth claim, because to do any less would not be giving it my all. As such, it is clear that observations are critical to the question of whether God exists.

    While I won't say that you have been disingenuous, you have been discussing a different question from the rest of us.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • You can't kind of believe.
    Actually, you can, except it's just called being undecided. In the absence of evidence, I'm undecided. It's the most rational position.
  • So now that you've filled about 200 posts defining terms, can you both present your opening statements?
  • Actually, you can, except it's just called being undecided. In the absence of evidence, I'm undecided. It's the most rational position.
    Are you, then, equally undecided about the presence of a teapot orbiting the Sun?
  • edited July 2012
    You can't kind of believe.
    Actually, you can, except it's just called being undecided. In the absence of evidence, I'm undecided. It's the most rational position.
    Are you undecided on the flying spaghetti monster? Are you undecided on unicorns? Are you undecided on the magic space owl that visits us from the storm on Jupiter once every 5,437 years?
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • You can't kind of believe.
    Actually, you can, except it's just called being undecided. In the absence of evidence, I'm undecided. It's the most rational position.
    Are you undecided on the flying spaghetti monster? Are you undecided on unicorns? Are you undecided on the magic space owl that visits us from the storm on Jupiter once every 5,437 years?
    Is there an almost global consensus that those things exist? I put a *little* stock in that. Not a whole lot, but enough to elevate the concept of some sort of god slightly above the flying spaghetti monster or invisible sky wizards.
  • I like unicorns.
  • Actually, you can, except it's just called being undecided. In the absence of evidence, I'm undecided. It's the most rational position.
    Are you, then, equally undecided about the presence of a teapot orbiting the Sun?
    That would be so badass. I'd love to see that teapot.
  • edited July 2012
    You can't kind of believe.
    Actually, you can, except it's just called being undecided. In the absence of evidence, I'm undecided. It's the most rational position.
    Are you undecided on the flying spaghetti monster? Are you undecided on unicorns? Are you undecided on the magic space owl that visits us from the storm on Jupiter once every 5,437 years?
    Is there an almost global consensus that those things exist? I put a *little* stock in that. Not a whole lot, but enough to elevate the concept of some sort of god slightly above the flying spaghetti monster or invisible sky wizards.
    Logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    Yes or no. Are you undecided on the flying spaghetti monster? Also realize closure of this thread is depending on you.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited July 2012
    Is there an almost global consensus that those things exist?
    The spread of such beliefs is explained well enough in light of psychology, sociology, and evolution. Every existing religion has a relatively clear secular origin. With that in mind, there is little reason to assign much significance to the fact that so many people believe these things.

    If we had no reason to think that people were in fact being irrational with respect to religion then the wide spread of the belief would be good evidence, just as scientific consensus is good evidence of a given proposition. However, this is not the case when it comes to religion.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Yes or no. Are you undecided on the flying spaghetti monster? Also realize closure of this thread is depending on you.
    You say that like you think I'm invested in this thread. :-)

    I'm familiar with the logical fallacy. I believe in global consciousness too. Wooeeeooo I'm a loon! Let me tell you about crystal healing!!
  • Is there an almost global consensus that those things exist?
    The spread of such beliefs is explained well enough in light of psychology, sociology, and evolution. Every existing religion has a relatively clear secular origin. With that in mind, there is little reason to assign much significance to the fact that so many people believe these things.

    If we had no reason to think that people were in fact being irrational with respect to religion then the wide spread of the belief would be good evidence, just as scientific consensus is good evidence of a given proposition. However, this is not the case when it comes to religion.
    Yes, yes, memes and all of that.

    I just don't think it's necessary to live in a hyper-rational world. I know this offends those of you who are hyper-rational.

    Human beings are not naturally in that state. Transhumans might be, who knows? Will that be an improvement? I'm not sure.

    In terms of social integration and general happiness, it seems like Jesus Camp (or outright schizophrenia/dementia/etc) is on one end, and hyper-rationality is on the other, with the sweet spot being somewhere between. I'm comfortable with that. I'm not a Romney voter. There's bigger targets than me.

    My interest in this conversation, I've got to admit, is more about my general amusement with your obsessive need to cleanse the world of every slightly irrational thought than it is about the subject matter.

  • edited July 2012
    Yes or no. Are you undecided on the flying spaghetti monster? Also realize closure of this thread is depending on you.
    You say that like you think I'm invested in this thread. :-)

    I'm familiar with the logical fallacy. I believe in global consciousness too. Wooeeeooo I'm a loon! Let me tell you about crystal healing!!
    You have refused to answer the question, which was pretty much the only way to fail. The rule is that if you want to have this discussion you MUST answer this question.

    Also, @VaguelyWeird, I know this takeover and closure of your thread seems as if it is not helping you, but actually it is more help than you realize. Look at the argument that muppet is making. He completely fails to understand why absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. He can't see why believing in god or gods is no different than believing in magical fairy dragons. No matter how many times it is explained. No matter how clearly, logically, and concisely it is written, the logic can not penetrate his head. And this guy is merely an agnostic atheist who refuses to identify as atheist. With your parents who are true believers it will be 1000 x worse. Just like Rym and Pete and others are saying. The goalposts will be moved forever. Your task is next to impossible. Even if Neil Degrasse Tyson came to speak to your family personally, it would have almost no chance of helping.

    I really think your best hope is not by having an argument, but by reverse brainwashing. Just spend a lot of time with them watching shows and movies about science like Cosmos, Nova, etc. Don't just read books like The Third Chimpanzee, read the books with them. It's one approach that is not often used because the religious people typically just refuse to watch/read things that will cause them to question their beliefs.
    Post edited by Apreche on
This discussion has been closed.