The God idea. Argue with this.

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:25 pm

Guys, it's pointless to argue logic with Michaelm. We've already done that. Even when Spec used his own "logic" and arguments against him, he still couldn't get it.

Michaelm wrote: There's no consequence in how you live your life either.

LOL!

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:33 pm

We needed 8 pages just to remind us that religion isn't the problem, mankind is.

I really have seen nothing about atheism that has changed people for the better. There are still fundamentalist atheist assholes in the same quantity as fundamentalist christian/muslim assholes. Star Trek had it completely wrong.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:34 pm

jpj wrote:i'm not sure i follow, because you wrote: "behaving good and productive will benefit a later 'life' of your current 'life energy'".

If you look at it on a pure personal level then yes, it doesn't matter what you do. But if you look at it while taking others into account it does matter.
If we strive for equality around the globe newborns will have more chance to get equal chances in life.
I hope you get my drift here.

this is a little ironic, as obviously you have no science or logic to back up reincarnation. but it's not in me to belittle someone's ideas. as i said at the start of the thread, i'm happy for people to believe (or not believe) in whatever makes sense to them, as long as it doesn't intrude on others.

It's true I don't have anything to back up reincarnation.
For me it's just the best way to cope with death I guess.
And the way I think about it sorta makes sense to me with what we know of science already.

i wonder what you think i believe in?

Dunno, but I'm sure you tell me.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:45 pm

well, that sounds like a good ethos to me

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:50 pm

jpj wrote:well, that sounds like a good ethos to me

And I would have answered possible to the snipe edit

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Fri May 02, 2008 11:52 pm

sorry, i thought you would think i was making fun, but i was serious

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Sat May 03, 2008 12:00 am

I am serious too.
I thought that I've read just before I quoted that there was another question in your post about the possibility of humans being reborn as animals which I think is possible.
The smilies where just smiles, a smile for agreement and the other for the, what I thought was a, snip edit.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Sat May 03, 2008 12:06 am

i did write that, yes. that's interesting to know

personally, i think the core messages of monotheism are good, the problem is that the scriptures can have contradictions in them. that is to say the problem isn't so much the books themselves, but the people reading them...

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Sat May 03, 2008 1:59 am

I like how the word 'logic' is thrown out so liberally here. It seems like everyone is bread and butter with at least Frege, Tarski (their attitude about Logic...) and higher-order predicate calculus.

I wonder how boring could be a documentary about Logic. At least quantum mechanics offers groovy LSD-induced fractals, folding dimensions, oh my! I can't imagine Johan Van Benthem talking about how groovy is substructural proof logic.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:09 am

jpj wrote:i did write that, yes. that's interesting to know

personally, i think the core messages of monotheism are good, the problem is that the scriptures can have contradictions in them. that is to say the problem isn't so much the books themselves, but the people reading them...

for example, how much of a sociopath a christian person is can be gauged pretty accurately by the amount of attention paid to the ten commandments vs the amount of attention paid to the most hateful passages of the king james bible

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Sun May 04, 2008 4:10 pm

The existence of God is a metaphysical subject. Metaphysics is legitimate and rational. Metaphysical subjects CAN be argued and debated.

If you claim that God exists without any evidence, then your claim is an arbitrary assertion. Arbitrary assertions are meaningless utterances devoid of any cognitive value. It is the same as if you said the Flying Spaghetti Monster runs everything.

Now to those who claim God exists, where's your evidence?

Even if you claim that God may possibly exist, you still need some evidence for it to even be a possibility. Arbitrary assertions do not count as possible. Not just anything is possible.

The validity of science is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE and has nothing to do with the existence of God. Maybe what you are really trying to debate is the validity of logic or the validity of reason. Those are more fundamental issues than the validity of "science" (whatever you mean by that).

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Sun May 04, 2008 6:10 pm

*sighs*

When did religious folk have to give 'evidence' for their faith? It may be a metaphysical argument (which some people confuse with mental masturbation), but how do you give evidence for a super-natural entity?

Damn, there's a reason I studied science instead of philosophy.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Sun May 04, 2008 9:13 pm

doctorx0079 wrote: Now to those who claim God exists, where's your evidence?

muslims believe that all of us (from the last 2,000 years or so) are what is called Mohammed's People. they believe that as mohammed was the last prohpet, we are people who will never hear from a prophet and will never see a sign of god in our lifetimes. but because of that, that our belief would be based on faith alone, our acceptance into heaven is easier (basic explanation). it's worth pointing out that jesus is in the koran (under the arabic name eesa [spelling?]), along with noah, solomon, david, adam, etc. there are something like 900+ prophets in the koran. but to say it once again: you're talking about removing faith from religion...

Twiddle wrote:if what i can ascertain of your post is at least a minute possibility that you can believe in my theoretical god you aight wit me bro

was this a sarcastic comment?

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Mon May 05, 2008 1:52 am

no way man i am being totally serious

like "fucking a dead cat and posting vid on youtube" serious

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:01 am

Twiddle wrote:sociopath a christian person is can be gauged pretty accurately by the amount of attention paid to the ten commandments vs the amount of attention paid to the most hateful passages of the king james bible

I looked in my NIV bible and they were still pretty hateful ;-;

good history though (...all things considered)

jpj wrote:but to say it once again: you're talking about removing faith from religion...

What about removing faith from one's own life? "Faith" ain't good enough for me because it's not based on reality (and, if it is based on reality, then it isn't faith anymore).

Twiddle wrote:no way man i am being totally serious

like "fucking a dead cat and posting vid on youtube" serious

is it ok with you that i flagged it as mature

kids shouldnt see that shit man

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:11 am

Twiddle wrote:no way man i am being totally serious

What about removing faith from one's own life? "Faith" ain't good enough for me because it's not based on reality

sure, why not?

(i think i've mis-represented myself)

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:23 am

jpj wrote:sure, why not?

o/\o

internet high five!

The n00b wrote:We needed 8 pages just to remind us that religion isn't the problem, mankind is.

I have to agree this is true btw

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:18 am

CMoon wrote:*sighs*

When did religious folk have to give 'evidence' for their faith? It may be a metaphysical argument (which some people confuse with mental masturbation), but how do you give evidence for a super-natural entity?

Damn, there's a reason I studied science instead of philosophy.

Okay, you either don't care what I think or you don't understand it. Fine.

Your position amounts to, "I don't have to prove anything! I can believe in whatever I feel like!"

Yes. You can believe whatever you feel like.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Mon May 05, 2008 9:41 am

I'm not religious, but I don't understand why a person of faith would have to give evidence for their religion. Doesn't faith amount to belief without evidence?

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon May 05, 2008 9:51 am

'tis a puzzlement. What else can be said?

Aside from the point that if you can't even really leverage the usual arguments (i.e. cause behind a cause) then you are really in bad shape.

And then there's the Hitchens argument.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Mon May 05, 2008 10:33 am

Ed Oscuro wrote:'tis a puzzlement. What else can be said?

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE IN TACOS.

I couldn't help myself, apologies

+

Well, beliefs by definitions are without evidence. If anything, `faith' is a set of beliefs organized in some teleological pattern (i.e. telos=destiny, they are supposed to tell you the goal of the universe etc.). If one wants to be dictionary-oriented, 'religion' should denote the social network behind a 'faith' (and etc. etc.).

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon May 05, 2008 10:59 am

Randorama wrote:Well, beliefs by definitions are without evidence.

Wrong. Maybe next time you can help yourself from using specious definitions to promote your arguments.

I believe that the United States will continue to exist as an entity two days from this point, based on prior history (evidence).

Yes, faith is a set of beliefs, and science is also a set of beliefs centered around a different set of epistemological assumptions. Belief is not a term that applies solely to religion.

Anyhow, I'm guessing that was a troll post through and through, and I've wasted my time yet again.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:44 am

RE: Science as a set of beliefs.

There is truth to this, but the statement is highly misleading. The beliefs that science relies on include:
-Our senses can tell us about the real world
-The real world exists
-The senses of other people can tell us about the real world, and those other people exist.

There is no arguing that these are 'beliefs', but I'm not going to insult religious people by suggesting these somehow equate to faith.

Ultimately, we accept these beliefs because accepting the alternative is non-productive. We can't say for a fact that anything outside our own consciousness exists (if we can even say that?), but what does this belief actually accomplish. In something akin to Pascal's wager, it really is worth believing in the real world, since if it is true, ignoring it will result in real pain, suffering, starvation and death.

Beyond this belief in our ability to perceive the world, and the world itself being real; I'm really not sure how else science is a belief. Unlike religion (again, trying to equate the two ends up being an insult to both) science is merely a toolkit for inquiry into the natural universe. That to me does not equal 'belief set' the same way religion does, where belief (IE faith) is the central pillar. In science, it is evidence which rules the day.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:09 pm

CMoon wrote:RE: Science as a set of beliefs.

There is truth to this, but the statement is highly misleading.

Not if you understand what "epistemology" is.

Let's not abuse the definitions of words so horribly that they become meaningless. Epistemology is the term that defines the conflict you're talking about, and the word "belief" should not be falsely accused of having sectarian biases. This is what I believe!

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Mon May 05, 2008 1:34 pm

CMoon wrote:I'm not religious, but I don't understand why a person of faith would have to give evidence for their religion.

Only if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:03 pm

Ed the zany poster wrote: Wrong.
n.

Not really. It's the typical definition you find in Psychology handbooks, Cognitive sciences literature, philosophy too, etc... A belief can be justified and true, if if it effectively matches facts. Next time you may think twice before answering, though, or consult wikipedia, or any other fancier source. Can you stop it here? Thank you!

Here is something which is qualified as a belief delusion, speaking of some wrong quote made earlier.

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:06 pm

Randorama wrote:
Ed Oscuro wrote: Wrong. Maybe next time you can help yourself from using specious definitions to promote your arguments.
n.
Not really. It's the typical definition you find in Psychology handbooks, Cognitive sciences literature, etc... A belief can be justified and true, if if it effectively matches fact. What is the trolling part of using the common definition in the fields that use this word in the most technical word? Next time you may think twice before answering, though.

Fine. But FAITH is belief without evidence.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:22 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:
The n00b wrote:We needed 8 pages just to remind us that religion isn't the problem, mankind is.
I have to agree this is true btw

This is funny coming from you !
You can't really say this and then be against guns.
It's either yes to both or no to both.

Monotheism is the gun mankind uses to keep the problems intact.
Without guns and without monotheism will have the same effect !

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:24 pm

doctorx0079 wrote:
Fine. But FAITH is belief without evidence.

Here is the link:
Faith according to wikipedia.

Also, with respect to science... I would say that a working theory falls under the 'justified true belief' rubric. In general I have problems with colleagues that fall under two extremes: the wild platonists and the inveterate anti-realists.

The former camp finds its maximal expression in Mathematicians of the 'platonist' (or whatever) type, or in anti-psychologist philosophers (nowadays, people like Dummett, Devitt, the neighbour Chalmers...). Right now I can't think of a raw 'anti-realist', but I have a few colleagues who would defend hard-core 'psychology is exclusively about beliefs' stance, for instance.

Moot debate, in my opinion, but I tend to fall in the 'technical camp', so to speak (i.e. I care little of fielding myself in some side or another).

Re: Chris' post. I think that in general the whole 'the world exists!' idea is a bit irrelevant to what one believes. While in natural sciences you can still sit down and figure out how things work, once you drag in 'man' you need to keep track of how our brain (do not) work.

One of countless examples is Vision. While I am not a complete expert on this, I know from the literature that so far we still know little of high-level Vision (say, object recognition beyond edges and surfaces and how they end up giving us '3D' vision).

A lot of belief delusions (Anton's syndrome being one I witnessed in lab myself) for instance revolve around pretending to see things that are not there. The subject literally describes well-detailed images of things that...are not there. Even if the information is not there, the brain/mind will make it up on the spot, since it is what it expects to find.

Sure, we can believe to find things which are not there all the time, and viceversa (i.e. ignore data in front of us). Case in point being today, in which we realized that we were ignoring a small but meaningful aspect of our data. Sure, 'numbers' are a step ahead with respect to 'grunf!
I said so', but too often I find people mistaking percentages with causal relations or using one theory as the key to all mysteries of the universe (well, any big name like Pinker, Dennett, Fodor, Dawkins, Penrose, etc.).

Nevertheless, one can still check what it wrong and what is right. With enough precision to find it a decent approximation, also. Better than the above grumf method, I reckon.

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:12 pm

Randorama wrote:
doctorx0079 wrote:
Fine. But FAITH is belief without evidence.
Here is the link:
Faith according to wikipedia.

Wiktionary :

faith (plural faiths)

1. Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.

I have faith in a just and loving God.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

This is similar to the definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary.

My Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Tenth Edition says:

Faith 1 : 2 b (1): firm belief in somthing for which there is no proof

But this is all semantics. They implied believing in God without evidence. And they didn't offer any evidence.

You need evidence if you want to convince people who don't already agree with you. If not then fine, do your own thing, as I said before.

If CMoon doesn't believe in God himself then I'm not sure what he is arguing for. If you don't require any evidence then why don't you believe in God yourself? Are you talking about religion in general, like including Buddhism or whatever?