First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Atheism is wrong, Theism is also wrong
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
To be honest, I try not to care about stuff like that due it begin pointless.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


excalion wrote:

1. You cannot prove God doesn't exist definitively. Atheists believe God definitely doesn't exist. You're believing on faith, because you can't prove it.


Wrong. Atheism is an absence of belief, or the belief that God probably don't exists. So you're wrong on that one. Sure, some atheists say God definitely doesn't exist, but that's not atheism defined. Atheism defined is merely the lack of belief in God.


Actually one of the definitions of atheism is the rejection of belief in deities. Another definition is the position that there are no deities, which is equivalent to a belief of nonexistance. That's the kind of atheism I'm talking about here. I have no qualms about the kind of atheism that is only a lack of belief.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

Zeboim wrote:



Although I'm guilty of it, we shouldn't coerce our beliefs upon others. We have to keep an open mind. I probably know what you're thinking now. This sounds like Agnosticism. But as of present, I feel there is a prime mover behind the cosmos. But at the same time, I can accept that not everyone will agree with that, and free will gives everyone a choice to believe what they want. This should be appreciated and respected. Faith can't in its purest form operate without free will. I believe in philosophy individual rationality would be that equivalent.


Did you basically reword what I wrote about faith and scrutiny?

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14

Shnooze wrote:

So having a belief is wrong? I'm sorry, but I don't think you get to be the judge of that, but nobody can really change what you believe either. I think you'd be better off just being neutral with people instead of engaging in this sort of counter-intuitive stuff.


Having a belief is not inherently wrong, in fact it's necessary. Believing something so vehemently that you refuse to recognize any alternatives is wrong. People change what I believe all the time, because I recognize the imperfections of my perception and believe in the possibility of alternatives. Is the idea of accepting another, contradictory viewpoint so absolutely foreign to you that you were unable to extrapolate the essential point of my first post?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

qualeshia3 wrote:

To be honest, I try not to care about stuff like that due it begin pointless.


Im sorry but purpose is relative. What is pointless to you may not be pointless to me. Though I am curious, if you believe the topic pointless, why did you post? What was the purpose behind your post? Was it simply to let us all know that you think what we're talking about is pointless? No, that would in itself be pointless.

Ah I see, you wished to express how lofty and aloof your thoughts are compared to the rest of us. That's cute.
14748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / ON, Canada
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:


Shnooze wrote:

So having a belief is wrong? I'm sorry, but I don't think you get to be the judge of that, but nobody can really change what you believe either. I think you'd be better off just being neutral with people instead of engaging in this sort of counter-intuitive stuff.


Having a belief is not inherently wrong, in fact it's necessary. Believing something so vehemently that you refuse to recognize any alternatives is wrong. People change what I believe all the time, because I recognize the imperfections of my perception and believe in the possibility of alternatives. Is the idea of accepting another, contradictory viewpoint so absolutely foreign to you that you were unable to extrapolate the essential point of my first post?


Nope, I simply looked at the title of your thread and decided it seemed a little radical, y'know? Saying something is 'wrong'. Also, you seem to be using a really unnecessary amount of large and convoluted sentences. I'm fairly certain, in my opinion, that the sort of ignorance that promotes refusing to change your belief doesn't really exist past extremists and crazy folk, who are all but able to redeem themselves at that point. Maybe you should edit your thread's title or re-post another due to the fact that it in itself comes off as a militant atheist sort of article that you'll see pop up, equally as click-bait as Kotaku's radical feminist posts. Relax a little, man. My point of view is that you can't argue with them, that's all, since it usually just leads to really heated and silly debates that turn into yelling and flinging shit at each other. Beliefs in themselves are really just something for people to hold onto and hope with, that is, the ones that aren't all about being mean and nasty to others.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
Lol if you read a few posts down from the first post, I said my title basically IS clickbait.
10031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Swedish Street Life
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
Hmm some interesting points sadley i really don´t get everything english is not my main language but it´s sure an good topic people should always strive for more knowledge and simply not put blind faith on one thing sure faith is needed to some point.

But i could have misunderstood this completey also lol... anyway fun reading i most say

42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:


qualeshia3 wrote:

To be honest, I try not to care about stuff like that due it begin pointless.


Im sorry but purpose is relative. What is pointless to you may not be pointless to me. Though I am curious, if you believe the topic pointless, why did you post? What was the purpose behind your post? Was it simply to let us all know that you think what we're talking about is pointless? No, that would in itself be pointless.

Ah I see, you wished to express how lofty and aloof your thoughts are compared to the rest of us. That's cute.


If you don't find it pointless, that is fine and it's how you feel. I'll respect that. The only reason I find it pointless is mainly due to the fact I just stopped caring. At a time, I wasn't sure if I should believe in a higher power or not. As I got older I decided not to care anymore and didn't go with either side. This debate will never end and no one is completely what is or is not the truth. I only wanted to share my opinion/get a reaction from you. Everyone constantly questions about god and everything else. I did too until I simply decided to not bother trying to figure it out.

If you still find this pointless then fine.
107 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Ontario, Canada
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:


“Iron rusts from disuse, stagnant water loses its purity, and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigors of the mind.”

Don't be afraid of conflict, from conflict is born the grandest of ideas and the most interesting and bewildering of conclusions. I promise to be civil in conversation but that's all. If someone can't handle opposing viewpoints, they are in the wrong damn forum.


I've never really looked at conflict in that fashion before.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:

I contest that syllables have no inherent meaning. Many languages that did not evolve from each other share similar pronunciations for similar items or ideas. The word "mama" is one such case, many others exist. As such even a seemingly random collection of syllables may have meaning unknown to even the person uttering them, because they are not paying attention. Again, tangent, but since we're doing this might as well do it thoroughly.


This makes your definition of the word 'meaning' very different from mine. I'm using it in a pragmatic sense. If my house is on fire, and I call 911 shouting "MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT", it is not sufficient to me that those sounds carry some vague nebulous ethereal 'meaning'. They must convey the meaning that I intend to communicate, that is, I desire services to save my home, and possibly life, from an all consuming blaze in the imminent future. I do not want the person receiving the call to interpret the message as "I see a homeless person waving a gun down the road" because that would be counter-productive both to the police, and to me, AND to the fire department who won't be informed until the police realize that down the road a house is on fire.

If you are using words to try to communicate ideas to other people, it isn't sufficient to argue that things might have 'intrinsic meaning' on their own. Rather, what matters is the common agreement BETWEEN us on our definitions before we can proceed.

What we intend to communicate should be clearly laid out. If people want to talk about a concept, then they must be willing and able to describe the concept to others using commonly understood language. If someone lacks that concept, or the word, it is the responsibility of the person trying to communicate the idea to find commonality to do so.

That tends to be easier when people speak the same language, but even when they don't, visual cues are probably a lot more common to both than verbal ones.

Any 'meaning' of words must be shared for that 'meaning' to be of any good in communication. If you have no interest in trying to communicate, then I'm happy to ignore whatever you say because you admit you have no interest in really talking.


Jeez, let a fella take a little artistic liberty when writing would you? Though I get what you're saying about preciseness, so let me reiterate. I don't believe true randomness exists, where true randomness is defined as unpredictable in every way, including being non-deterministic. I believe all things must have certain rules they follow, and because we do not yet understand those rules, we chalk it up to randomness. This is not unlike how ancient civilizations chalked up many natural phenomenons they did not understand to supernatural beings. If for instance with your photon scenario, that the conclusion is we are unable to ever predict if a single photon will pass through a 45 degree polarized lens and that the limitation to our prediction resides in the fundamental nature of photon behavior. Perhaps we are wrong about how photons fundamentally behave.


We might very well be wrong about how photons fundamentally behave, but the problem comes from "if we are wrong, the scale at which we are right doesn't change". As Asimov put it in his essay "The Relativity of Wrong", "when we thought the planet was flat, we were wrong. When we thought the planet was spherical, we were wrong, but if you believe that saying the planet is spherical is just as wrong as saying if it's flat, your view is wronger than both views combined."

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

However I think probably a bigger challenge to you then would be to prove the proof of the halting problem wrong.

But the biggest challenge to me is that since Turing actually did prove the Halting Problem was unsolvable, not just "we don't know how" but rather "there is no general solution"... you appear constantly willing to simply abandon logical or axiomatic proofs entirely.

You seem to have strong beliefs about the nature of the universe, 'true randomness doesn't exist, there's always a way to determine the outcome', but you seem to have a lot weaker beliefs about the basic principles of deductive reasoning in the first place. You appear to have no premises but very strong and seemingly wrong conclusions. (In fact I'm not sure that you acknowledge the importance of having a premise in the first place if you refuse to use any kind of logical conventions)


You're missing the point. I don't have to know what you mean by "lastarama" for it to exist. No information needs to be exchanged or communicated. No context needs to be established. The instant you wrote the word "lastarama" a thought was in your mind. In this case I would assume that thought had something to do with explaining to me something pertinent to this conversation. Anyhow, there is a possibility that whatever you had in your mind the instant you came up with the word "lastarama" is replicated in reality. For the sake of simplicity, let me put it this way. It is possible that your exact brain structure and neural synapses, as well as the signals being carried by them, essentially everything that was "you" and had something to do with the creation of the word "lastarama" in that instant, is replicated and now exists somewhere, where the word "lastarama" is continually and infinitely created over and over - Lastarama exists.


None of that matters. What matters is shared definitions. I think you might have a problem too if your house was on fire, you called 911 shouting "fire, fire, call the fire department!" , and instead of sending the fire department, they send a SWAT team. I don't think you'd care very much if the sounds 'fire fire, call the fire department' happens to map to a concept that other people also share, if the person who you are trying to communicate that message to doesn't understand it. "Oh, sure, they might not have shared the same meaning for those sounds... oh well, at least the SWAT team gets a pretty view of a house fire?"


For the sake of convenience, let's just say that every single god, deity or religious figure and being exists somewhere in some dimension currently unbeknownst to us. Let's actually take it a step further and say that even the gods and deities that have not even been conceived of also reside in some dimension unbeknownst to us. Highly improbable given our current understanding of reality? Of course. Impossible? I don't think so.


I have no idea what you mean by the word 'dimension'. It almost certainly doesn't correspond to any definition for the word I have, because my definitions all tend to involve equations and coordinate systems and a 'dimension currently unbeknownst to us' is like saying 'a coordinate system currently unbeknownst to us'. It's just coordinate systems are arbitrary labels, so god exists in some arbitrary label unbeknownst to us?

Forget improbable, my struggle is in understanding the basic coherence of what you're saying, well before I can attribute judgements of 'probable' or 'improbable'.


A logically contradictory idea is wrong on logical grounds. You equivocated logic and basic. Omnipotence means if you can conceive of it, god can do it, and if you cannot conceive of it, god can do it too. You can conceive of logical possibilities that seems contradictory with each other or mutually exclusive, but god can do them all. Yet you cannot conceive of how he can do them, but god can. Omnipotence is never contradictory, because by definition it means no limitations. Logic is a limitation and therefore does not apply.


... This is an entire mass of contradiction. "Omnipotence means if you can conceive of it, god can do it".

"I can conceive of failing to lift a rock".

God can therefore fail to lift a rock. God can also not fail at lifting a rock. "Well god can't do a negative" but then that limits a whole host of things god can do. "God can't die". Well then it means god also can't do the positive of "god can't commit suicide".

These are logical contradictions. Omnipotence, as you have defined it here, does not appear to make sense, and if you say "well god can do all of those, both is not able to die, and able to die!" then yeah I struggle to figure out how god is a coherent phrase, how it describes anything that *could* exist because as far as I'm concerned addressing the questions of things that "could exist" requires accepting logic. If you throw out logic, it seems impossible to convey the idea.


I'm trying to argue that it is possible for logically contradictory things to exist. As for whether they do or not, hell if I know.


HOW is it possible? I don't understand how logical contradictions can be said to be 'possible' when the very standard for establishing if something is 'possible' or not involves figuring out if the thing we're saying is 'possible' involves logical contradictions.

"Is it possible that there is a biggest integer, bigger than all other integers before it". "Well, if that's true, say we call that number X. X+1 is bigger than X, so therefore X isn't the biggest integer, and thus, the statement 'there is a biggest integer' is false by contradiction.

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/the-no-self-defeating-object-argument/

Terry Tao enjoys his reductio ad absurdum.

If you are throwing out the basic rules of logic then I don't understand how we can talk about things that 'possibly exist' when we've removed the language and structures I use to figure that out in the first place.

It's like saying "well it's possible there really is a biggest natural number, or a biggest prime", but no, as far as I'm concerned, I accept deductive logic showing premises which lead to logical contradictions renders those premises impossible to be true.


As indicated by my first post, although I don't believe in a knowable objective reality, I do believe in a knowable subjective reality that is both probabilistic and causal where certain things I do can reliably bring me happiness and fulfillment. In the absence of a better alternative, I do what I can with what I know. However it is never forgotten that this all may just be an illusion.


I'm not still sure how 'this all may be an illusion' can then allow you to throw out logic altogether. How do you decide 'this all may be an illusion' if you're not using logical processes?


Again, perhaps our current understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe is wrong. We've been wrong before, what makes people think what we know now is much closer to the truth than when we worshiped the sun and moon gods? Because we can now better predict the outcome of certain events? Yeah sure, I'll give you that. But for all the things we cannot yet predict, we are still just as foreign to the way they operate as our ancestors.


Again, this is like saying "oh, maybe our understanding of integers is wrong" when I say "there isn't a biggest integer". You appear to abandon the basic principles of logic.

When I mentioned Poincare my point wasn't that 'we proved it was too hard a problem for us to solve', but rather, 'a general solution doesn't exist!' The logic behind it is the same type of logic used to argue that there are infinitely many integers. If you want to abandon the methodology which allows us to draw conclusions, then I'm not sure where exactly I can proceed.

I don't understand how an epistemology that doesn't at minimum acknowledge the validity of logic works.
6301 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:

1. You cannot prove God doesn't exist definitively. Atheists believe God definitely doesn't exist. You're believing on faith, because you can't prove it.


Does this mean because I can't prove God doesn't exist that I have to believe in God? I don't really understand the point of this post.

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

KonyTheKing wrote:


excalion wrote:

1. You cannot prove God doesn't exist definitively. Atheists believe God definitely doesn't exist. You're believing on faith, because you can't prove it.


Does this mean because I can't prove God doesn't exist that I have to believe in God? I don't really understand the point of this post.



It means if you can't prove God doesn't exist then you have to acknowledge the possibility, however improbable, of his existence.
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14
Faith is an unfounded assertion held without reason and defended against all reason.

I do not have faith. I do not require faith to not believe in $deity. I do not require faith to say $deity does not exist. I can prove it.

Nor do I require faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, that my car will start in the morning, or that I will remain bound to the earth by gravity. I have good reasons to believe these, overwhelming evidence that the status quo will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. I don't know these things absolutely, it's true, but that does not mean faith is required.

Faith is only required by confidence men in robes and collars asking for money.
11154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:


KonyTheKing wrote:


excalion wrote:

1. You cannot prove God doesn't exist definitively. Atheists believe God definitely doesn't exist. You're believing on faith, because you can't prove it.


Does this mean because I can't prove God doesn't exist that I have to believe in God? I don't really understand the point of this post.



It means if you can't prove God doesn't exist then you have to acknowledge the possibility, however improbable, of his existence.


So should I consider the possibility that Zeus, Shiva or Odin exist?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.