What do people think about lying in general?
Always unethical?
Normally unethical, but sometimes not, depending on circumstances?
Ethically neutral, with circumstances making it ethical or unethical?
Normally ethical, but sometimes not, depending on circumstances?
Always ethical1?
-------
1I... uh... can't actually think of any way to defend this, but I figured i should throw it out there, out of a sense of fairness.
Like saying "sure" when someone wants to sit next to you at the same table in a crowded cafeteria and you really want to be left alone.
Little lies like that make our world a better place, saves unwanted arguments, put smiles on people's faces. I like the positive lies.
Telling someone you can't make their birthday so you can surprise them because you know they like surprises, why not?
Telling little children santa brings them presents, why not?
Only when you lie to either cover up your own errors (mistakes or otherwise) or to intentionally hurt others, are lies bad things.
All that said, I don't think lying is the worst offense God cares about. There are times when it may be wrong, but understandable to lie. And we are imperfect beings to boot.
But there's hope for your singing talent challenged daughter! If she's got the look, auto tune will turn her into the next Ke$ha! Lie about her voice all you want! It's ok! But do please tell her if those jeans make her look fat. The music industry doesn't care about music, but physical beauty is a must.
I think the trend is toward larger and more curvy women being the ideal. No one is interested in skinny minnies any more.
True, but fat is still out and there are plenty of skinny minnies doin' quite well. And that's no lie.
Lying is always unethical but sometimes acceptable.
True, but fat is still out and there are plenty of skinny minnies doin' quite well. And that's no lie.
If a woman is too skinny, I lose interst. If she is too overweight I do as well. But I am very attracted to women with medium builds and curves.
True, but fat is still out and there are plenty of skinny minnies doin' quite well. And that's no lie.
If a woman is too skinny, I lose interst. If she is too overweight I do as well. But I am very attracted to women with medium builds and curves.
You're preachin' to the choir, man. I was jus' sayin' how the entertainment industry (specifically music) seems to work today. No fat people, plenty of skinny minnies and a smattering of in-betweens.
True, but fat is still out and there are plenty of skinny minnies doin' quite well. And that's no lie.
If a woman is too skinny, I lose interst. If she is too overweight I do as well. But I am very attracted to women with medium builds and curves.
You're preachin' to the choir, man. I was jus' sayin' how the entertainment industry (specifically music) seems to work today. No fat people, plenty of skinny minnies and a smattering of in-betweens.
I think you are describing the state of things in the 90s. I am not so sure about today. it seems more well mixed. And no one is ashamed to have booty anymore.
If a woman is too skinny, I lose interst. If she is too overweight I do as well. But I am very attracted to women with medium builds and curves.
I feel the same way. Personally, I attribute it to the genetic predisposition to choose healthy mates, and the hundreds of thousands of years of cultural conditioning as to what appearances look healthiest.
As for the truth vs lying issue; I may be a bit off-normal here, but I'd rather have the truth. Always. I don't want reality candy-coated for me, I find that counterproductive.
I do however, lie to others because I know they want it. When someone asks how I'm doing, I say "fine". Most of the time I'm tired, or sore, or frustrated, but I know they don't actually care about the answer. They were just being polite by asking. This, of course, is only half of the perfunctory conversation as I am then obliged by common courtesy to ask them the same question (eventhough I also don't care what the answer is).
I find it very telling of the divide between perception and reality that the average North American woman is a size 14 but size 14 is considered "plus sized". How the hell can the average be above average?
Probably because the country is generally overwieght, but also because they are factoring in women who are over 40 (people gain wieght as they get older). keep in mind a size 14 means about 180 for a woman who is 5'7". That isn't a very healthy weight. I believe the average is actually a size 12 though.
JUst looked it up, looks like the average is 11-14
Where did you find that range?
JUst looked it up, looks like the average is 11-14
Where did you find that range?
The department of health and human services. What happened was they issued a report saying that the average female dress size in the US was 11-14. As they different papers and pundits picked it up, it looks like they started leaning on the higher numbers until it became 14.
I think you are describing the state of things in the 90s. I am not so sure about today. it seems more well mixed. And no one is ashamed to have booty anymore.
Umm. Lemme see, real quick off the top of my head (and I know nearly nothing about modern 'music'). Taylor Swift, Christina Aguilera, Shakira, Ke$ha, Lady GaGa - all skinny minnies. Not? Uhh ... Beyonce? And ... uhh ... Beyonce?
Trust me, skinny minnie is still quite en vogue.I think you are describing the state of things in the 90s. I am not so sure about today. it seems more well mixed. And no one is ashamed to have booty anymore.
Umm. Lemme see, real quick off the top of my head (and I know nearly nothing about modern 'music'). Taylor Swift, Christina Aguilera, Shakira, Ke$ha, Lady GaGa - all skinny minnies. Not? Uhh ... Beyonce? And ... uhh ... Beyonce?
Fergie (certainly curvy, not my idea of a skinny minnie), Jennifer Lopez, Pink (I would peg her as a medium build), Alicia Keys, Beyonce (who you have already mentioend).
So I think "size 5" in women's pants correlates to 32 in men's pants.
And that's all I know.
Fergie (certainly curvy, not my idea of a skinny minnie), Jennifer Lopez, Pink (I would peg her as a medium build), Alicia Keys, Beyonce (who you have already mentioend).
I wouldn't put Pink in the same group as Beyonce and Alicia Keys. I don't know that I'd group her with Taylor and the like, though. Hmm. Let's say she qualifies as 'both'.
I also don't know about J-Lo. She used to be in this group, but she's movin' more toward skinny minnie lately. Anyhoo, what were we talking about? Heh. 
The Bible says lieing is bad and wrong.
I agree.
The end.
Fergie (certainly curvy, not my idea of a skinny minnie), Jennifer Lopez, Pink (I would peg her as a medium build), Alicia Keys, Beyonce (who you have already mentioend).
I wouldn't put Pink in the same group as Beyonce and Alicia Keys. I don't know that I'd group her with Taylor and the like, though. Hmm. Let's say she qualifies as 'both'.
I have to strongly disagree about pink. She isn't the most curvy, but the girl could be a middle weight boxer. Definitely at least a medium build on her. J-Lo still has the booty and her legs are still kind of thick (which I like). Trust me, I come from a place where the women have thicker legs. No amount of squats, dieting or anything else will change that for her. Her face may be on the skinny side, but she is definitely stil in the voluptuous camp.
At risk of being belittled...
The Bible says lieing is bad and wrong.
And yet the Bible contains many instances of people - whom we are meant to believe are good - lying.
I agree.
Do you "agree" - as in you came to that feeling on the issue through your own moral compass - or are you "in agreement", as in you are simply doing what it says in the Bible? If the former, then the book is immaterial to the discussion and there was no reason to mention it. If the latter, then it is simply obeying what you were told and thus not a morla choice and there was no reason to mention it.
The end.
Not even remotely.
At risk of being belittled...
The Bible says lieing is bad and wrong.
I agree.
The end.
I think you shouldn't fear voicing your religious roots. The Koran states that we should be with those who are true in word and deed, and this is the basis for my answer to the question. We may use different books, but we both agree that our holy texts say lying is wrong. I stand with you on this one. I hedge a little, and say if you are protecting a person's life it is okay (for example lying to a stalker about a woman's location). But basically I agree.
At risk of being belittled...
The Bible says lieing is bad and wrong.
And yet the Bible contains many instances of people - whom we are meant to believe are good - lying.I agree.
Do you "agree" - as in you came to that feeling on the issue through your own moral compass - or are you "in agreement", as in you are simply doing what it says in the Bible? If the former, then the book is immaterial to the discussion and there was no reason to mention it. If the latter, then it is simply obeying what you were told and thus not a morla choice and there was no reason to mention it.The end.
Not even remotely.
Why would you attack a person's religious beliefs Boraxe? I do not know much about the Christian bible, but I assume the stories that have good people lying are often trying to illustrate a point, or they are about good, yet flawed, human beings. There is nothing wrong with faith or with morality rooted in faith. Some would argue, without a higher power, morality doesn't make any sense at all.
Honestly.
I like you Seventh Solitude.
Honestly.
Thanks.
There is nothing wrong with having a moral compass rooted in faith; for the concepts among all religions are equal and good.
It goes wrong when you start accepting what other believers say as truth, simply because it said by them and they are also believers.
Judge all thought and action by your own compass, not another's.
Unfortunatly, this topic is now going down the drain very, very quickly.
There is nothing wrong with having a moral compass rooted in faith; for the concepts among all religions are equal and good.
It goes wrong when you start accepting what other believers say as truth, simply because it said by them and they are also believers.
Judge all thought and action by your own compass, not another's.
I don't think that is what Robin was saying. Robin was saying his belief that lying is wrong is based on biblican teachings. That is what faith is. For religious people, that is where morality comes from.
With all do respect I don't think Robin's post was the one that was out of line. All Robin did was express a personal religious belief. But Boraxe attacked Robin's religious belief.
It's fine if you base your morals on the concepts of your faith.
It's a bad idea to base your morals and faith on what other believers say, without judging for yourself.
Yeah I know, I wasn't attacking Robin_Hoodlum, I was merely explaining what I (and, probably, Boraxe) think about basing your morals in a religion.
It's fine if you base your morals on the concepts of your faith.
It's a bad idea to base your morals and faith on what other believers say, without judging for yourself.
I can't speak for Robin, but in Islam we are free to interpret the Koran for ourselves; however it usually a good idea to get the opinion of Islamic Scholars on any subject and decide for yourself which is the correct path. However the aim is to be true to the Koran, which we regard as the word of God. So I wouldn't seek to contradict the Koran, but rather be as closely aligned with it's overall spirit as possible.
I don't care where you get it, I only care that it is truly yours, and not someone else's.
@Escher: most take their morality from the church instead, which is basically the problem sfar as I'm concerned.
The most important part in your remark is "decide for yourself". As long as that is what ultimately determines your moral compass, then you are doing it right.
I don't care where you get it, I only care that it is truly yours, and not someone else's.
@Escher: most take their morality from the church instead, which is basically the problem sfar as I'm concerned.
Why is that so important. What matters is whether what you finally decide is right. One could decide for oneself to do something truly terrible. One of the benefits to organized structures (which we don't have in Islam by the way) like churches is they establish clear moral principles, designed to minimize evil in the world. I am not saying they are always right. But I suspect more people have been led astray by their own concience than by the church.
For a church to remove evil from the world, it must be made up of non-evil men. It is not. There are some, or possibly, many good men in the church. But the risk one runs when accepting the morals of another is that only one bad man on a high spot is required to ruin the whole batch.
If you have a bad person leading a church, then the whole community will suffer as a result. I've seen and heard it happen far too often. If each person decides his own morals, then such people would be without power.
And ultimately you should judge for yourself what is right and wrong. Both terms are very subjective.
I have a system I go by when considering honesty: "Should this person have a reasonable expectation of honesty from me?". What expectation they should have, and the reasonable ness of that expectation is determined by me, using my own thoughts and feelings on the matter. What they think does not matter. If I feel they have a justified expectation that I would speak truth to them, then I would feel bad about lying to them, regardless of what they actually expect from me. If I do not think they should have such expectations, then I will choose to tell the truth or lie at my whimsy, without since of shame or guilt.
The only thing I will almost never lie about is lying. If you call me out on a lie, I won't deny it without a very, very good reason. And even then I'll feel terrible about it.
Telling a little kid about Santa bringing the gifts is exactly what you describe.
The application of this principle might differ but it is the same in essence.
I'd rather be led astray by my own thought then be led astray by the church, but that's just me.
For a church to remove evil from the world, it must be made up of non-evil men. It is not. There are some, or possibly, many good men in the church. But the risk one runs when accepting the morals of another is that only one bad man on a high spot is required to ruin the whole batch.
If you have a bad person leading a church, then the whole community will suffer as a result. I've seen and heard it happen far too often. If each person decides his own morals, then such people would be without power.
And ultimately you should judge for yourself what is right and wrong. Both terms are very subjective.
My point is that collectivist institutions with rules aimed at peace and stability (quibble for sure over the details, but for the most part the church instructs people to behave themselves---I realize there are rules that could use reform). On the whole, when people follow the church's teaching (which is different in my understand from the men who make up the church) then they probably will not do much evil in this life. When people follow their own thoughts, your ideas, I would bet that the liklihood of evil being done increases. I am not saying the church is the way to go, after all, I am not a member. But I can see how it produces more positive results than people just doing what feels right.
Your last point I find very interesting, and I think it gets to the heart of morality. How can you judge what is right and wrong, how can there be a right and wrong, if there isn't an absolute power in the world. How is it not arbitary? And if so, shouldn't our goal in life, be to understand that source of morality? To surrender to its wisdom?
One of the benefits to organized structures (which we don't have in Islam by the way) like churches is they establish clear moral principles, designed to minimize evil in the world. I am not saying they are always right. But I suspect more people have been led astray by their own concience than by the church.
And one of the drawbacks is a constant confusion between kerygma and dogma.
For the original post - I agree with Robin. Not one lie since 1981. I neither do nor condone the practice. Even "little white lies" serve to erode trust, in my opinion.
And @seventh... as for Boraxe, he is a devout atheist (at times evangelistic about it - though not in this particular case)
Well, ToastedAmphibian, that way of thinking kinda fits with our prior talk about the "little lies".
Telling a little kid about Santa bringing the gifts is exactly what you describe.
The application of this principle might differ but it is the same in essence.
Not really. If some kid walks up to me and asks where his presents came from, I'm as likely to tell him Santa as your secret admirer, wink* wink*. If he then goes "Reall?" I'll go, nope, I lied, your parents probably bought them for you.
Well, ToastedAmphibian, that way of thinking kinda fits with our prior talk about the "little lies".
Telling a little kid about Santa bringing the gifts is exactly what you describe.
The application of this principle might differ but it is the same in essence.
Not really. If some kid walks up to me and asks where his presents came from, I'm as likely to tell him Santa as your secret admirer, wink* wink*. If he then goes "Reall?" I'll go, nope, I lied, your parents probably bought them for you.
I still stand by my last sentence...
Oh wait... so the next sentence should count 'cause I said I'll stand for it...
Hmmm...
I don't really like pizza
I still stand by my last sentence...
Oh wait... so the next sentence should count 'cause I said I'll stand for it...
Hmmm...
I don't really like pizza
You confused me with your irrational babbling.
I like that.
On the whole, when people follow the church's teaching then they probably will not do much evil in this life. When people follow their own thoughts, your ideas, I would bet that the liklihood of evil being done increases.
Statistics about the religious convictions of convicts in prison don't support this hypothisis. Atheists/agnostics are disproportionatly under-represented in the American prison system.
One of the benefits to organized structures (which we don't have in Islam by the way) like churches is they establish clear moral principles, designed to minimize evil in the world. I am not saying they are always right. But I suspect more people have been led astray by their own concience than by the church.
And one of the drawbacks is a constant confusion between kerygma and dogma.
)
Can you explain this to me. i am affraid I do not know what kerygma is, and how it might relate to dogma.
My point is that collectivist institutions with rules aimed at peace and stability (quibble for sure over the details, but for the most part the church instructs people to behave themselves---I realize there are rules that could use reform). On the whole, when people follow the church's teaching (which is different in my understand from the men who make up the church) then they probably will not do much evil in this life. When people follow their own thoughts, your ideas, I would bet that the liklihood of evil being done increases. I am not saying the church is the way to go, after all, I am not a member. But I can see how it produces more positive results than people just doing what feels right.
Well... if you believe people are good in nature, then they'll come to the right conclusion on their own, given enough information (and information there is plenty)
If you believe that people are evil in nature, they will work evil anyway.
I think that if you give people a year on their own, access to all the works they need access to, and just let them contemplate their existance, that they'll eventually come out with a set of morals that will be good for them, others and the world itself.
I might be wrong, but that is of course the case with everything.
Your last point I find very interesting, and I think it gets to the heart of morality. How can you judge what is right and wrong, how can there be a right and wrong, if there isn't an absolute power in the world. How is it not arbitary? And if so, shouldn't our goal in life, be to understand that source of morality? To surrender to its wisdom?
As for how you can judge right or wrong; you can't. You can only do what you believe is right and hope for the best.
If there is an absolute power, it is not an earthly thing. It should be a universal one. The most humbling experience in the world realising that each person is nothing but a speck of dust on the earth, but our entire world is nothing but a speck of dust in this galaxy, which again is nothing but a speck of dust in the universe.
When you are able to actually encompass how incredibly insignificant it all is, you lose a whole lot of that sense of importance a lot of people carry around and things get a lot easier.
On the whole, when people follow the church's teaching then they probably will not do much evil in this life. When people follow their own thoughts, your ideas, I would bet that the liklihood of evil being done increases.
Statistics about the religious convictions of convicts in prison don't support this hypothisis. Atheists/agnostics are disproportionatly under-represented in the American prison system.
I suspect there are some confounding factors here though. To begin with, atheists do tend be well educated and white. The prison population tends to be less educated and non-white. What is more, in prison, even people who started out as atheists, people turn to faith for comfort. Somehow I think reading Dawkins or Hitchens, while intellectually stimulating, isn't a good way to survive prison. In fact, you probably want to hit the weights, to protect yourself from other prisoners, and hit the religious services, so you can build a case for good behavior.
I suspect there are some confounding factors here though. To begin with, atheists do tend be well educated and white. The prison population tends to be less educated and non-white. What is more, in prison, even people who started out as atheists, people turn to faith for comfort. Somehow I think reading Dawkins or Hitchens, while intellectually stimulating, isn't a good way to survive prison. In fact, you probably want to hit the weights, to protect yourself from other prisoners, and hit the religious services, so you can build a case for good behavior.
While it might help you to think so, I'd like to point out just how large the underrepresentation is.
- Somewhere between 10% and 15% of the general American population is agnostic/atheist.
- They make up <= 1% of the prison population.
But hey, if you don't want to accept the data, then whatever lifts your luggage.
To quote from Armstrong, A History of God (strongly recommended), as it explains it well:
.... Aristotle had made a similar distinction when he noted that people attended the mystery religions not to learn (matbein)anything but to experience (patbein) something. Basil** epressed the same insight in a Christian sense when he distinguished between kerygma and dogma. Both kinds of Christian teaching were essential to religion. Kerygma was the public teaching of the Church, based on the scriptures. Dogma, however, represented the deeper meaning of bilblical truth, which could only be apprehended through religious experience and expressed in symbolic form.
** Basil, Bishop of Nyssa (335 - 395). One of the three Cappodocians that helped the Eastern Orthodox church rectify and incorporate some of the conflicting notions that arose from Nicaea.
edited: typos
I'm usually completely honest...
hehe -one of my friends refers to me as "brutally honest"
I suspect there are some confounding factors here though. To begin with, atheists do tend be well educated and white. The prison population tends to be less educated and non-white. What is more, in prison, even people who started out as atheists, people turn to faith for comfort. Somehow I think reading Dawkins or Hitchens, while intellectually stimulating, isn't a good way to survive prison. In fact, you probably want to hit the weights, to protect yourself from other prisoners, and hit the religious services, so you can build a case for good behavior.
While it might help you to think so, I'd like to point out just how large the underrepresentation is.
- Somewhere between 10% and 15% of the general American population is agnostic/atheist.
- They make up <= 1% of the prison population.
But hey, if you don't want to accept the data, then whatever lifts your luggage.
I accept your data. I just don't accept your conclusion. I would need to see more information on the subject. But my guess is atheists don't make up much of the general pool of people likely to go to prison in the first place, because it is largely a socio-economic thing and education thing in the US. Again I would really want to see more data on atheist demographics. But I don't think that one snippet of information there is enough to conclude that atheists are more moral or theists are more moral.
I am not only impressed, but more importantly, humbled as well.
I accept your data. I just don't accept your conclusion.
Good. Because I never concluded anything. I pointed out that data on prisoners didn't support your conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean it supports any other, unstated conclusion.
Good. Because I never concluded anything. I pointed out that data on prisoners didn't support your conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean it supports any other, unstated conclusion.
Actually, the statistics have little relation to the conclusion, as the statement was "follow", not affiliate. Many declare themselves to be a part of organizations, yet do not adhere to the organizations doctrines (of any stripe, religious or otherwise)
I accept your data. I just don't accept your conclusion.
Good. Because I never concluded anything. I pointed out that data on prisoners didn't support your conclusion. That doesn't necessarily mean it supports any other, unstated conclusion.
It doesn't countervail my conclusion either though. It just supplies some interesting data that needs more information to be truly meanginful. And my conclusions was pure conjecture and speculation.
A Muslim defending a Christian.
I am not only impressed, but more importantly, humbled as well.
We are both people of the book. There is no reason for us not to defend one another.
A Muslim defending a Christian.
I am not only impressed, but more importantly, humbled as well.
You should read the Koran one day - you may find it rather enlightening. As is stated - "there is no compulsion in religion"
My point stands though. Based on availible data, lack of religion does not correlate well with criminal activity. Or at least, not with being caught in criminal activity.
A Muslim defending a Christian.
I am not only impressed, but more importantly, humbled as well.
You should read the Koran one day - you may find it rather enlightening. As is stated - "there is no compulsion in religion"
The Hadith are also important if you want to understand the Koran.
The Hadith are also important if you want to understand the Koran.
Which set?
I ask as example as that is another instance of the difference between the two (kerygma and dogma)
Dogma is what the individual would experience regarding the Koran, while each set of hadith (for the various sects) represents the kerygma.
Whatever lifts your luggage.
My point stands though. Based on availible data, lack of religion does not correlate well with criminal activity. Or at least, not with being caught in criminal activity.
It is still very hard to sort out the impact of religion on crime. I've seen a bunch of studies, but honestly they all (including the ones that support my initial statement) seem rooted in a desire to prove or disprove the usefullness of religion. Even if you begin with stats about atheists, those atheists, at least in america, more than likely came from a religious upbringing, so they were probably raised with Christian ideas of right and wrong. Other studies I've seen try to look at Christian v. Atheist Societies. But the problem is, even an atheist society like Communist Russia, was in a sense a religious one (you could call communism, as it was practiced in Russia, a type of religion). And in the end it is incredibly difficult to abstract religion from society. So I am not sure, one could ever have the data one needs to prove or disprove my earlier musing.
The Hadith are also important if you want to understand the Koran.
Which set?
I ask as example as that is another instance of the difference between the two (kerygma and dogma)
Dogma is what the individual would experience regarding the Koran, while each set of hadith (for the various sects) represents the kerygma.
We use six collections of Hadith.
Based on how many Christians walk around wearing blended fabrics... I'd say not too many literally get their morality from the Bible.
?
Ya lost me.
@ OP: I say that in any aspect lying has a price.
You lie to protect someone- They dont experience hardship and may take for granted having people protect them leading into bigger trouble later when those people feel unappreciated and leave when that person needs them most.
Or in the case of singing talent- They go out on american idol and sing "she bang" and universally humiliate themself. (example of bad singing- not the downside).
In any case I believe to tell the truth no matter how hard and help the person work through it is better.
I.E.- Because that person knows you are there to help when times get hard and can grow to go through life much more confident on thier actual self rather than going out on a dream of themself only to have it dashed and them start from scratch on who they are late in life.
Based on how many Christians walk around wearing blended fabrics... I'd say not too many literally get their morality from the Bible.
?
Ya lost me.
Leviticus 19:19.
Leviticus 19:19.
@Seventh - another prime example of why the difference matters (should you decide to research it). That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the mizvot therein have little bearing on christianity.
To my defense, I wouldn't think Christians are supposed to care about Leviticus if I didn't hear it quoted so often.
No defense needed, actually. Note my comment earlier about professing versus following. It makes a very good illustration of that, as well. The mizvot have their place and purpose (not to mention meaning). In that, it ties back to your original query and my response.
Why would you attack a person's religious beliefs Boraxe?
I'm not.
Some would argue, without a higher power, morality doesn't make any sense at all.
And some would be wrong.
All IMO, of course.
And @seventh... as for Boraxe, he is a devout atheist (at times evangelistic about it -
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. "Devout" has distinctly religious connotations and is thus not applicable. I prefer "Radical Atheist" as defined by Douglas Adams. I'll not quote it here in order to avoid adding more points of contention but one can easily Google it if they'd like.
though not in this particular case)
Absolutely correct.
Why would you attack a person's religious beliefs Boraxe?
I'm not.Some would argue, without a higher power, morality doesn't make any sense at all.
And some would be wrong.
All IMO, of course.
You seemed to be attacking people who are religious in your post.
Okay. I undertstant, but why should anyone do what they even believe to be right, if there is not ultimate authority on the issue? And if no ultimate authority exists, where does morality come from?
And @seventh... as for Boraxe, he is a devout atheist (at times evangelistic about it -
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. "Devout" has distinctly religious connotations and is thus not applicable. I prefer "Radical Atheist" as defined by Douglas Adams. I'll not quote it here in order to avoid adding more points of contention but one can easily Google it if they'd like.though not in this particular case)
Absolutely correct.
I've always found passionate atheists just as "religious" in their beliefs as a religious person.
Okay. I undertstant, but why should anyone do what they even believe to be right, if there is not ultimate authority on the issue? And if no ultimate authority exists, where does morality come from?
Because they believe it to be right?
That should be reason enough.
Okay. I undertstant, but why should anyone do what they even believe to be right, if there is not ultimate authority on the issue? And if no ultimate authority exists, where does morality come from?
Because they believe it to be right?
That should be reason enough.
Okay, but how can it be right, if there is no authoritative source? He may believe it is right not to steal, but I don't see where we are getting the should or should not, from his belief alone. Charles Manson believed it was right to murder and start a race war. Manson's belief that it was right, it isn't enough for me to agree that it is right to do so. In fact, my faith teaches that Manson's actions were wrong.
You seemed to be attacking people who are religious in your post.
Key words are "seemed to". You made an assumption, but in this case it was an incorrect one.
Okay. I undertstant, but why should anyone do what they even believe to be right, if there is not ultimate authority on the issue?
Doing "right" because you've been told to, simply in order to avoid punishment or glean a reward, is not morality it is just naked self-interest. It's no different than a dog obeying a master in order to get a treat or cos he doesn't want to get smacked on the nose.
And if no ultimate authority exists, where does morality come from?
Personal choice.
I've always found passionate atheists just as "religious" in their beliefs as a religious person.
Then you either misunderstand or purposely misprepresent the terms "atheist" and "religious" in this context.
Doing "right" because you've been told to, simply in order to avoid punishment or glean a reward, is not morality it is just naked self-interest. It's no different than a dog obeying a master in order to get a treat or cos he doesn't want to get smacked on the nose.
It isn't about avoiding punishment. It is about trying to do what the ultimate moral authority, God, demands of us. My point is, if we are, as you assert, truly alone in the universe (at least on a spiritual level), then there is no "ought" in the world. There is only "is". Without a moral authority (i.e. God) then you just have "Boraxe doesn't like it when people kill" not "People shouldn't kill".
Personal choice.
But that is not morality. That is preference. As I said before, personal choice isn't adequate justification for behavior. I used the Manson example, his personal choice was to murder, but that doesn't make it right. You may happen to do something that is right because of personal choice. But personal choice is no foundation for a moral system. That is my point.
I've always found passionate atheists just as "religious" in their beliefs as a religious person.
Then you either misunderstand or purposely misprepresent the terms "atheist" and "religious" in this context.
No I don't. You misundertand what religion is. You are using Christianity, Islam and JUdaism as your frame of reference. But religion includes belief systems that are not theistic. Religion really can just be a set of beliefs and behaviors stemming from the beliefs. Many Buddhists don't believe in a god. Many Jews are atheists, but still religious. Atheists make a deep spiritual claim: there is no god. They have a fundamental belief about the universe that is significant. Perhaps a strict agnostic isn't religious, but I regard most atheists as deeply religious.
Okay, but how can it be right, if there is no authoritative source? He may believe it is right not to steal, but I don't see where we are getting the should or should not, from his belief alone. Charles Manson believed it was right to murder and start a race war. Manson's belief that it was right, it isn't enough for me to agree that it is right to do so. In fact, my faith teaches that Manson's actions were wrong.
Nobody suggested that anything anyone believes to be right is inherently an ethical choice nor that the psychotically mentaly ill be used as a moral barometer. I don't normally say this but that's a BS straw man argument and you know it.
Unless you have personally communicated with your deity, you don't know for sure what he wants
You only know what your holy book says (and it was translated and printed by people, and first written thousands of years ago) and what the people in your church say. But you can't guaruantuee that they are right, because even if they did speak to your deity, you can't be certain that they're conveying his message properly.
In the end, you can only think for yourself about what is right and wrong.
(Note that even if you did communicate with your deity, I still can't accept your values of right and wrong, because they are conveyed through you and I cannot guaruantuee that you are conveying it properly... the only way I can truly believe that there is an absolute right and wrong, is if that absolute authority tells me so, personally. Until he does that, I'll continue to decide for myself.)
No I don't. You misundertand what religion is. You are using Christianity, Islam and JUdaism as your frame of reference. But religion includes belief systems that are not theistic. Religion really can just be a set of beliefs and behaviors stemming from the beliefs. Many Buddhists don't believe in a god. Many Jews are atheists, but still religious.
No, you are assuming I am using only those three as a reference cos that's all I've touched on in this thread.
And there is no such thing as a "Jewish Atheist" as, by defintiion, Judiasm requires a belief in God while atheism denies it.
Atheists make a deep spiritual claim: there is no god.
Making a claim about a "spiritual" topic is not the same as making a "spiritual" claim. That's like saying anyone voicing a strong stance about racism, even in the negative, is a racist.
They have a fundamental belief about the universe that is significant.
Belief requires no proof. I have examined the evidence and I am convinced of it. There is no "belief" involved.
Perhaps a strict agnostic isn't religious, but I regard most atheists as deeply religious.
Then, as I said, you either misunderstand or are deliberately misrepresenting the words "atheist" and "religious" in this context. It is a common ploy that many religious folks use which they seem to think somehow undermines the atheist stance.
Okay, but how can it be right, if there is no authoritative source? He may believe it is right not to steal, but I don't see where we are getting the should or should not, from his belief alone. Charles Manson believed it was right to murder and start a race war. Manson's belief that it was right, it isn't enough for me to agree that it is right to do so. In fact, my faith teaches that Manson's actions were wrong.
Nobody suggested that anything anyone believes to be right is inherently an ethical choice nor that the psychotically mentaly ill be used as a moral barometer. I don't normally say this but that's a BS straw man argument and you know it.
Yes you did. You said personal preference was the foudnation of morality. I am not building a straw man argument, I am simply going on what you said. You said personal opinion was the foundation of morality. My question is how can that be. How can you have morality if the only source is a subjective one? I am asking you to explain the "ought". Of course one shouldn't use a mad man as a barometer for what is right. But if personal opinion is the foundation we are forced to. Unless you are really saying that the concensus of rational men is what matters. Or the individual preferences of rational men matter.
I am open to other avenues of establishing what is right and wrong. After all, I am a progressive Muslim, so I realize that the Koran underwent an "editorial" process and that it is really just man's attempt to understand God. But I was trying to establish the baseline argument of believers. My personal opinion is that without the existence of a God, there is no real foundation for morality. However I don't think anyone truly "knows" god. And by a combination of using reason (which God gave us), trying to achieve direct personal connection with God (sufism) and looking at man's earlier attempts to connect, one can arrive at a workable moral system.
And there is no such thing as a "Jewish Atheist" as, by defintiion, Judiasm requires a belief in God while atheism denies it.
You are wrong on this point. I know many jews who are atheists, but still stay kosher, follow the tradition of Judaism, follow the ethical principles of judaism, etc. Look up Jewish Atheism. Judaism is actually more compatible with atheism than Christianity or Islam. You probably can't be an orthodox jewish atheist, but you certainly can be a jewish atheist.
Making a claim about a "spiritual" topic is not the same as making a "spiritual" claim. That's like saying anyone voicing a strong stance about racism, even in the negative, is a racist.
No it isn't. Because whether or not god exists is a spiritual proposition. And it's ramifications impact the entire universe. I am not saying you are wrong to make such a claim. I am just stating it is a religious claim. If all you said was, the existence of god is not proven by the data. Then perhaps you would be right. But you are asserting "There is not God".
Belief requires no proof. I have examined the evidence and I am convinced of it. There is no "belief" involved.
Many Buddhists would disagree. And it is still a belief. Until you have evidence that clearly demonstrates was created by random quantum events, I don't see how you can categorize it as anything else.
Then, as I said, you either misunderstand or are deliberately misrepresenting the words "atheist" and "religious" in this context. It is a common ploy that many religious folks use which they seem to think somehow undermines the atheist stance.
No. It is a common ploy among atheists to mischaracterize what religious means. Religion doesn't require anything supernatural. And I am not trying to undermine your position. I think Atheism is a perfectly understandable and rational position. But I do still believe it is a spiritual assertion and a form of religion. Particularly when it is expressed with such zeal.
Many Buddhists would disagree. And it is still a belief. Until you have evidence that clearly demonstrates was created by random quantum events, I don't see how you can categorize it as anything else.
Until we can prove clearly where things come from, we cannot categorize it at all. Your beliefs are not right until proven wrong. Your beliefs are beliefs, not fact.
Currently, the Universe was created by <> and man was made for the purpose of <>
You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but you will not truly be right until you prove that you are.
Manson certainly thought he was right. Your faith does little more then teach you what they think is right. If you were taught by Manson, then you'd have a very different view on right and wrong.
Unless you have personally communicated with your deity, you don't know for sure what he wants
No I don't know what he wants. I have achieved a mystic connection with God (IMO). But I think you have to use a combination of reason, experience and tradition to arrive at a Belief about morality and God.
You only know what your holy book says (and it was translated and printed by people, and first written thousands of years ago) and what the people in your church say. But you can't guaruantuee that they are right, because even if they did speak to your deity, you can't be certain that they're conveying his message properly.
My holy Text was written just over one thousand years ago. And I fully undestand the editorial and revision process it underwent. Which is why I am a progressive muslim. In fact I agree with you that much in the Koran is probably wrong. Reason tells me that merciful God would not permit stoning for instance.
In the end, you can only think for yourself about what is right and wrong.
I think you've reached a fair conclusion. But the fact remains, if there is no God, you don't have right and wrong. You simply have "what I like and what I don't like". That is my point.
(Note that even if you did communicate with your deity, I still can't accept your values of right and wrong, because they are conveyed through you and I cannot guaruantuee that you are conveying it properly... the only way I can truly believe that there is an absolute right and wrong, is if that absolute authority tells me so, personally. Until he does that, I'll continue to decide for myself.)
Okay so we are in agreement. There is no absolute right and wrong, if there is no God. If God exists, and we have an imperfect understanding of God, then there is an absolute right and wrong, but we can never be certain of what it is. We can only strive to understand.
Many Buddhists would disagree. And it is still a belief. Until you have evidence that clearly demonstrates was created by random quantum events, I don't see how you can categorize it as anything else.
Until we can prove clearly where things come from, we cannot categorize it at all. Your beliefs are not right until proven wrong. Your beliefs are beliefs, not fact.
Currently, the Universe was created by <> and man was made for the purpose of <>
You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but you will not truly be right until you prove that you are.
That is my point. Both atheists and believers do not know whether God exists or not. They just believe that God does or does not exist.
I think you've reached a fair conclusion. But the fact remains, if there is no God, you don't have right and wrong. You simply have "what I like and what I don't like". That is my point.
You don't have absolute right and wrong, yes. Only the subjective ones. Your personal right and wrong exist regardless of the existance of a deity. They just don't mean much on the grand scale of things.
Other then that, we seem to be mostly agree
That is my point. Both atheists and believers do not know whether God exists or not. They just believe that God does or does not exist.
It's why I'm more of an Agnost. You can't be certain. If there is a deity, then by definition he has the power to keep us guessing for all eternity, but if there isn't one, we can't prove that he doesn't exist, because he is not of this world and thus escapes logic.
Okay, but how can it be right, if there is no authoritative source?
But there is no authoritive source. Not for atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians, Buddhist, Taoists, Jews, Wiccans, Cultists, etc. All anyone has is the thoughts in their own head, what they've been told by others, and what they've learned from other sources. There is no authoritative source anywhere. Sure, some claim to it, but people are fallible, and there have been many different claims of moral authority for millenniums. They can't all be right when they contradict each other.
Atheists just aknolwedge that instad of pretending that there is a discernible and unquestionable moral authority.
I think you have to use a combination of reason, experience and tradition to arrive at a Belief about morality and God.
Tradition says I'd have been burned at the stake a few centuries ago in many parts of Europe. Forgive me if I find that to be a less then credible source.
I think you've reached a fair conclusion. But the fact remains, if there is no God, you don't have right and wrong. You simply have "what I like and what I don't like". That is my point.
And? As we cannot establish the existence of God and/or what he/she/it says is right and wrong, we simply have "what I think God likes and what I think God doesn't like".
I'll still be reading this but apart from perhaps responding to posts aimed at me specifically I'm going to stay out of it.
Cheers, all.
Despite the fact this is an interesting discussion I would like to continue I am going to withdraw myself from it. This is straying well over the line into CoC violation territory and the whole reason I created this new account was to start fresh and not break the CoC.
Ya think so? It looks (to me) like it's sticking to the broad strokes, so I don't think it is... Then again, I know how... fickle... the mods can be at times.
Okay, but how can it be right, if there is no authoritative source?
But there is no authoritive source. Not for atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians, Buddhist, Taoists, Jews, Wiccans, Cultists, etc. All anyone has is the thoughts in their own head, what they've been told by others, and what they've learned from other sources. There is no authoritive source anywhere. Sure, some claim to it, but people are fallible, and there have been many different claims of moral authority for milliniums. They can't all be right when they contradict each other.
Atheists just aknolwedge that instad of pretending that there is a discernable and unquestionable moral authority.
Whether we can know the authoritative source, and whether it actually exists are two different things. One can believe, as I do, that I can never know the mind of God, that i can only use reason and experience to work my way toward it (but ever imperfectly); but still believe there is an absolute right and wrong in the universe (though I may never know what that is), so long as God exists.
Tradition says I'd have been burned at the stake a few centuries ago in many parts of Europe. Forgive me if I find that to be a less then credible source.
You use tradition to see how others have tread the same ground. Medicine once taught that homosexuality was an illness, but we don't throw out all of medicine just because medicine made a serious error in judgment rooted in bias. I agree, that much of what is taught in religious texts is wrong. But I also think there is still a great deal one can learn from them. Why, in the Jewish tradition, they are taught to examine scripture with a critical eye for exactly that reason.
And? As we cannot establish the existence of God and/or what he/she/it says is right and wrong, we simply have "what I think God likes and what I think God doesn't like".
I think you misunderstand my point. It is about the nature of morality itself. If you begin with the premise that no God exists, then there is no basis for absolute right and wrong. It is all opinion. That is my point. I don't pretend to know what God likes, or to know that God exists. I am just observing a fundamental reality. If God doesn't exist, there is no right and wrong in the world, there is only preferences. Essentially it means that Nietzsche was right. All that matters who has the power to enforce their preferences. Strength is all that matters because there is no cosmic good or bad. I don't agree with this conclusion. But I think it naturally follows from the belief that god doesn't exist. Some hard atheists are beginning to realize this, and are calling for a purge of the moral system that remains from the Christian tradition in Europe and America. In the absence of a God, you much construct a very different moral system than the one we have.
The idea that some over power has dictated right or wrong can be totally true or not and have no bearing on the above whatsoever. No matter what's been decreed or not, it always, always comes down to our individual interpretations and decisions. This goes both for our own behavior and for the way we see the behavior of others. It's all relative to who we are as individuals. Taking some inspiration from the Bible or Koran doesn't change the fact that it is we who decide what's right and wrong. And that, of course, means we can get it wrong. But that's what they call a part of life.
On-topic:
I do not believe lying has a strong ethical component. I do think its minorly on the negative side in the idea that you shouldn't lie for no reason at all.
But like most issues, its not cut and dry. Its the circumstances and many other factors which determine if lying is part of an ethical act.
For example, if you had information which could start a panic, looting, deaths, etc, and you are asked openly, the ethical choice (in my opinion) would to be lie.
Off-topic:
I agree with the idea that if you do not believe in a divine force, you should not believe in absolute morality. But that's probably because I'm both an atheist and a moral relativist (although its a bit more complicated but those best fit).
People pretty much just believe what they are taught, read, or are told. People just don't typically accept it. I accept an image of the universe to be true because I trust my sources. Its really not that different than someone who trusts their spiritual leader.
The key thing to remember here is that even with religion, all of these decisions still fall to you. You ultimately decide what's right and wrong whether you base that decision upon ancient text or personal reflection. No book - no matter what author its purportedly written by - can make you do or think anything. You make that decision yourself. So, ultimately, God isn't telling you to do anything. There is no supreme authority. You've simply decided on whatever it is you choose to feel based upon your available resources - just like any Atheist or Agnostic or whatever. The only difference is that you count among your resources religious text and ceremony. In some cases, that's not even much of a difference. There are plenty of things those books have to offer and often people that don't necessarily espouse the belief system do borrow some of the lessons.
The idea that some over power has dictated right or wrong can be totally true or not and have no bearing on the above whatsoever. No matter what's been decreed or not, it always, always comes down to our individual interpretations and decisions. This goes both for our own behavior and for the way we see the behavior of others. It's all relative to who we are as individuals. Taking some inspiration from the Bible or Koran doesn't change the fact that it is we who decide what's right and wrong. And that, of course, means we can get it wrong. But that's what they call a part of life.
But whether you start with the premise that there is a god, or there is not, forces different conclusions about morality in general. I am not talking about the moral authority of texts (I have already stated I regard those as man's attempts to define and explain God---at least in most western traditions). I am talking about whether or not there is any ultimate moral authority in the universe at all. If there is, then there can be aboslute right and wrong; if there is not, there cannot be absolute right and wrong---everything would be relative.
Whether we can know the authoritative source, and whether it actually exists are two different things. One can believe, as I do, that I can never know the mind of God, that i can only use reason and experience to work my way toward it (but ever imperfectly); but still believe there is an absolute right and wrong in the universe (though I may never know what that is), so long as God exists.
But the point is that even if there is an unknowable authoritive source on morality, it's meaningless to the rest of us. It's like the invisible-floating-intangible-smellless-soundless-pink-unicorn. Yes, it might actually exist. But we can make no informed judgements based off it's hypothetical existence.
But I also think there is still a great deal one can learn from them.
I disagree. If the traditions can't stand on their own merit without leaning on the crutch of being "traditional", I see no merit to them. That is to say that, like wikipedia, it might be an interesting place to start, but you'd better have better sources by the time you're done.
I think you misunderstand my point. It is about the nature of morality itself. If you begin with the premise that no God exists, then there is no basis for absolute right and wrong.
Why? You come to that conclusion because you're starting from the conclusion that only God can be a moral authority. Why not something else? Is it really so hard to imagine that there is some sort of universal truth to human behavior that could serve instead? Just because we haven't found something yet doesn't make it impossible.
But whether you start with the premise that there is a god, or there is not, forces different conclusions about morality in general. I am not talking about the moral authority of texts (I have already stated I regard those as man's attempts to define and explain God---at least in most western traditions). I am talking about whether or not there is any ultimate moral authority in the universe at all. If there is, then there can be aboslute right and wrong; if there is not, there cannot be absolute right and wrong---everything would be relative.
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people that believe in a God that have very different opinions about right and wrong than others do. Plenty of killers, plenty of rapists, plenty of politicians, etc, etc. The fact that you point out issues you have with religion shows that whether or not there is a God is irrelevant. You took those texts and made your own decisions about them. You decided what rights and wrongs were actually rights and wrongs. God had nothing to do with it. If you (and to this you admit) cannot possibly know what these absolute rights and wrongs are, how can they possibly matter? If they exist and you cannot know what they are, what possible influence can they have on you? Nothing. And that's why it's you that decides what right and wrong is. And that's why there are so many different opinions on the matter.
Why? You come to that conclusion because you're starting from the conclusion that only God can be a moral authority. Why not something else? Is it really so hard to imagine that there is some sort of universal truth to human behavior that could serve instead? Just because we haven't found something yet doesn't make it impossible.
Then what is it? If there isn't an authoritative source, then there is no absolute morality. And I am not saying it is "God" as most people understand the term. But if there is no all powerful force in the world, there is no authoritative source. You can invent sources, but those are just for practical purposes. There isn't anything propelling us toward absolute right and wrong on a cosmic scale. There could be, built in behavior patterns and aversions. But that isn't that is just an instinctual impulse. And that impulse could change over time or from place to place. And if there is a universal truth to human behavior, say humans don't like killing other humans (just as an example). That is purely descriptive. There isn't an imperitive you can extract from it.
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of people that believe in a God that have very different opinions about right and wrong than others do. Plenty of killers, plenty of rapists, plenty of politicians, etc, etc. The fact that you point out issues you have with religion shows that whether or not there is a God is irrelevant. You took those texts and made your own decisions about them. You decided what rights and wrongs were actually rights and wrongs. God had nothing to do with it. If you (and to this you admit) cannot possibly know what these absolute rights and wrongs are, how can they possibly matter? If they exist and you cannot know what they are, what possible influence can they have on you? Nothing. And that's why it's you that decides what right and wrong is. And that's why there are so many different opinions on the matter.
I am talking on a universal objective level. If the answer to the question, is there a God is yes, then there exists the possibilty of a universal right and wrong. If it is no, then there is no universal right and wrong. And how you answer that question, forces you to either conclude things. If I believe there is no God, then there is no way I can honestly say absolute right and wrong exist. All I can say is, I think you should do X but not Y, because I prefer things that way. If I believe in God's existence, I can conclude there is an absolute right and wrong (though I do not have to conclude that). I can then try to infer what that is, though that will still just be speculation.
I disagree. If the traditions can't stand on their own merit without leaning on the crutch of being "traditional", I see no merit to them. That is to say that, like wikipedia, it might be an interesting place to start, but you'd better have better sources by the time you're done.
If your goal is to simply follow tradition blindly, I suppose you are right. If your goal is to extract spiritual wisdom from people who have come before you, with the knowledge that they were imperfect men with biases and blind spots, then there is something to be gained. Why just the other day, I was helped tremendously from the four noble truths. Completely outside my tradition. But I was having a difficult day. From the 4 Noble Truths I was able to achieve some relief, with the realization that my desire to have a great day, was really made me experience the day as unpleasant. All I am saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Then what is it?
Well I certainly don't know, but that doesn't really mean it's impossible, does it? And why does it require any all-powerful force behind it? Unless you're saying that the ultimate truth is that might makes right, that seems kinda irrelevant.
Seriously, use a bit of imagination. Just because you don't have an answer now doesn't mean that the answer can't be. If thats how it worked, advance would be impossible.
All I am saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
And I'm saying that if the baby needs the bathwater to be a baby, then it's no baby at all.
huh? cookies???
sorry couldn't help it. and no, im not against gay people giving blood/serving in the military/etc.
And I'm saying that if the baby needs the bathwater to be a baby, then it's no baby at all.
What if it's a baby fish?
....this forum needs a "trolling" emoticon.
What if it's a baby fish?
....this forum needs a "trolling" emoticon.
all fish need water. :P
all fish need water. :P
I'm going to disagree on the basis that I feel like it.
Until we can prove clearly where things come from, we cannot categorize it at all. Your beliefs are not right until proven wrong. Your beliefs are beliefs, not fact.
Currently, the Universe was created by <> and man was made for the purpose of <>
You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but you will not truly be right until you prove that you are.
I'm certaint that was the point he was trying to make. If you hold any stance on the issue other than "I don't know, it hasn't been proven either way" you are making a spiritual choice. They can dress it up with pretense, object that they know not belive, say its not a spiritual choice, babble on about evidence this ect, and this is to be expected, its kind of their thing. And I will mentally roll my eyes while giving a small smile and polite nod as they prattle away, same as when people start telling me Jesus is still alive, because the fact remains that their position is no more proven than any other, and all the zealous rambling in the world will not change that.
The only current explanation that is based on scientific proof is "I don't know if there is a God."
On-topic:
I do not believe lying has a strong ethical component. I do think its minorly on the negative side in the idea that you shouldn't lie for no reason at all.
Exactly, like if it amuses you at the time. Thats a good enough reason, right?
Ah, if that was indeed the case then I misinterpreted, and he is quite right. Stating "there is no God" is as much a thing of faith as "There is a God".
The only current explanation that is based on scientific proof is "I don't know if there is a God."
Yeah, I think I missed what he was aimin' at, too. I'm fully on board with this interpretation and have, in past threads, said stuff along the lines of what TA was gettin' at. There's no way to know either way so any claims of knowledge are actually evidence of faith in a belief or system of beliefs.
Exactly, like if it amuses you at the time. Thats a good enough reason, right?
No.
(HINT: My reply amuses me.)
Exactly, like if it amuses you at the time. Thats a good enough reason, right?
Depends on the amount of amusement v the harm, which would be determined by other factors in the situation. Its "a very judge every case on its own" type thing.
Assuming the person I'm lieing too has no reasonable expectation that I am not lieing.
Until we can prove clearly where things come from, we cannot categorize it at all. Your beliefs are not right until proven wrong. Your beliefs are beliefs, not fact.
Currently, the Universe was created by <> and man was made for the purpose of <>
You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but you will not truly be right until you prove that you are.
I'm certaint that was the point he was trying to make. If you hold any stance on the issue other than "I don't know, it hasn't been proven either way" you are making a spiritual choice. They can dress it up with pretense, object that they know not belive, say its not a spiritual choice, babble on about evidence this ect, and this is to be expected, its kind of their thing. And I will mentally roll my eyes while giving a small smile and polite nod as they prattle away, same as when people start telling me Jesus is still alive, because the fact remains that their position is no more proven than any other, and all the zealous rambling in the world will not change that.
That was basically what I was trying to say. I accept that my position about the existence of god is based on belief not certainty. It is a spiritual claim. So is the claim that there is no God.
Then what is it?
Well I certainly don't know, but that doesn't really mean it's impossible, does it? And why does it require any all-powerful force behind it? Unless you're saying that the ultimate truth is that might makes right, that seems kinda irrelevant.
Seriously, use a bit of imagination. Just because you don't have an answer now doesn't mean that the answer can't be. If thats how it worked, advance would be impossible.
I am saying if there is nothing with the power to say "this is right, humans should act this way" then yes, might makes right. The point is, there is no should if that is the case. There is only is. You can come up with all the good reasons in the world for why I should do X and not Y, but unless there is a power to back that up, I have no reason to comply. So if there isn't an absolute power in the universe (and I believe there is an absolute power), then human might is what makes right. Because that is the only thing to back up any moral system.
They hide it cleverly behind difficult words and "benign governments" but in the end that's all there is.
It's not neccesarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.
For starters, you have demonstrated no clear need for their to be an absolute morality.
Ought: this comes from the definition of morality, morality is what you ought to do. You should do what you think you should do. If you honestly belive that Bill gates is an extradimensional invader and needs to be killed with a circular saw, then damnit, that is what you should try to do. If I disagree, I will not try to do that. If I not only disagree that that is something I should do, but belive I ought to stop you, then that is what I should do.
The fact that you think your right, in no way effects if I think you are right or not. I'm going to try and act within the confines of my moral system, regardless of how it conflicts with yours, and I do not need some comfort in the back of my mind telling me that some unknown force probably agrees with me to justify my actions. I did as I thought I should, that is justification enough. And that is all I expect of others to try and do.
Ex: I think I should go on a shooting spree and kill a bunch of people. Most likely these people disagree, and will try to keep me from killing them. This is not going to keep me from trying, but I'm not going to look down on them for it either: why should they allow themselves to be killed when they do not feel that they should be killed. If I convince them that they should be killed, but they refuse to die anyways, then I will look down on them for not doing what they think is right. Now, assuming I suceed, and get caught, I hold no illusions about the general stance in my region about the morality of murder in most cases, and am well aware that said majority will feel that I should die for my actions. Again, assuming I do not agree that I should die for my action, I will try to avoid dieing for my actions, but I will feel no disrespect aginst others who try and facilitate my death, so long as they truely belive that is a just cause.
I am saying if there is nothing with the power to say "this is right, humans should act this way" then yes, might makes right. The point is, there is no should if that is the case. There is only is. You can come up with all the good reasons in the world for why I should do X and not Y, but unless there is a power to back that up, I have no reason to comply. So if there isn't an absolute power in the universe (and I believe there is an absolute power), then human might is what makes right. Because that is the only thing to back up any moral system.
This. Exactly this. There is no reason to comply, ever. If you do soemthing you think is wrong because someone who you disagree with told you it was not, then you fail at morality.
All I am saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
And I'm saying that if the baby needs the bathwater to be a baby, then it's no baby at all.
I think we are getting lost in the metaphor of the bathwater.
The text is a pointer, nothing more. You are presenting an either or proposition, when there is lots of gray in between. I don't just have the option of taking it all as is, or throwing it out. I can extract what works, what is useful and spiritually nourishing. For instance, the Koran is rendered in poetic verse. And, like music, it hits you on an emotional level and induces what I would describe as a spiritual exctasy. In the Koran, I read a longing to be close to God. I read powerful descriptions of religious experience, and I am propelled to seek them out myself. That doesn't mean I assume the Koran is correct. It doesn't mean I have to take it at face value or literally. But one can probe it for deeper truth and meaning rooted in a common human experience. Just like Ghandi probed sacred Hindu texts. In fact he analyzed a passage that on the surface justified war, until it became a call to duty and peace. Would you throw away great works of literature because they contain distasteful ideas? Would you smash beautiful cathedrals, because the men who built them were intolerant and flawed?
I am saying if there is nothing with the power to say "this is right, humans should act this way" then yes, might makes right. The point is, there is no should if that is the case. There is only is. You can come up with all the good reasons in the world for why I should do X and not Y, but unless there is a power to back that up, I have no reason to comply. So if there isn't an absolute power in the universe (and I believe there is an absolute power), then human might is what makes right. Because that is the only thing to back up any moral system.
This. Exactly this. There is no reason to comply, ever. If you do soemthing you think is wrong because someone who you disagree with told you it was not, then you fail at morality.
Unless you suspect there is a cosmic right and wrong in the world. Then you must ask yourself, is it possible there is an absolute right and wrong. And if so, is the request to do X and not Y, likely to align with it? You still can't know for sure. The best you can do is your best. Reason, intution, experience, all inform a moral judgement such as this. But if the truth is there is no absolute, then there are no moral judgments to be made.
The only current explanation that is based on scientific proof is "I don't know if there is a God."
Ever heard the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
We are already living in a world of "might makes right". You don't find out about your morals being absolute right or wrong until after you die, until then, it's might makes right only.
They hide it cleverly behind difficult words and "benign governments" but in the end that's all there is.
It's not neccesarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.
But now you are just being descriptive. But you would agree there are better and worse governments. Some governments chop of your hand for stealing, others give you a fair trial and a reasonable prison sentence if you are found guilty. However, why is one better than the other. Where does the should come from. If there is no absolute good and bad in the world, then there is no should. There is only what people prefer and are able to enforce. But something inside compells us to cry out against unjust governments.
The only current explanation that is based on scientific proof is "I don't know if there is a God."
Ever heard the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
The debate isn't really whether there is a god or not. It is whether either claim is one of belief or certainty. The claim "I don't know if there is a God" is a claim of certainty. Because no one can know the answer. Both the claims there is, or is not a God, are belief claims.
if the truth is there is no absolute, then there are no moral judgments to be made
You have still, in no way, demonstrated why anyone should feel their is any truth in this statment. I pointed out as much, and then gave a detailed scenario of people all making moral judgments and striving towards their ideals as best they can that in no way requiered any particpants to belive in any universal authority, divine or other wise. The least you could do is attempt to explain your claim instead of just repeating it.
A man doing what a man belives he should is a man trying to be a good man. This should be respected, regardless of if his belifes about what should be done coincide with your own. This does not exempt you from the responsibility to attempt to stop him or saction his actions if that is what you belive you should do. All a persent belife in an absolute moral authority seems to provide is a basis for an otherwise unfounded sense of superiority over thoes who do not agree with you.
But something inside compells us to cry out against unjust governments.
That something else is also what's inside of us. It's not connected to anything, really. Most people (not all) would prefer not to have their hand removed for committing a minor theft. Others, obviously, think it's perfectly just. You may think something is right and I may agree. That fact does not mean there's any universal truth we're both somehow linked to. It just means we happen to think the same way about that particular case.
if the truth is there is no absolute, then there are no moral judgments to be made
You have still, in no way, demonstrated why anyone should feel their is any truth in this statment. I pointed out as much, and then gave a detailed scenario of people all making moral judgments and striving towards their ideals as best they can that in no way requiered any particpants to belive in any universal authority, divine or other wise. The least you could do is attempt to explain your claim instead of just repeating it.
A man doing what a man belives he should is a man trying to be a good man. This should be respected, regardless of if his belifes about what should be done coincide with your own. This does not exempt you from the responsibility to attempt to stop him or saction his actions if that is what you belive you should do. All a persent belife in an absolute moral authority seems to provide is a basis for an otherwise unfounded sense of superiority over thoes who do not agree with you.
Why should this be respected? Because you believe it should be? And why I am responsible for anything. If there is no absolute in the world, then there is nothing in this world I "should" do. I can just do, and there is no need to justify my actions. At the core, you are describing people who do things that they either want to do, or things that make them feel good. Its all internal. There is no ought there. You've constructed an ought from an is subjectively.
And by the way, I do not claim to know the absolute right and wrong. And I do not claim to know whether God exists or not. But it does seem to be, that if there is no God, then the truth is, then morality is not a force in the world. There is no higher court of appeals. If a dictator has the might and the means, there is no recourse to tell him, he shouldn't be doing that. You can try to reason, but ultimately, there is no cosmic reason for him to listen. He has the power to create right and wrong, not you, not me. In short it is artificial and finite, not eternal and universal.
But something inside compells us to cry out against unjust governments.
That something else is also what's inside of us. It's not connected to anything, really. Most people (not all) would prefer not to have their hand removed for committing a minor theft. Others, obviously, think it's perfectly just. You may think something is right and I may agree. That fact does not mean there's any universal truth we're both somehow linked to. It just means we happen to think the same way about that particular case.
I never said it did. My point is, that something, really doesn't matter much, if there is no universal right and wrong. It is a meaningless impulse that helps humans survive.
Ever heard the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
Ever heard the statement 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'?
It's the ... fervent refusal to accept any possibility beyond the one espoused that makes some see atheism in a way that's quite similar to the way they see religion. But we been down dis road before, mon.
I never said it did. My point is, that something, really doesn't matter much, if there is no universal right and wrong. It is a meaningless impulse that helps humans survive.
Ahh. Ok then. I think I see what you're gettin' at.
I am saying if there is nothing with the power to say "this is right, humans should act this way" then yes, might makes right.
That's a very pessimistic viewpoint and I have no reason to agree with it.
I think we are getting lost in the metaphor of the bathwater.
Maybe you are, I know exactly where I'm going.
If an idea or concept has merit or meaning, then it has that merit or meaning regardless of whether it's "traditional" or not.
Take "thou shalt not kill", for example.
If you can't justify this statement, alone, without going back to tradition, then what worth does it have, really? If you must rely on some old book and a few thousand years of bad interpretations to give this statement meaning and merit, then what makes you think it ever really had merit to begin with?
Me? I can justify that without going back to "tradition". I can justify that without relying on the faulty code of laws and moralty from a group of [MESSAGE REDACTED] who [MESSAGE REDACTED] and then [MESSAGE REDACTED]. And yes, I do think that invalidates any right they have to claiming to be a moral authority.
So quite simply, my "baby" is a baby, whether it's in the bathwater or if the bathwater is dashed on the rocks below. And if your baby isn't still a baby when you take it out of the bathwater? If it just turns to so much mold and hot air? Then that's not a baby at all, I say.
You can try to reason, but ultimately, there is no cosmic reason for him to listen.
Why does it need to be cosmic?
Ever heard the statement 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'?
So you're saying we should believe that yogi has gone for 70 years without eating or drinking? That there are people that can see the future, bend spoons with their minds, and broadcast thoughts? That hypnosis is real, and that my invisible-intangible-flying-smellless-soundless pink unicorn is real?
I fail to see why treating routine claims of the supernatural to one standard, and then treating divine supernatural claims to another, is anything but unfair.
We are already living in a world of "might makes right". You don't find out about your morals being absolute right or wrong until after you die, until then, it's might makes right only.
They hide it cleverly behind difficult words and "benign governments" but in the end that's all there is.
It's not neccesarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.
But now you are just being descriptive. But you would agree there are better and worse governments. Some governments chop of your hand for stealing, others give you a fair trial and a reasonable prison sentence if you are found guilty. However, why is one better than the other. Where does the should come from. If there is no absolute good and bad in the world, then there is no should. There is only what people prefer and are able to enforce. But something inside compells us to cry out against unjust governments.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask the one who does the chopping, then he prefers his way. If you ask the one about to lose his hand for stealing an apple, he'd probably rather have the prison sentence.
And in reality, there is only what people prefer and are able to enforce. Government, economics, ownership, they are nothing more then make believe, that only work because there are enough people that believe that it works, and enough people that can put people who don't believe that it works in small boxes.
You can add religion to the list of things that work because believe it does, but it can no longer be enforced, which is why you see people becoming less religious then in the old ages, where religion was enforced.
So you're saying we should believe that yogi has gone for 70 years without eating or drinking? That there are people that can see the future, bend spoons with their minds, and broadcast thoughts? That hypnosis is real, and that my invisible-intangible-flying-smellless-soundless pink unicorn is real?
I fail to see why treating routine claims of the supernatural to one standard, and then treating divine supernatural claims to another, is anything but unfair.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that when you make an assumption, that's what you're doing. It's not fact, it's a belief.
If an idea or concept has merit or meaning, then it has that merit or meaning regardless of whether it's "traditional" or not.
Take "thou shalt not kill", for example.
If you can't justify this statement, alone, without going back to tradition, then what worth does it have, really? If you must rely on some old book and a few thousand years of bad interpretations to give this statement meaning and merit, then what makes you think it ever really had merit to begin with?
Me? I can justify that without going back to "tradition". I can justify that without relying on the faulty code of laws and moralty from a group of [MESSAGE REDACTED] who [MESSAGE REDACTED] and then [MESSAGE REDACTED]. And yes, I do think that invalidates any right they have to claiming to be a moral authority.
So quite simply, my "baby" is a baby, whether it's in the bathwater or if the bathwater is dashed on the rocks below. And if your baby isn't still a baby when you take it out of the bathwater? If it just turns to so much mold and hot air? Then that's not a baby at all, I say.
First, I never said you need traditional text to justify that statement. In fact, I said traditional texts were made by men and are just a product of men reaching for ultimate truth. Nor did I say tradition makes a moral authority. I said questioning the text is important, and using reason to arrive a conclusion about what is cosmically right and wrong is important. All I said was the beauty and poetry of traditional text can help inform our journey. Particularly if you are involved in any mystic practices. I also said much of the text is useful. I even pointed to Buddhism (a religion that believes in testing its own ideas and not accepting things simply because they are tradition), to show one can find utility in the experience of those who have journeyed before you. And you can take the good from it, and ignore the bad.
Why does it need to be cosmic?
Because if it isn't, then it is just a matter of personal opinion and preference. There is no should. There is just, I prefer this.
So you're saying we should believe that yogi has gone for 70 years without eating or drinking? That there are people that can see the future, bend spoons with their minds, and broadcast thoughts? That hypnosis is real, and that my invisible-intangible-flying-smellless-soundless pink unicorn is real?
I fail to see why treating routine claims of the supernatural to one standard, and then treating divine supernatural claims to another, is anything but unfair.
He isn't saying that at all. Those are actually specific claims that you can use experience, reason and evidence to test. But the more general question, is there a God, cannot be tested by any means we have available. And there is not reason to conclude one way or the other on it. He is saying, when you take a stance, God Exists or God doesn't Exist, that is a belief, not a certainty. And neither one is more reasonable than any other. If you want to start taking apart specific visions of God, then yes, it is easy to do, because I can prove that many religious texts follow clear literary patterns, have internal inconsistencies, etc.
We are already living in a world of "might makes right". You don't find out about your morals being absolute right or wrong until after you die, until then, it's might makes right only.
They hide it cleverly behind difficult words and "benign governments" but in the end that's all there is.
It's not neccesarily a bad thing, but it is the truth.
But now you are just being descriptive. But you would agree there are better and worse governments. Some governments chop of your hand for stealing, others give you a fair trial and a reasonable prison sentence if you are found guilty. However, why is one better than the other. Where does the should come from. If there is no absolute good and bad in the world, then there is no should. There is only what people prefer and are able to enforce. But something inside compells us to cry out against unjust governments.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask the one who does the chopping, then he prefers his way. If you ask the one about to lose his hand for stealing an apple, he'd probably rather have the prison sentence.
And in reality, there is only what people prefer and are able to enforce. Government, economics, ownership, they are nothing more then make believe, that only work because there are enough people that believe that it works, and enough people that can put people who don't believe that it works in small boxes.
You can add religion to the list of things that work because believe it does, but it can no longer be enforced, which is why you see people becoming less religious then in the old ages, where religion was enforced.
I don't neccesarily disagree with you. My only position here is, if there is a universal power, then there is a possible source of universal moral law (even if we don't know what it is, or fail to see it); if there isn't one, then there is no universal moral law. There is no should. Only is. That is my only point.
It makes me wonder, what are the requirements for qualifying as a universal power then?
I think at minimum there would need to be something, for lack of better language, a step above man. If there isn't than man makes his own rules, and that is it. If there is something higher, then that is a possible source for moral rules (but even then, that is still a possible might makes right situation, it just isn't confined to humanity). I think in general what people mean when they say universal power, is something that mysterious something people imagine that may be the source of creation and have the answer to the reason behind the universe. I do a lot of mystic practices, and the goal is to experience whatever that mysterious something is, and accept it on its own terms. That is what I have in mind. Of course, I could also just be experiencing phantom emotions brought on by lack of oxygen or exhaustion. However, if you talk to mystics, the feeling is a pretty universal and speciic thing.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that when you make an assumption, that's what you're doing. It's not fact, it's a belief.
Neat. So anytime someone says there are no flying-intangible-smellless-invisibile-soundless unicorns, I can say "that's just your belief".
Nice to know.
First, I never said you need traditional text to justify that statement. In fact, I [...]
And yet, you've yet to actually say anything to contradict my very basic point. You keep responding to it as though you're arguing against it, but I'm just not sure where you're going.
If tradition needs to be traditional to have merit, it has none. That is my point. Nothing you have said or written has addressesd this. If you are not addressing this, you are not addressing my point.
Because if it isn't, then it is just a matter of personal opinion and preference. There is no should. There is just, I prefer this.
So? As far as I can tell, your entire stance on moral authority is that it only exists as far as there's someone bigger then you that can hurt you if you disobey. Whether this is God, a dictator, or some school yard bully doesn't seem to matter to you.
And I find that idea detestable. If morality exists only when there's a stick involved, you're doing it wrong. That's why it's called "morality", and not "self preservation".
He isn't saying that at all. Those are actually specific claims that you can use experience, reason and evidence to test.
Nah, you can't test the existence of my unicorn.
He is saying, when you take a stance, God Exists or God doesn't Exist, that is a belief, not a certainty. And neither one is more reasonable than any other.
Um, no. What he said, and I objected to, was that the only reasonable scientific answer was "I dunno". Which is wrong because while yes, it is technically an "assumption", when you have zero evidence for something, and can continue acting as though it doesn't exist and all your predictions still fall in line, then there is zero scientific reason to believe it does exist just because that thought makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
It's called Occam's Razor.
And, for the record, most scientists are religious. But I doubt most would say that there's any scientific reason to believe so. That's why it's a matter of faith. Faith doesn't need science. And if you need science to validate your faith, then you're doing it wrong.
Despite the fact this is an interesting discussion I would like to continue I am going to withdraw myself from it. This is straying well over the line into CoC violation territory and the whole reason I created this new account was to start fresh and not break the CoC.
You mean like attacking me for my religious beliefs... like you did earlier in this thread when Seventh Solitude called you out on it?
Because you know I am not a reporting kinda guy, and you would get away with it?
Why should this be respected? Because you believe it should be?
Because I belive it should.
And why I am responsible for anything. If there is no absolute in the world, then there is nothing in this world I "should" do. I can just do, and there is no need to justify my actions.
If that is how you feel, then that is how you should act.
At the core, you are describing people who do things that they either want to do, or things that make them feel good. Its all internal. There is no ought there. You've constructed an ought from an is subjectively.
I'm describing people who do what they belive they should. If they belive they should act in whatever way makes them feel good, then that is their moral system (I belive that is called hedonism?)
And by the way, I do not claim to know the absolute right and wrong. And I do not claim to know whether God exists or not. But it does seem to be, that if there is no God, then the truth is, then morality is not a force in the world. There is no higher court of appeals. If a dictator has the might and the means, there is no recourse to tell him, he shouldn't be doing that.
Exactly. There is none. Noone has any right to tell someone they shouldnt be doing what they think is right, asking them to abandon their morals for your own is utter arrogance, and pointless as you would most likely not listen if someone told you to do what you feel is wrong. What you can say is "I do not think what your doing is right (optionally "these people agree with me") ('attempt to pursade them to your way of thinking') so I (we) am(are) going to stop you."
You can try to reason, but ultimately, there is no cosmic reason for him to listen. He has the power to create right and wrong, not you, not me. In short it is artificial and finite, not eternal and universal.
If he thought what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't be doing it or he does not care that it is not right. So how does your 'authority' help you here? You can try to convince him, but if you appeal to a cosmic reason, you are preaching to someone who belives in a diffrent cosmic power or beliveis in the same cosmic power but has a diffrent interpretation, or agrees with you that your shared diety thinks what he is doing is wrong and has made a concious decision to defy it. You have gained nothing. Aside from a holier than thou approach that is less likely to net the desired result of stopping said dictator from doing what you belive he should not be allowed to do.
Even if you are right and somewhere there exists a book of right and wrong written in gods own hand on a distant planet, it is completly irrelevant. We do not have it. We only have eachother and appeals to an unknown law is nothing but a weak crutch or a tool to set ourselves apart from others.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that when you make an assumption, that's what you're doing. It's not fact, it's a belief.
Neat. So anytime someone says there are no flying-intangible-smellless-invisibile-soundless unicorns, I can say "that's just your belief".
Nice to know.
No. It is a virtual certainty no such thing exists, because you are talking about something within our realm of experience. But no one knows what happened before creation, where the universe came from, why it is here (if there is in fact a reason), why it continues to exist, etc. One possible explanation for these questions is that something created them. And I would argue it is just as plausible that something powerful established the universe for a reason, as it is that it just happened on its own.
And yet, you've yet to actually say anything to contradict my very basic point. You keep responding to it as though you're arguing against it, but I'm just not sure where you're going.
If tradition needs to be traditional to have merit, it has none. That is my point. Nothing you have said or written has addressesd this. If you are not addressing this, you are not addressing my point.
I would argue tradition is useful because it is a record of our spiritual past and it can be beautiful and helpful. That was all I was saying.
Because if it isn't, then it is just a matter of personal opinion and preference. There is no should. There is just, I prefer this.
So? As far as I can tell, your entire stance on moral authority is that it only exists as far as there's someone bigger then you that can hurt you if you disobey. Whether this is God, a dictator, or some school yard bully doesn't seem to matter to you.
And I find that idea detestable. If morality exists only when there's a stick involved, you're doing it wrong. That's why it's called "morality", and not "self preservation".[/quote[
And if there is no higher power to back you up, that is just a preference you have until you acquire the power to enforce your view. That is my point.
Nah, you can't test the existence of my unicorn.
No but it is something that is relatively easy to rule out. Humans cover the planet, have explored it thoroughly, have satellites, etc. We can rule out a unicorn. We haven't reached another planet (by manned mission) in our own solar system yet. We just don't have enough knowledge or informatio to rule that out. The two things are not comparable.
Um, no. What he said, and I objected to, was that the only reasonable scientific answer was "I dunno". Which is wrong because while yes, it is technically an "assumption", when you have zero evidence for something, and can continue acting as though it doesn't exist and all your predictions still fall in line, then there is zero scientific reason to believe it does exist just because that thought makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Actually the most scientific position on the question is agnosticism in my view. There just isn't enough data to rule that possibility out, the way there is enough data to rule out a flat earth or unicorns. And it has little to with warm fuzzy feelings. My position on mysticism certainly does, but a scientists postiion that he doesn't know whether there is or is not a God, is a very reasonable and non emotional assertion. An emotional assertion would be there is or is not a God. The answer to whether or not there is a God, really requires that we know more about what caused the universe.
It's called Occam's Razor.
Yes and when applied to the question of what started it all, where did the universe come from---one can still come down on either side. Is the explanation that it just started on its own, any simpler than it was created by a powerful being? Both answers create more questions and require further explanation.
And, for the record, most scientists are religious. But I doubt most would say that there's any scientific reason to believe so. That's why it's a matter of faith. Faith doesn't need science. And if you need science to validate your faith, then you're doing it wrong.
No, most would say that science demands a wait and see attitude on the subject.
I don't need to science to validate my faith. But if science ever disproved it, I would accept that fact.
There are so many things that exist that we are not aware of. We keep discovering new things. Perhaps, one day, we will discover unicorns.
Perhaps we never will. Perhaps that is because they don't exist. Perhaps that is because we'll never figure out how we spot one.
The more important question is; is it worth thinking about the impossible?
(My answer is "yes")
But to say things don't exist because we haven't found them? That's arrogance, ignorance, or both.
But to say things don't exist because we haven't found them? That's arrogance, ignorance, or both.
It's really none of the above.
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
And that isn't arrogant, ignorant, or both.
I'm describing people who do what they belive they should. If they belive they should act in whatever way makes them feel good, then that is their moral system (I belive that is called hedonism?)
I agree but that is just another way of saying, people do what they want.
Exactly. There is none. Noone has any right to tell someone they shouldnt be doing what they think is right, asking them to abandon their morals for your own is utter arrogance, and pointless as you would most likely not listen if someone told you to do what you feel is wrong. What you can say is "I do not think what your doing is right (optionally "these people agree with me") ('attempt to pursade them to your way of thinking') so I (we) am(are) going to stop you."
But why. It may not make sense for me to do so, but why would it be wrong for me to ask you to abandone your moral system. In fact, if I am stronger than you, there is nothing to stop me from enforcing my views of morality on you, and you have no appeal against it. There is no cosmic right for you to invoke. You can't say, don't, because it is wrong on some level. All you can say is stop that I don't like it.
If he thought what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't be doing it or he does not care that it is not right. So how does your 'authority' help you here? You can try to convince him, but if you appeal to a cosmic reason, you are preaching to someone who belives in a diffrent cosmic power or beliveis in the same cosmic power but has a diffrent interpretation, or agrees with you that your shared diety thinks what he is doing is wrong and has made a concious decision to defy it. You have gained nothing. Aside from a holier than thou approach that is less likely to net the desired result of stopping said dictator from doing what you belive he should not be allowed to do.
If he doesn't believe there is an absolute right and wrong, why does it matter. When I was a child, I convinced myself god didn't exist for a brief period. I then decided it was okay for me to steal some candy because if God didn't exist, all that mattered was whether I got caught. Now I am not saying that people who are atheists are theives. But I think you see my point here. What I have is a common bases to work with. A common assumption (which by my own admission could be completely wrong) that there is a God and that is the source of morality in the universe. But absent that, we just have different points of view. Keep in mind I am speaking out two sides of the mouth at the moment. I fully realize even if there is a God, there is little man can do to achieve any certainty about God. So what you are saying is basically correct. But if there is a God, then there are perhaps still some universal principles at work.
Even if you are right and somewhere there exists a book of right and wrong written in gods own hand on a distant planet, it is completly irrelevant. We do not have it. We only have eachother and appeals to an unknown law is nothing but a weak crutch or a tool to set ourselves apart from others.
I do agree with this in part. But not entirely. I do believe we were meant to discover God over time. That god slowly reveals itself through its creation. You may call that a weak crutch. It isn't something I can prove scientifically. It is simply something I have experienced. All I can say is if you open yourself up to the experience of it, there is something to be gained. But I would never tell anyone they are better or worse off for doing so. To each his own.
Neat. So anytime someone says there are no flying-intangible-smellless-invisibile-soundless unicorns, I can say "that's just your belief".
Nice to know.
Exactly this, only without the sarcasim. Saying you do not belive there are flying stealth unicorns is perfectly justified and logical. Saying their are not any is no more justified or logical than claims that their are.
It's called Occam's Razor.
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[6][7][8][9]
So when coming up with your theories, you should probably assume god will not effect the outcome. Reasonable. Declaring that their is no god is not scientific and not logical, it is the missaplication of a princaple to lend power to your baseless claim using the power of 'Da Science!'
Despite the fact this is an interesting discussion I would like to continue I am going to withdraw myself from it. This is straying well over the line into CoC violation territory and the whole reason I created this new account was to start fresh and not break the CoC.
You mean like attacking me for my religious beliefs... like you did earlier in this thread when Seventh Solitude called you out on it?
Because you know I am not a reporting kinda guy, and you would get away with it?
I do think it is important, even if we all disagree on some major points, for us to respect one another to respect one anothers' positions. If Robin finds Beauty, Truth and Meaning in the Christian church, why should I try to crack at that experience. If Toasted finds meaning in a belief that there is no God, I should be able to respect that even if I have formed a different conclusion. I am not so arrogant that I think I have all the answers. I know everyone of my statements on this thread could be wrong.
But to say things don't exist because we haven't found them? That's arrogance, ignorance, or both.
It's really none of the above.
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
And that isn't arrogant, ignorant, or both.
There are also no other planets, no other stars, no bacteria, no things smaller then atoms, no dimensions other then the three we live in, no dinosaurs, no ways for a human to fly, no way to reach the moon, no ways to communicate swiftly with people on the other side of the planet, and the list goes on.
It is fair to assume that we aren't aware of such things.
It is arrogant, ignorant, or both to assume that they truly do not exist. For one day, you might be proven wrong, and your only possible responses will be arrogance, ignorance, or both.
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if they did Robin?
I'm describing people who do what they belive they should. If they belive they should act in whatever way makes them feel good, then that is their moral system (I belive that is called hedonism?)
I agree but that is just another way of saying, people do what they want.
No, it is not. If you cannot understand the diffrence between desire and morals, I cannot help you to understand that. Sometimes (for some of us, quite often) what a person wants to do is not what they belive they should do.
But why. It may not make sense for me to do so, but why would it be wrong for me to ask you to abandone your moral system. In fact, if I am stronger than you, there is nothing to stop me from enforcing my views of morality on you, and you have no appeal against it. There is no cosmic right for you to invoke. You can't say, don't, because it is wrong on some level. All you can say is stop that I don't like it.
It would be wrong, because it goes aginst my moral system. Expecting you to not do it because it is aginst my moral system is irrational. My philosophy is that you should act in accordance with your own moral system. And I will go on and say what you are doing is wrong, because as far as I can tell, it is. I can say don't because it is wrong on any level I choose to declare it wrong on, I need no 'cosmic right'. I need no reason to belive in my belifes more than I belive in yours, the fact that they are my belifies means that, by definition, I belive in them. I do not need to belive that some unknown entity shares my belife set, only that I belive them.
If he doesn't believe there is an absolute right and wrong, why does it matter. When I was a child, I convinced myself god didn't exist for a brief period. I then decided it was okay for me to steal some candy because if God didn't exist, all that mattered was whether I got caught. Now I am not saying that people who are atheists are theives. But I think you see my point here.
Perhapes. Are you saying that, as a kid, you where a selfish little bastard who cared about noone but himslef and his desire to get free candy regardless of how it affects anyone else, and that belife in a punishment after death is the only thing that prevented you from breaking the law and wronging others?
I do not really see where your going, if that is what your saying.
There is a famous quote by Aristotle that is appropriate here, I think: "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
I do agree with this in part. But not entirely. I do believe we were meant to discover God over time. That god slowly reveals itself through its creation. You may call that a weak crutch. It isn't something I can prove scientifically. It is simply something I have experienced. All I can say is if you open yourself up to the experience of it, there is something to be gained. But I would never tell anyone they are better or worse off for doing so. To each his own.
How so? You just said a belife in a cosmic law was neccessary to be a moral person.
[
I do think it is important, even if we all disagree on some major points, for us to respect one another to respect one anothers' positions. If Robin finds Beauty, Truth and Meaning in the Christian church, why should I try to crack at that experience. If Toasted finds meaning in a belief that there is no God, I should be able to respect that even if I have formed a different conclusion. I am not so arrogant that I think I have all the answers. I know everyone of my statements on this thread could be wrong.
??
wtf
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
When you can make the machine work without the goblins, and you have no reason to believe the goblins are there, then you assume the goblins aren't.
Two simple premises that are used to handle claims of the extraordinary.
Against my flying-invisible-intangible-unsmellable-soundless unicorn, people would have no problem saying "yeah, you're full of it". And that would be a "scientific answer".
But make it a "omnipresent-invisible-intangible-unsmellable-soundless god" and suddenly you think the "scientific answer" is "well, we dunno"?
This stubborn insistence that divinity gets special treatment is... baffling.
You know, I'm baffled.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
When you can make the machine work without the goblins, and you have no reason to believe the goblins are there, then you assume the goblins aren't.
Assume: fine. Declare as absolute fact: Less fine.
Two simple premises that are used to handle claims of the extraordinary.
Against my flying-invisible-intangible-unsmellable-soundless unicorn, people would have no problem saying "yeah, you're full of it". And that would be a "scientific answer".
But make it a "omnipresent-invisible-intangible-unsmellable-soundless god" and suddenly you think the "scientific answer" is "well, we dunno"?
This stubborn insistence that divinity gets special treatment is... baffling.
People would not belive you. But not beliveing is not, or should not be, the same as beliving the opposite. If you tell me your holding an apple behind your back right now, I'm not going to belive you. But I'm not going to declare that I have somehow proved you do not have an apple behind your back based upon nothing more than the fact that I do not belive you.
No, it is not. If you cannot understand the diffrence between desire and morals, I cannot help you to understand that. Sometimes (for some of us, quite often) what a person wants to do is not what they belive they should do.
I get that what a person wants isn't what they prefer should happen. But you mentioned hedonism. Hedonism brings those two things into alignment. A hedonism believes what he wants is what he should have.
It would be wrong, because it goes aginst my moral system. Expecting you to not do it because it is aginst my moral system is irrational. My philosophy is that you should act in accordance with your own moral system. And I will go on and say what you are doing is wrong, because as far as I can tell, it is. I can say don't because it is wrong on any level I choose to declare it wrong on, I need no 'cosmic right'. I need no reason to belive in my belifes more than I belive in yours, the fact that they are my belifies means that, by definition, I belive in them. I do not need to belive that some unknown entity shares my belife set, only that I belive them.
But that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it your preference that I don't do it. You are describing your own emotional response to the events.
Perhapes. Are you saying that, as a kid, you where a selfish little bastard who cared about noone but himslef and his desire to get free candy regardless of how it affects anyone else, and that belife in a punishment after death is the only thing that prevented you from breaking the law and wronging others?
I am saying that in the absence of a belief in a higher cosmic power, the justification for universal right and wrong breaks down. There is no reason for the should anylonger. You miight not behave selishly because you don't like the way it makes you feel. But even that is really the product of an artificial system that you are conditioned to.
I do not really see where your going, if that is what your saying.
There is a famous quote by Aristotle that is appropriate here, I think: "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
Buy Aristotles ideas stem from natural law. He may not have believed in a big bearded man in the sky, but he believed in final causes. If the universe is just matter and meaningless, there are no final causes. And therefore Aristotles notion of the good makes no sense.
How so? You just said a belife in a cosmic law was neccessary to be a moral person.
No I didn't. I said it was necessary for morality even to exist as anything other than a construct. And I believe in the existence of a higher power, even if I cannot be certain of it.
[
I do think it is important, even if we all disagree on some major points, for us to respect one another to respect one anothers' positions. If Robin finds Beauty, Truth and Meaning in the Christian church, why should I try to crack at that experience. If Toasted finds meaning in a belief that there is no God, I should be able to respect that even if I have formed a different conclusion. I am not so arrogant that I think I have all the answers. I know everyone of my statements on this thread could be wrong.
??
wtf
I appologize if I mischaracterized your beliefs. I may have confused another person's post with your own.
You know, I'm baffled.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
When you can make the machine work without the goblins, and you have no reason to believe the goblins are there, then you assume the goblins aren't.
Two simple premises that are used to handle claims of the extraordinary.
Against my flying-invisible-intangible-unsmellable-soundless unicorn, people would have no problem saying "yeah, you're full of it". And that would be a "scientific answer".
But make it a "omnipresent-invisible-intangible-unsmellable-soundless god" and suddenly you think the "scientific answer" is "well, we dunno"?
This stubborn insistence that divinity gets special treatment is... baffling.
You are missing the point. Both the claims that God exists and that God doesn't are extraordinary claims. They both require extraordinary evidence to be concluded with any certainty. The claim that unicorns exist, is extraordinary, while the claim that they don't is not. There are two equally plausible explanations for life the universe and everything. One involves God, the other does not. But we just don't have the scope of experience to validate either one. Like I said, we haven't even left our own solar system yet. But the claim that unicorns exist on earth is different. We have the scope of experience to deny that claim.
Assume: fine. Declare as absolute fact: Less fine.
Since "science"1 doesn't declare anything as "absolute fact", that was never a question.
People would not belive you.
Belief is not what I'm railing against. What I'm railing against is holding claims of the divine to a different scientific standard of what is required to doubt them then other similarly untestable claims.
There is no scientific support for the divine. None. At all. Not a smidgen. Yet I have someone here claiming that for this untestable, unverifiable claim, that the "scientific view" is "it's a maybe", despite that for a simiarly untestable, unverfiable claim, he said that it was certain to not exist2.
THAT is what I'm railing against. The moment you start applying different standards of proof to similarly untestable and unverfiable claims, you can't say your view is "scientific". And that's what is required to say that agnosticism is the "scientific view".
________
1As a side note, I hate treating "science" as some sort of monolithic truth engine. Like most things, it's more complicated then that.
2Yes, I'm ignoring the many problems with that "certainty"
You are missing the point. Both the claims that God exists and that God doesn't are extraordinary claims.
If you really believe that, you're biased.
I get that what a person wants isn't what they prefer should happen. But you mentioned hedonism. Hedonism brings those two things into alignment. A hedonism believes what he wants is what he should have.
Yes, I did. I mentioned it because you seem to be confusing any sytem of morality that isnt based upon the unknown wishes of an unknown entity with hedonism, one of any number of possible moral codes that fall under that category.
But that doesn't make it wrong. It makes it your preference that I don't do it. You are describing your own emotional response to the events.
No, it dosnt make it wrong, to you. And just because I do not like something does not make it wrong to me. Morals and emotion are not the same thing, unless you are a hedonist. Get it?
I am saying that in the absence of a belief in a higher cosmic power, the justification for universal right and wrong breaks down. There is no reason for the should anylonger. You miight not behave selishly because you don't like the way it makes you feel. But even that is really the product of an artificial system that you are conditioned to.
Which, if true, is no diffrent than what you are proposing. And again, there are many, many things I would enjoy doing, that would make me just feel swell, that I do not do because I belive them to be wrong. Not because I'm afraid of god, not because I'm afraid of the law, not because they would make me sad: because I do not think it would be right for me to do these things. And even though I want to do these things, I would no sooner allow someone else to do them, because I think they are wrong, not because their doing them would negativly impact me in any way. What they feel on the topic is unimportant to me.
Buy Aristotles ideas stem from natural law. He may not have believed in a big bearded man in the sky, but he believed in final causes. If the universe is just matter and meaningless, there are no final causes. And therefore Aristotles notion of the good makes no sense.
Thats the bueatiful part of my system: it dosn't matter who it came from or why. If it makes sense to me, I am free to belive it. If he came upon what I think is the right answer through reasoning I don't think is true is irrelvant. Now, who said anything about the univers being meaningless? Your crossing your conversations.
How so? You just said a belife in a cosmic law was neccessary to be a moral person.
No I didn't. I said it was necessary for morality even to exist as anything other than a construct. And I believe in the existence of a higher power, even if I cannot be certain of it.
No, you claimed that when you convinced yourself that god did not exist, that it was impossible for you to behave in a moral fashion: thus it follows that either A) You are weaker than other people and need the crutch of belife in a universal moral law that is more or less in accordance with your values for you to follow through on your belifes or B) Humans cannot behave in a moral fashion without belife in a higher power.
You are missing the point. Both the claims that God exists and that God doesn't are extraordinary claims.
If you really believe that, you're biased.
I don't think so. It is a very reaosnable explanation for the universe. And probably why so many people, including scientist, believe in some kind of god. Actually I think, for a person who does believe, I've demonstrated incredible open mindedness here. Most scientists I've asked this question to, say science has no real answer about the God question. They aren't equipped to answer it. On the question of Ghosts or Unicorns, there is an abundance of information indicating the reasonable conclusion is they don't exist. But on the question of whether the universe was created or just happened, there isn't enough evidence either way.
Assume: fine. Declare as absolute fact: Less fine.
Since "science"1 doesn't declare anything as "absolute fact", that was never a question.
But Boraxe and other atheists do. Which is what makes it a spiritual claim. They claim to know with certainty that which cannot be known with certainty and say that it is scientifically valid and thus not spiritual at all. This is what we are talking about, atleast, what the rest of us where talking about.
What I'm railing against is holding claims of the divine to a different scientific standard of what is required to doubt them then other similarly untestable claims.
I do not recall anyone claiming anything about what is requiered for you to doubt something.
There is no scientific support for the divine. None. At all. Not a smidgen. Yet I have someone here claiming that for this untestable, unverifiable claim, that the "scientific view" is "it's a maybe", despite that for a simiarly untestable, unverfiable claim, he said that it was certain to not exist2.
Which is hypocritical of him. Plushy, ZB, and I (I belive) have all supported his conclusion about agnosticisim and view of science as it relates to religion without falling into this trap.
THAT is what I'm railing against. The moment you start applying different standards of proof to similarly untestable and unverfiable claims, you can't say your view is "scientific". And that's what is required to say that agnosticism is the "scientific view".
Is not. A simple refusal to attempt to apply science to a field of thought that science is not realistically equiped to deal with (or atleast has not yet demonstrated that it is) is all that is required to say that agnosticism is the "scientific view" of religion.
Yes, I did. I mentioned it because you seem to be confusing any sytem of morality that isnt based upon the unknown wishes of an unknown entity with hedonism, one of any number of possible moral codes that fall under that category.
That isn't what I am saying. I am saying any attempt to construct a moral system is artificial if there is no cosmic bases for it. It is just a product of our prefrences. I understand the difference between desire and morality. But I am saying, morality, in the absence of universal power, is a myth. it is just something we design. It has no external basis.
No, it dosnt make it wrong, to you. And just because I do not like something does not make it wrong to me. Morals and emotion are not the same thing, unless you are a hedonist. Get it?
I wouldn't equate emotivism with hedonism. I get what you are saying. You could for example have arrived at "Do not kill" because you decided it wasn't in the interest of humanity to allow killing, or something like that. But my point is that is still an artificial construct. It is absolutely a personal decision.
Which, if true, is no diffrent than what you are proposing. And again, there are many, many things I would enjoy doing, that would make me just feel swell, that I do not do because I belive them to be wrong. Not because I'm afraid of god, not because I'm afraid of the law, not because they would make me sad: because I do not think it would be right for me to do these things. And even though I want to do these things, I would no sooner allow someone else to do them, because I think they are wrong, not because their doing them would negativly impact me in any way. What they feel on the topic is unimportant to me.
Okay, but you have decided they are wrong for your own reasons. My point is, morality is meaningless. The whole point behind morality is there is a "should" we can identify. But absent anythign above mankind, there is no should. There is just what you individually have decided is best. I think what you are actually doing is balancing your immediate wants and needs with the long term wants and needs of yourself and society. And that isn't a bad thing at all. But I don't think it is any longer morality in any real sense. It is just man made system of dos and donts. Beyond the concerns of mankind, they have no importants at all.
Thats the bueatiful part of my system: it dosn't matter who it came from or why. If it makes sense to me, I am free to belive it. If he came upon what I think is the right answer through reasoning I don't think is true is irrelvant. Now, who said anything about the univers being meaningless? Your crossing your conversations.
But it still doesn't solve the ought problem. And that is the core of morality. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I wouldn't ever try to stop you. My point is all you are doing is deciding for yourself what is right and wrong. But beyond you, right and wrong has no real meaning.
Well, if the universe has meaning, other than what we attribute to it ourselves, that implies something that fashioned the meaning, which indicates to me the mysterious thing I mentioned.
No, you claimed that when you convinced yourself that god did not exist, that it was impossible for you to behave in a moral fashion: thus it follows that either A) You are weaker than other people and need the crutch of belife in a universal moral law that is more or less in accordance with your values for you to follow through on your belifes or B) Humans cannot behave in a moral fashion without belife in a higher power.
(keep in mind I was a child, but the experience is actually a common one). No. I claimed I didn't behave in what people woudl regard as a moral fashion when I convinced myself of it. Without a higher power people can certainly behave in what they regard as a moral fashion. My point is that its artificial. In the absence of a higher power there is no universal good or bad. There are just articifial rules we create and then label good and bad.
Is not. A simple refusal to attempt to apply science to a field of thought that science is not realistically equiped to deal with (or atleast has not yet demonstrated that it is) is all that is required to say that agnosticism is the "scientific view" of religion.
This. This is what I am trying to say, very badly I think.
But to say things don't exist because we haven't found them? That's arrogance, ignorance, or both.
It's really none of the above.
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
And that isn't arrogant, ignorant, or both.
There are also no other planets, no other stars, no bacteria, no things smaller then atoms, no dimensions other then the three we live in, no dinosaurs, no ways for a human to fly, no way to reach the moon, no ways to communicate swiftly with people on the other side of the planet, and the list goes on.
It is fair to assume that we aren't aware of such things.
It is arrogant, ignorant, or both to assume that they truly do not exist. For one day, you might be proven wrong, and your only possible responses will be arrogance, ignorance, or both.
So,
you believe giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds could exist?
in this universe?
?
...
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if they did Robin?
LOL
I suppose... in one way or another...
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if they did Robin?
LOL
I suppose... in one way or another...
Minus the horns it would be a beautiful thing indeed.
Giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds don't exist.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if they did Robin?
LOL
I suppose... in one way or another...
Minus the horns it would be a beautiful thing indeed.
Agreed!
So,
you believe giant **** with blue horns that eat grasshoppers and poop diamonds could exist?
in this universe?
?
...
Nope. but just because I do not belive something exists does not mean I have to belive it does not exist. Not beliving in the presence of something is not the same as beliving in the absence of a thing.
That isn't what I am saying. I am saying any attempt to construct a moral system is artificial if there is no cosmic bases for it. It is just a product of our prefrences. I understand the difference between desire and morality. But I am saying, morality, in the absence of universal power, is a myth. it is just something we design. It has no external basis.
And what I'm saying is this is completly irrational. Any moral system you choose to go by is a myth by your own definition as you yourself have noted that you are incapable of touching this universal power and can only base your belifes about it off the belifes of your ancestors, your accuaintances, and your own personal thought. No diffrent than what anyone who does not belive in a higher power or a universal system would do. None of the things you are baising your system off is any more external than anything anyone else baised theirs off of. It came from inside you and inside others and your experiences in this world and is thus wholly of you and this world. If you belive their is something of the divine in yourself or this world then your morality system can contain something of the divine but so can any system from this world for the same reason: divinity exists in this world.
The assertion that the existance of a morality system unknown by you or by anyone on this world, written by something not of this world, is neccessary to validate your diffrent system of morality that deals with this world and the things in it is irrational to the point of absurdity.
I don't get it. If you belive it because thats what your faith teaches you to belive, so be it, but if your trying to present it as some sort of logical conclusion as you seem to be, I feel that you are failing miserably.
And what I'm saying is this is completly irrational. Any moral system you choose to go by is a myth by your own definition as you yourself have noted that you are incapable of touching this universal power and can only base your belifes about it off the belifes of your ancestors, your accuaintances, and your own personal thought. No diffrent than what anyone who does not belive in a higher power or a universal system would do. None of the things you are baising your system off is any more external than anything anyone else baised theirs off of. It came from inside you and inside others and your experiences in this world and is thus wholly of you and this world. If you belive their is something of the divine in yourself or this world then your morality system can contain something of the divine but so can any system from this world for the same reason: divinity exists in this world.
I never claimed I had the better system. Whether one can approach the mind of God, is completely seperate from the issue of whether or not absololute morality hinges on God's existence. You answer the second one, then you address the first.
I agree with your last point. I don't think one needs to believe in God to use the tools god gave us to navigage morality. However, I do believe for morality to be meaningful beyond our immediate experiences, God would need to exist.
The assertion that the existance of a morality system unknown by you or by anyone on this world, written by something not of this world, is neccessary to validate your diffrent system of morality that deals with this world and the things in it is irrational to the point of absurdity.
No. If it works for you, you've validated it. But my point is it isn't a product of any kind of absolute morality existing abstractly in the world. It is just a product of what you've decided, if it is in fact the case that there is no God.
I don't get it. If you belive it because thats what your faith teaches you to belive, so be it, but if your trying to present it as some sort of logical conclusion as you seem to be, I feel that you are failing miserably.
What I believe actually has very little to do with this argument. I am saying you can't get an objective ought, without there being some kind of higher power. You can construct one. And you can follow it. But if god doesn't exist, everything you are doing is 100% subjective.
I have too many pages to catch up on. However, to Boraxe. from 4 or 5 pages back. 7th has it right. Too many confusion religion and theology. Religion is defined thusly, note the esp. It is NOT a prerequisite to concern a supernatural agency. In addition, devout is the appropriate term. Radical does NOT imply devotion, devout does.
Even then, if you read religious scholarship at all (and again I am no expert), the definition of religion is much more murky than that one. Because when you try to include all faiths, many of the underlying principles in the definition break down.
Frankly, I think you both are missing my point entirely.
If you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the supernatural, then the "scientific view" is that "they don't actually exist".
But if you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the divine, suddenly the "scientific view" is "Well, I dunno, maybe?"
That's hypocrisy.
And that's why I'm saying that the "scientific view" of the divine is atheism. Because for every other claim of the supernatural, the response is "doesn't exist". Why should the divine get a free pass?
Does this mean that, if new data surfaced, these views couldn't change? Of course not. That's one of many things that separates "science" from religion: the ability to adapt.
Re: SeventhSanctum
The day there is a verifiable, proven occurrence of a supernatural event is the day I'll accept "and then a miracle happened" as a "reasonable explanation". And no pleas to majority will change that.
Oh, and frankly, you've a very naive view of how much we've explored this planet. We're discovering new things about it constantly, finding new life in places we thought it impossible. Calling something impossible just because it hasn't happened yet is... arrogant.
Though I am curious just how you think we can disprove the existence of something that we can't see, hear, smell, touch, interact with, or detect in any way.
Re: TA
Yeah, and Boraxe is a loudmouth. So? If he tries to say that current scientific theory is in the business of absolute truths, feel free to tell him I think he's on crack. Because while there may or may not be absolute truths out there, that's not business of modern scientific theory. Modern science is in the business of explaining the world as best we can, and being willing to change our explanation when we get more data or a better model. No absolute truths required.
So while people may find "absolute truths" elsewhere, they're a lying ass if they say they got it from "science". Because that's not how it works.
I don't get it. If you belive it because thats what your faith teaches you to belive, so be it, but if your trying to present it as some sort of logical conclusion as you seem to be, I feel that you are failing miserably.
I am actually presenting a pretty standard complication when it comes to universal morality in the absence of a deity or cosmic purpose.
Religion is defined thusly, note the esp. It is NOT a prerequisite to concern a supernatural agency.
Oh? Show me a religion1 that doesn't have belief in the supernatural.
________
1One that's generally accepted to be a religion and more then a century old, preferrably.
You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want, but you will not truly be right until you prove that you are.
Incorrect. Right and wrong are a matter of belief. The example I typically use is viri (viruses). Do they exist? I'd say yes. Not because I myself have seen them, but because I ACCEPT the word of those that have said they do. In the end, it is almost all a matter of belief.
Re: TA, SeventhSanctum:
Frankly, I think you both are missing my point entirely.
If you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the supernatural, then the "scientific view" is that "they don't actually exist".
But if you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the divine, suddenly the "scientific view" is "Well, I dunno, maybe?"
That's hypocrisy.
No it isn't. The two things are very different and I explained why. You don't have to agree with my reasoning. But it isn't hypocrisy.
And that's why I'm saying that the "scientific view" of the divine is atheism. Because for every other claim of the supernatural, the response is "doesn't exist". Why should the divine get a free pass?
That atheism is the official postiion of science is news to me. I knew some scientists have concluded there was no God. I didn't realize science arrives at a conclusion on the subject.
Re: SeventhSanctum
The day there is a verifiable, proven occurrence of a supernatural event is the day I'll accept "and then a miracle happened" as a "reasonable explanation". And no pleas to majority will change that.
I never asked you to believe in miracles. Nor did I say I believe in them.
Oh, and frankly, you've a very naive view of how much we've explored this planet. We're discovering new things about it constantly, finding new life in places we thought it impossible. Calling something impossible just because it hasn't happened yet is... arrogant.
I thought you just said calling something impossible because it hasn't happened yet was science.
Though I am curious just how you think we can disprove the existence of something that we cant see, hear, smell, touch, interact with, or detect in any way.
Proving a negative is rather difficult. I said, a virtual certainty, not a certianty.
Yeah, and Boraxe is a loudmouth. So? If he tries to say that current scientific theory is in the business of absolute truths, feel free to tell him I think he's on crack. Because while there may or may not be absolute truths out there, that's not business of modern scientific theory. Modern science is in the business of explaining the world as best we can, and being willing to change our explanation when we get more data or a better model. No absolute truths required.
So while people may find "absolute truths" elsewhere, they're a lying ass if they say they got it from "science". Because that's not how it works.
I never said I got absolute truths from science. And I don't think TA did. Why are you so upset over this. I think it is okay for us to strongly disagree, without getting heated.
Re: TA, SeventhSanctum:
Frankly, I think you both are missing my point entirely.
If you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the supernatural, then the "scientific view" is that "they don't actually exist".
But if you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the divine, suddenly the "scientific view" is "Well, I dunno, maybe?"
That's hypocrisy.
I agree that it is hypocrisy. One of thoes things need to change. Actually both.
Unproveable claim of the supernatural: Scientific View: I don't know.
Unproveable claim of the divine: Scientific View: I don't know.
And that is why we are saying (well, not SS, I guess) that Agnosticisisim is the scientific view of the divine. Science doesn't know, all signs point to science not being able to know, so science should say it dosn't know. And then move on.
Yeah, and Boraxe is a loudmouth. So? If he tries to say that current scientific theory is in the business of absolute truths, feel free to tell him I think he's on crack.
Which I did. And then you yelled at me. Jerk.
So while people may find "absolute truths" elsewhere, they're a lying ass if they say they got it from "science". Because that's not how it works.
Which is inline with my view of atheism's claims of scientific support.
I don't get it. If you belive it because thats what your faith teaches you to belive, so be it, but if your trying to present it as some sort of logical conclusion as you seem to be, I feel that you are failing miserably.
I am actually presenting a pretty standard complication when it comes to universal morality in the absence of a deity or cosmic purpose.
If so, then your either doing it poorly, or your standard is stupid, acording to me.
What I see you saying:
"A moral system is not a moral system unless there is someone who is not subject to that moral system who is better than us and can judge it"
or
"If there is not a non-human entity who judges our behavior, then their is not a non-human entity who judges our behavior"
The first makes no sense, the second is redundant and leads nowhere, and neither in any way demonstrates that "Trying to be what you think a good person should be" is not somehow a meaningfull end in and of itself.
Religion is defined thusly, note the esp. It is NOT a prerequisite to concern a supernatural agency.
Oh? Show me a religion1 that doesn't have belief in the supernatural.
________
1One that's generally accepted to be a religion and more then a century old, preferrably.
In their broad sense most religions have some supernatural elements, but in specific instances there are examples of sects that don't. My example of Jewish Atheism for instance. Since WWII, there are lots of Jews who doubt the existence of Gods, but still practice Judaism (and there are many who believe even more strongly in the existence of God). There are also many secular Christians who embrace the New Testament, but reject the supernatural elements of traditional Christianity. Many modern buddhists,because of the religion's emphasis on self testing and criticism, reject its supernatural elements.
If so, then your either doing it poorly, or your standard is stupid, acording to me.
What I see you saying:
"A moral system is not a moral system unless there is someone who is not subject to that moral system who is better than us and can judge it"
This isn't what I am saying. I am saying for something to be any kind of universal moral system, there needs to be an ought. Otherwise it is just a list of rules. And for the to be an ought, there needs to be a something that can establish the ought universally.
The first makes no sense, the second is redundant and leads nowhere, and neither in any way demonstrates that "Trying to be what you think a good person should be" is not somehow a meaningfull end in and of itself.
I disagree that my position, however poorly stated, doesn't disprove your claim. I don't dispute you can find meaning by constructing an artificial moral system. But there really is no such thing as a good person if there is no universal morality, because good is a meaningless term. There is just what you call good. But I could just as easily call that evil. It is simply subjective. Nothing more. There is no ought there, other than what you are imposing on yourself.
I like what you have to so but if you are going to be insulting I will not continue to discuss this with you. So far i've enjoyed our dialogue. But I won't sit by and be called stupid just because we disagree.
There is just what you call good. But I could just as easily call that evil.
There is no ought ... other than what you are imposing on yourself.
I agree 100% with this, and feel it is how it should be. There is no universal system telling me what I ought to do. MY moral code and belifes about what is right and good is what informs me what I ought do, this is what a moral code is.
I like what you have to so but if you are going to be insulting I will not continue to discuss this with you. So far i've enjoyed our dialogue. But I won't sit by and be called stupid just because we disagree.
I insulted your 'standard', not your person. I do not see how you can take me saying I think the standard argument you claim to be parroting is a stupid one as a personal insult.
I agree 100% with this, and feel it is how it should be. There is no universal system telling me what I ought to do. MY moral code and belifes about what is right and good is what informs me what I ought do, this is what a moral code is.
Then you don't disagree on the core of the debate here.
I insulted your 'standard', not your person. I do not see how you can take me saying I think the standard argument you claim to be parroting is a stupid one as a personal insult.
It is basic politeness. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my ideas. But attacking them as stupid is still an attack. It's like when someone says "You believe that? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard.". If you say you didn't mean anything by it I believe you. But just know for future reference I was stung by the remark.
Religion is defined thusly, note the esp. It is NOT a prerequisite to concern a supernatural agency.
Oh? Show me a religion1 that doesn't have belief in the supernatural.
________
1One that's generally accepted to be a religion and more then a century old, preferrably.
ANY of the humanistic religions qualify for this. Positivism, Cult of Reason, etc.
All generally accepted, quite a few dating from the 18th and 19th centuries.
No, I think we disagree down to the very core of the debate. I do not think the Ought in a moral code "must" "does" "could" or ever "should" come from some outside force. It comes from within, always. If their exists or does not exist a higher power that agrees with you is irrelevant. A moral code is a code that describes to you how you should act. If you do not have that, then you do not, in my opinion, possess a moral code at all.
Then we do disagree.
But you must have a process you used to arrive at your moral code, and I am curious what the criteria is.
If you have unprovable and unfalsifiable claims of the supernatural, then the "scientific view" is that "they don't actually exist".
Untrue - see Higgs-Boson. Like the divine, it is unproven (neither is unprovable - cf. The Field), and neither is falsifiable. So - no hypocrisy.
And that's why I'm saying that the "scientific view" of the divine is atheism. Because for every other claim of the supernatural, the response is "doesn't exist". Why should the divine get a free pass?
see above. Existence is often theorized BEFORE being proven. THAT is science. (noted that you fairly much state this below in your response to TA)
The day there is a verifiable, proven occurrence of a supernatural event is the day I'll accept "and then a miracle happened" as a "reasonable explanation". And no pleas to majority will change that.
interesting standpoint - as part of the beatification process involves gathering such verifiable, proven occurance of miracles.**
Calling something impossible just because it hasn't happened yet is... arrogant.
hence why atheism is untenable, in my opinion. We can't even agree on what God IS, yet some are quick to say that this unknown cannot exist (ie. impossible)
edited: corrected
and added: ** but in this case you would (may?) not ACCEPT the word of those that have done the verification. This returns to my prior post regarding truth (right and wrong)
No, I think we disagree down to the very core of the debate. I do not think the Ought in a moral code "must" "does" "could" or ever "should" come from some outside force. It comes from within, always. If their exists or does not exist a higher power that agrees with you is irrelevant. A moral code is a code that describes to you how you should act. If you do not have that, then you do not, in my opinion, possess a moral code at all.
I guess where I am having difficulty is where you say others should get their moral code from within as you do. If, there is no universal ought, how can you establish a universal principle about morality like that (unless it is purely descriptive)? Up to that point, I don't really dispute any of your conclusions (at least I think they make logical sense).
No, I think we disagree down to the very core of the debate. I do not think the Ought in a moral code "must" "does" "could" or ever "should" come from some outside force. It comes from within, always. If their exists or does not exist a higher power that agrees with you is irrelevant. A moral code is a code that describes to you how you should act. If you do not have that, then you do not, in my opinion, possess a moral code at all.
Then we do disagree.
But you must have a process you used to arrive at your moral code, and I am curious what the criteria is.
As am I, honestly.
No it isn't. The two things are very different and I explained why. You don't have to agree with my reasoning. But it isn't hypocrisy.
You've said they're different, you haven't given any sort of satisfcatory explanation.
Most supernatural claims are unfalsifiable and unprovable. All divine claims are unfalsifiable and unprovable. One gets a pass, the other doesn't.
That atheism is the official postiion of science is news to me. I knew some scientists have concluded there was no God. I didn't realize science arrives at a conclusion on the subject.
Good, because the day there's an "official position of science" on such a thing is the day I'll eat my hat.
I never asked you to believe in miracles. Nor did I say I believe in them.
No, but you did say that "and then a miracle happened" was a "reasonable explanation".
I thought you just said calling something impossible because it hasn't happened yet was science.
Nope. I never used the word impossible.
What I said is that the standard response to an unverifiable and unfalsifiable theory is to treat it as though it doesn't exist and have no belief in it existing, which when lined up against views of the divine is closest to atheism.
So yes, feel free to say that there's no reason to believe we'll ever find evidence of my hypothetical impossible-to-detect unicorn, and that as a result we shouldn't care if it actually exists because it might as well not. But saying it's impossible simply because we've explored the entire world? Heh. That is funny. Since, ya know, we are constantly finding new things.
Proving a negative is rather difficult. I said, a virtual certainty, not a certianty.
I still find this curious. I presented a hypothetical creature that, if it were real, would be impossible to detect or prove. You have said there is a "virtual certainty" (or however you want to hedge your bets) to not exist.
You also profess to believe in a hypothetical divine creature that, if it were real, would be impossible to detect or prove. You've not only professed a belief in this, but said it is "reasonable".
Very curious. What makes one invisible-intangible-sightless-unsmellable-mysterous force reasonable, and one a "virtual certainty" to not exist?
I never said I got absolute truths from science. And I don't think TA did. Why are you so upset over this. I think it is okay for us to strongly disagree, without getting heated.
And I wasn't responding to you, so I'm not sure why you think I was. Or why you think I'm "getting heated".
Unproveable claim of the supernatural: Scientific View: I don't know.
Unproveable claim of the divine: Scientific View: I don't know.
And that is why we are saying (well, not SS, I guess) that Agnosticisisim is the scientific view of the divine. Science doesn't know, all signs point to science not being able to know, so science should say it dosn't know. And then move on.
Eh, well, if/when that becomes standard for all unprovable and unverifiable claims, I'll accept that agnosticism is the "scientific view" of the divine. Until it does, then I'll stick to my path.
Which I did. And then you yelled at me. Jerk.
Did I? When? Ya sure? Eh, well, I'm a loud mouth too.
So while people may find "absolute truths" elsewhere, they're a lying ass if they say they got it from "science". Because that's not how it works.
Which is inline with my view of atheism's claims of scientific support.
Hrm... I both disagree and agree.
While I believe that the "scientific view" of the divine should be and is an atheistic one (that is, there is no reason to believe in any supernatural force, divine or not, and it's pointless to act like there is any), I believe that a person should be a bit more holistic in their world views, and not rely on strictly one source to answer a question that it's really not suited to answer.
In their broad sense most religions have some supernatural elements, but in specific instances there are examples of sects that don't. My example of Jewish Atheism for instance. Since WWII, there are lots of Jews who doubt the existence of Gods, but still practice Judaism (and there are many who believe even more strongly in the existence of God). There are also many secular Christians who embrace the New Testament, but reject the supernatural elements of traditional Christianity. Many modern buddhists,because of the religion's emphasis on self testing and criticism, reject its supernatural elements.
Two groups of people that like the lifestyle and community but don't actually believe but are willing to go through the motions and a philosophy of life that happens to share the same name as a religion.
Color me unimpressed. Oh, and you managed to violate both my qualifiers. So kuddos for that.
Untrue - see Higgs-Boson. Like the divine, it is unproven (neither is unprovable - cf. The Field), and neither is falsifiable. So - no hypocrisy.
Um, the Large Hadron Collider is kinda built explictely to test that.
And yes, if you say that a divine force can do anything it wants and leaves no evidence, it's impossible to prove it. It can prove itself if it so chooses, but there's nothing we can do to prove it.
interesting standpoint - as part of the beatification process involves gathering such verifiable, proven occurance of miracles.**
As you noted, I won't accept most of the Catholic church's proof of "miracles", as they're willing to accept placebo effects and things that can easily be explained as coincidences.
on supernatural v divine. EVERYTHING is supernatural prior to us having an acceptable explanation for it.
No, it's just unexplained.
No, I think we disagree down to the very core of the debate. I do not think the Ought in a moral code "must" "does" "could" or ever "should" come from some outside force. It comes from within, always. If their exists or does not exist a higher power that agrees with you is irrelevant. A moral code is a code that describes to you how you should act. If you do not have that, then you do not, in my opinion, possess a moral code at all.
I guess where I am having difficulty is where you say others should get their moral code from within as you do. If, there is no universal ought, how can you establish a universal principle about morality like that (unless it is purely descriptive)? Up to that point, I don't really dispute any of your conclusions (at least I think they make logical sense).
I do not hold my ideas about morality to be any more universal than I hold yours to be. I have ideas about how I think people should behave, and strive to behave in that manner. I judge people using the same metric I use to judge myself, and expect them to do the same to me (as in judge me how they would judge themselves.) When I say someone should do something, that is the same as saying that is what I think a person who is a good person acording to my method of determining goodness in a person should do.
The same question could be asked of you: if you do not have knowledge of the universal code, how can you establish any principals about what a person should do? How does the assumed existience of an unknown code somehow make it easier for you to dictate how people should behave?
I do not hold my ideas about morality to be any more universal than I hold yours to be. I have ideas about how I think people should behave, and strive to behave in that manner. I judge people using the same metric I use to judge myself, and expect them to do the same to me (as in judge me how they would judge themselves.) When I say someone should do something, that is the same as saying that is what I think a person who is a good person acording to my method of determining goodness in a person should do.
I see. I think I was being too picky about words then. As long as it is ultimately a subjective should, and not a universal should, that makes sense.
The same question could be asked of you: if you do not have knowledge of the universal code, how can you establish any principals about what a person should do? How does the assumed existience of an unknown code somehow make it easier for you to dictate how people should behave?
I can't claim knowledge or certainty, all I can claim are some experiences that make me believe that God exists and in the intrinsic value and unity of human life. Do unto to others, basically. Beyond that I have no principles to share.
You also profess to believe in a hypothetical divine creature that, if it were real, would be impossible to detect or prove. You've not only professed a belief in this, but said it is "reasonable".
Very curious. What makes one invisible-intangible-sightless-unsmellable-mysterous force reasonable, and one a "virtual certainty" to not exist?
Because one is a plausible explanation for the universe. The unicorn is something we should have have encountered already if it exists.
And I wasn't responding to you, so I'm not sure why you think I was. Or why you think I'm "getting heated".
It is difficult to read your recent posts without sensing anger and snark. Perhaps I am misreading. I did mijudge one of TA's posts. But that is what I was detecting.
Two groups of people that like the lifestyle and community but don't actually believe but are willing to go through the motions and a philosophy of life that happens to share the same name as a religion.
Color me unimpressed. Oh, and you managed to violate both my qualifiers. So kuddos for that.
No it is a religion. People who study religion regard them as such. For it to be a religion, supernatural is not required (though it is a common component). You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. And not only did I not violate your qualifiers (Budhists who reject the supernatural elements of Buddhism have been around for centuries and most regard them as Buddhists) but your qualifiers make no sense. Review the definition of religion if you must.
I can't claim knowledge or certainty, all I can claim are some experiences that make me believe that God exists and in the intrinsic value and unity of human life. Do unto to others, basically. Beyond that I have no principles to share.
Oddly, I rember that saying very clearly, an put alot of thought into it as a youth. In truth, the principal behind it is a good one, and colors my behaviour in many ways, but the actual thing itself is nonsensical.
Think about it. For the sake of argument, lets say colors are ways to treat or 'do unto' others. I want to be treated pink, so I treat everyone pink. I treat everyone like they want to be treated pink. You want to be treated green, so you treat me green, you treat me like I want to be treated green. This is a bad situation, I am treating you in a way you do not like, and acting like you like it, and you are doing the same.
The better course, in my mind, is to treat people as you think they want to be treated, and encourage them to do the same, in the absence of any mitigating factors. It is an apporach that repects the personal identity of all involved.
Unproveable claim of the supernatural: Scientific View: I don't know.
Unproveable claim of the divine: Scientific View: I don't know.
And that is why we are saying (well, not SS, I guess) that Agnosticisisim is the scientific view of the divine. Science doesn't know, all signs point to science not being able to know, so science should say it dosn't know. And then move on.
Eh, well, if/when that becomes standard for all unprovable and unverifiable claims, I'll accept that agnosticism is the "scientific view" of the divine. Until it does, then I'll stick to my path.
The tendency of 'scientists' to be close-minded-self-righteous-know-it-alls about any claims which they doubt the truth of to the point of claiming to know the truth about it without any evidence aside from their own ignorance and their gut feeling does not make that the proper scientific reaction. It is an attitude that has proven many times throughout history to be a detrement to the advancment of science as a whole and is nothing but self masturbation. "I'm not convinced, so its wrong, because I'm a scientist!" is not valid scientific thought despite the tendency of many who proclaim themselves belivers in science to adhear to it.
Because one is a plausible explanation for the universe. The unicorn is something we should have have encountered already if it exists.
Ignoring that I don't accept miracles as plausible explanations (and frankly, you will never see "and then there was a miracle" in a hard science proof), you're still saying that we would somehow have encountered something that we can't detect. Ignoring that even if we had, we wouldn't have known. And that there are things on Earth that we haven't encountered. And that "it hasn't happened yet" (an inverse inductive proof?) isn't terribly sound as far as proofs go.
It is difficult to read your recent posts without sensing anger and snark. Perhaps I am misreading. I did mijudge one of TA's posts. But that is what I was detecting.
Snark? Certainly. I'm a snarky git. Ask anyone. Anger? Please. Don't think so much of yourself.
And not only did I not violate your qualifiers but your qualifiers make no sense. Review the definition of religion if you must.
Bull. Jews who since WWII reject God violates the "older then a century", "secular Christians" aren't generally accepted as a separate religion, and Buddhism as a philosophy isn't a religion.
And frankly, I'll review the definition when I care. Yes, I can easily imagine some academic somewhere rewriting definitions to suit their needs. Academics do that all the time. That doesn't change the common meaning of the word, it adds specific contextual meanings to the word.
So if you want to talk strictly from within the confines of anthropology, then I don't care what you define religion as, because I'm not interested in a boring semantic argument using definitions that not only don't interest me but don't have relevance to what I'm saying. What most people think of as a religion, and what most atheists see themselves as explictiely rejecting, is what I care about. Whether you can say "oh, well, technically by this definition that no one that isn't into anthropology careas about ..." or not is boring to me.
And that definition early? That wasn't the common one, and ya'all know it.
The tendency of 'scientists' to be close-minded-self-righteous-know-it-alls about any claims which they doubt the truth of to the point of claiming to know the truth about it without any evidence aside from their own ignorance and their gut feeling does not make that the proper scientific reaction. It is an attitude that has proven many times throughout history to be a detrement to the advancment of science as a whole and is nothing but self masturbation. "I'm not convinced, so its wrong, because I'm a scientist!" is not valid scientific thought despite the tendency of many who proclaim themselves belivers in science to adhear to it.
Got anything relevant to add, or just going for word vomit?
I mean, yeah, people behaving like arrogant idiots is bad.
But that's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. It keeps coming back to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. And that's a reasonable demand.
See? He wants an answer that violates his definition without violating his definition. Don't bother. Any exampe you give that either viloates his definition or fails to do so only reinforces his belife in the correctness of the thought that caused him to propose such an innane challenge.
Quite possibly.
As I said, I don't care about the academic or anthropological definition. If that's what you lot want to talk about, then say so and I'll leave the conversation. But from where I'm sitting "secular Jew" isn't a religion, it's just a way of life.
Otherwise you're cracking the definition way to far open for it to be commonly useful.
I mean, yeah, people behaving like arrogant idiots is bad.
But that's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. It keeps coming back to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. And that's a reasonable demand.
Seems to me to be what you are talking about. Any time I hear of someone going "I don't think you proved that completly, so it tottally dosn't ****ing exist" well, that sounds like someone being an arrogant idiot to me. An unproven idea is an unproven idea. To blithly decide any unproven idea is a disproven idea because you don't like the sound of it is the typical response of many scientists, and what you seem to be claiming should be the default.
See? He wants an answer that violates his definition without violating his definition. Don't bother. Any exampe you give that either viloates his definition or fails to do so only reinforces his belife in the correctness of the thought that caused him to propose such an innane challenge.
Quite possibly.
As I said, I don't care about the academic or anthropological definition. If that's what you lot want to talk about, then say so and I'll leave the conversation. But from where I'm sitting "secular Jew" isn't a religion, it's just a way of life.
Otherwise you're cracking the definition way to far open for it to be commonly useful.
Oh tottally. You said "go show me an apple that is not an apple and I'll show you something other than an apple". Completly pointless.
Seems to me to be what you are talking about.
Well, that's your misconception then. I've explained this too many ways so far, so if you're not on the same page as me by now I'm clearly not up to the task of explaining it in such a way that you will be.
Seems to me to be what you are talking about.
Well, that's your misconception then. I've explained this too many ways so far, so if you're not on the same page as me by now I'm clearly not up to the task of explaining it in such a way that you will be.
Oh sure, a second ago I "knew it" and now it's impossible for you to make me know it.
Point being, if your asked to give a scientific answer about the existance of god, and come back with any answer other than "I do not know how to test this hypothesis" your probably just failed at science. (I say probably because, hypothetically you could have found a way to connect one dimension to another and stumbled upon the home of god in the flesh. I wouldn't belive you though.)
The conversation has become so broad I don't know what you two are arguing about exactly, and I would really like to know because I thought it was rather interesting.
Oh sure, a second ago I "knew it" and now it's impossible for you to make me know it.
... Unless you're talking about what I don't think you're talking about, I was talking about something else, not this topic, when I said that.
Point being, if your asked to give a scientific answer about the existance of god, and come back with any answer other than "I do not know how to test this hypothesis" your probably just failed at science.
Nope. You can say that there's no scientific basis for belief in the divine.
Well, this conversation started as a question about ethics regarding lying and such. I lost interest around page 3 and came back around page 20 and now the convo is up to definitions and religion? (not being snarky just confused on where the subject is going)
Yeah, the OTT is like that sometimes. I'm just happy I got as many on-topic responses as I did.
Well, its kind of all there in text.....
Oh there... damn, I get freer with the reckless language the later it gets. Well, clearly I was wrong when I said you "[knew] it". I suppose even over-educated ivory tower elitist pricks can make mistakes.
So I guess point to you on correctly calling me out for that contraditiction?
Well technically it is, i see that you've been going on for 22 or more pages. But the topic is lost now and I have trouble seeing what the argument is, that's all.
To make a long story short, a discussion about ethics got side-tracked about morality, which got into religion because of claims about ultimate moral authorities, which got split into several ongoing discussions, one of which got completetly side-tracked by a single statement about the "scientific view" of the divine (he says it's agnostic, I say it's atheist), while another conversation was going on about absolute morality. And I think somewhere in there was a discussion of psuedo-science claims, and a duck. Oh, and a random discussion about what a religion is popped up.
So it's been a fun day.
Here is my explaination:
Ethics must first be explained from my standpoint to understand where I'm going.
Ethics are based off of beliefs (not religion, you can believe in a religion, and religions are based off beliefs). In my understandings and experiences as a college graduate there is no complete authority in the world who can determine one's ethical policy other than YOU. This is because your beliefs are internal and cannot be external without cooperation from others (you can't force a belief on someone because it is in the mind not material).
Therefor there is no Authority to determine what is truly ethical.
Not even the government can determine what is 100% ethical( and i say 100% because it is a scale, not a box, and not black and white). You can say the government will punish you if you don't believe in their ethics... wrong... the government can only punish you for not FOLLOWING their ethical understandings. Following an ethical code is different from what is definite because there is no definite universal ethical meaning, it's all in your head.
So, if this argument is about the ethical understanding of lying according to the policies and procedures of the United States Government, United Kingdom's government, or Somalia's government: you NEED the definitions required by those states to determine what is ethical.
Now what about God? The mysterious miracle maker from the sky/cosmos/whoknowsville has no authority over your ethics as well, it even says in the bible (if that's what you follow) and i believe in the Qur'an as well. It clearly states in there in the beginning man was made with Free-will. Many movies have been made about this idea as well (Bruce Allmighty, Oh God!, anything with Morgan Freeman) so you can see that it is a popular idea that is well known. So according to even God, you have your own ethics that you believe in no matter what anybody says because you have free-will.
So, is lying ethical? Yes and no. No if lying under oath, No if lying according to the 10 commandments (thou shalt not lie), and No if your wife says so and you believe her. However, it is also Yes because you cannot tell someone they are WRONG for lying... You can say it, but you dont have the authority to back it up, sure stab them in the face with something really sharp and/or hot, and they will FOLLOW your ethical code, but you will never (in the mind) change somebodies ethics.
Um, the Large Hadron Collider is kinda built explictely to test that.
Without the snark - the LHC is built in the hope of discovering it. If it should not, it will not be proof of non-existence. It's an attempt to prove existence.
As you noted, I won't accept most of the Catholic church's proof of "miracles", as they're willing to accept placebo effects and things that can easily be explained as coincidences.
coincidence? an occurance for which you can find no obvious cause? Therein lies the problem. As stated a couple of times - it boils down to what a person will or will not accept. Anything that the Catholic church would define as a miracle, those that refuse to allow for the existence of .... will chalk up to coincidence. It works both ways.
on supernatural v divine. EVERYTHING is supernatural prior to us having an acceptable explanation for it.
No, it's just unexplained.
No - throughout history, the term used has been "supernatural". Diseases were attributed to demons, weather "explained" as acts of a tempestuous god, etc. It may not BE supernatural (as God is not supernatural), but that is the term people use for it.
edited to add (rather than a new post) - regarding "religion" and the definition:
a) I already gave examples meeting the criteria
b) as for common usage - it is a very COMMON phrase to say that "X" is a person's religion.
(X varies - around the financial district it is usually money or capitalism)
So - yes - the COMMON definition does not have to deal with any supernatural agent.
The better course, in my mind, is to treat people as you think they want to be treated, and encourage them to do the same, in the absence of any mitigating factors. It is an apporach that repects the personal identity of all involved.
And this is my approach. The idea is understanding our common humanity, and the instrinsic value of human life. Basically being empathetic. I base it not on traditional text (though it is a common dugget of wisdom), but on the mystic experience that I think many in the past have shared. I just used the old saying because it is good short hand. But you don't want to literalize it. And I don't think that was the intent of the saying. I think the saying assumes you know people have different ideas about how they want to be treated. Obviously, people have different wants, needs and preferences.
So if you want to talk strictly from within the confines of anthropology, then I don't care what you define religion as, because I'm not interested in a boring semantic argument using definitions that not only don't interest me but don't have relevance to what I'm saying. What most people think of as a religion, and what most atheists see themselves as explictiely rejecting, is what I care about. Whether you can say "oh, well, technically by this definition that no one that isn't into anthropology careas about ..." or not is boring to me.
And that definition early? That wasn't the common one, and ya'all know it.
Actually I would argue it is. Perhaps if you are just looking at things through an American, or JUdeo-Christian lens, it wouldn't be, because the assumption of God is so strong. But if you are discussing global religion, you are forced to re-evaluate what the term religion means. And there are religions without God, and there are sects that don't believe in the supernatural. You can insist on calling them philsoophies if you want, but they have too many of the hallmarks of religion to be regarded as such.
Ignoring that I don't accept miracles as plausible explanations (and frankly, you will never see "and then there was a miracle" in a hard science proof), you're still saying that we would somehow have encountered something that we can't detect. Ignoring that even if we had, we wouldn't have known. And that there are things on Earth that we haven't encountered. And that "it hasn't happened yet" (an inverse inductive proof?) isn't terribly sound as far as proofs go.
Well, since we are just talking about the act of creation, I don't think miracle is the right word there. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But we don't know what laws govern the creation of time and space. And we don't really have an adequate explanation for how it happened.
I didn't realize the unicorn was also supposed to be invisible, undetectable. In that case, it's existence would be unprovable.
Bull. Jews who since WWII reject God violates the "older then a century", "secular Christians" aren't generally accepted as a separate religion, and Buddhism as a philosophy isn't a religion.
No, they would be regarded as movements within the religion.
But secular Buddhism it is a way of life that includes rituals, beliefs concerning the meaning of life, and a moral code. Even if you take out the supernatural, Buddhism still makes sense.
Like I said, your criteria don't make sense. The 100 year marker is pointless. Besides Jewish Atheists have been around since before WWII.
And frankly, I'll review the definition when I care. Yes, I can easily imagine some academic somewhere rewriting definitions to suit their needs. Academics do that all the time. That doesn't change the common meaning of the word, it adds specific contextual meanings to the word.
Both the academic and the common definition matter. The academic definition matters because it is a product of looking at religions globally, and once you looks outside the west, you start seeing religions that don't require a god, and even the supernatural. Most have supernatural elements. But they don't all have it. And as someone already pointed out, the Cult of Reason is an example. So is Communism in many respects. And even in common uses religion often just refers to a deeply centered way of life.
So if you want to talk strictly from within the confines of anthropology, then I don't care what you define religion as, because I'm not interested in a boring semantic argument using definitions that not only don't interest me but don't have relevance to what I'm saying. What most people think of as a religion, and what most atheists see themselves as explictiely rejecting, is what I care about. Whether you can say "oh, well, technically by this definition that no one that isn't into anthropology careas about ..." or not is boring to me.
I think most people have a broad view of religion. And I think that the dictionary def offered (which isn't the academic definition by the way) is the common one. People live in a global age, and understand religion isn't always about worshiping a god or spirits. Atheism doesn't reject religion, it rejects God, or belief in any deity. I am sure most Atheists also reject religion. But the two things are not mutually exlusive. Once could be an atheist and a practicing Buddhist for example. I know atheists who practice Zen buddhism.
And that definition early? That wasn't the common one, and ya'all know it.
I disagree.
You mean like attacking me for my religious beliefs... like you did earlier in this thread when Seventh Solitude called you out on it?
Because you know I am not a reporting kinda guy, and you would get away with it?
Well, I didn't "attack (you) for (your) religious beliefs" and I am not trying to "get away with" anything, so the answer to your question is 'no'.
It keeps coming back to extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. And that's a reasonable demand.
It is a reasonable demand, yes. And it's one I'll now make of you. You see, saying (and this is what I and others have been saying) 'we don't know if God exists or not' is hardly extraordinary. However, saying (and this is what you have been saying) 'it is a fact that God does not exist' is an extraordinary claim - especially considering the statement it was used to rebut. So, according to the quoted statement, I'm gonna have to ask you to prove to me that God does not exist. Keep in mind I'm only using your own requirements to test the veracity of your claim.
Anything that the Catholic church would define as a miracle, those that refuse to allow for the existence of .... will chalk up to coincidence. It works both ways.
Actually, I'm more likely to chalk it up to perception bias, them not being thorough, and them stopping short of finding the real cause because they're happier with "and then there was a miracle".
To put it another way, the Catholic church is an organizaiton that's been caught [MESSAGE REDACTED], [MESSAGE REDACTED], [MESSAGE REDACTED], [MESSAGE REDACTED], [MESSAGE REDACTED], [MESSAGE REDACTED], continues to deny that [MESSAGE REDACTED], and so-on. Since it's creation. So forgive me if I rank their credibility as an honest, reliable and thorough source to be somewhat lacking.
No - throughout history, the term used has been "supernatural". Diseases were attributed to demons, weather "explained" as acts of a tempestuous god, etc. It may not BE supernatural (as God is not supernatural), but that is the term people use for it.
Right...
I'd like to point out that there's a fundamental difference between believing in "demons" causing things, and believing something is the result of natural law and you're just lacking in the explanation.
But hey, if you want to call the later "supernatural", then you can count me out of this conversation, as my patience for playing with definitions is pretty nil.
So, according to the quoted statement, I'm gonna have to ask you to prove to me that God does not exist.
Nope. Because skepticism is the default stance, and lack of the supernatural is the default stance.
Nope. Because skepticism is the default stance, and lack of the supernatural is the default stance.
I'm afraid that isn't at issue here. What is at issue is that I and others put forth 'we do not know whether God exists or not' - a claim that is not extraordinary in the least - and you rebutted with 'it is a fact that God does not extist' - a claim that, in comparison, is extraordinary. So, in light of the 'extraordinary claims' stuff, I await your proof. If you cannot furnish it, I'll see that as a concession that your statement is not true and that we do not know for a fact that God does not exist. Not that you'll care, of course. ;)
Well, since we are just talking about the act of creation, I don't think miracle is the right word there.
No, you keep trying to, I keep ignoring it. Why? Because I don't know how the universe got started, and am comfortable admitting that.
I didn't realize the unicorn was also supposed to be invisible, undetectable. In that case, it's existence would be unprovable.
Right... so you just missed the many, many times I referred to it as such...
Both the academic and the common definition matter.
Of course they both matter, but that doesn't mean they both matter to me, right now. I'm not intereted in the academic defintion, and I disagree that you the common one is that broad.
Like I agreed with TA, it's quite possible that by the definition I'm using, you just can't win.
To put it simply: going through the motions of a religion without believing is not practicing a religion, it's practicing a way of life. That may meet your definition of a religion, but it doesn't meet mine.
And as someone already pointed out, the Cult of Reason is an example. So is Communism in many respects.
And I wouldn't agree those are religions, and unless you prepped most people, I don't think they'd agree either. Yes, they meet your academic definition, but as I've said, I don't care about that definition. And if you want to say that they are religions by that definition then go for it, I won't disagree. What I will disagree with is that they're religions by the commonly accepted understanding of what a religion is.
And even in common uses religion often just refers to a deeply centered way of life.
Um... no. The crazy old cat lady does not get her own religion. Cults don't get their own religion. The GOP or DNC don't get their own religion. That's setting the bar way too low.
I think most people have a broad view of religion.
And I disagree.
Once could be an atheist and a practicing Buddhist for example. I know atheists who practice Zen buddhism.
And zen Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy/way of life.
Like I said, there's a difference between having a philosophy and way of life and having a religion. If you want to define them as one and the same then go for it, but then we're really not talking about the same thing.
I disagree.
As the saying goes, whatever lifts your luggage. However, I am under no obligation to concede a thing here.
edited to add: and based on your last post, it seems you have your own definition of religion, which is neither the academic, NOR the common. (I gave you both)
I'm afraid that isn't at issue here. What is at issue is that I and others put forth 'we do not know whether God exists or not' - a claim that is not extraordinary in the least - and you rebutted with 'it is a fact that God does not extist' - a claim that, in comparison, is extraordinary.
I never did any such thing. What I have said, time and again, is that the default assumptions are that the world is governed by natural laws and that claims of the supernatural are suspect until proven otherwise. And that, from that baseline and default claim, all claims of the supernatural are treated as false until proven otherwise by nature of them being extraordinary claims.
If you gave me any reason to accept that claims of the supernatural should be treated as "well, it could happen..." as a default stance, I'd agree that the so-called "scientific view" on God should be agnosticism. But so long as the default stance of supernatural events is one of skepticism, then I it's only honest to say that the "scientific view" is one of atheism.
To do otherwise would be hypocritical and dishonest.
I mean really, you're arguing that we should treat that Yogi that's saying he hasn't eaten in 70 years as likely to be true as not. That's the bar you're setting. If we should be skeptical of him but not of the divine, then you're givine the divine a free pass.
So, in light of the 'extraordinary claims' stuff, I await your proof. If you cannot furnish it, I'll see that as a concession that your statement is not true and that we do not know for a fact that God does not exist. Not that you'll care, of course. ;)
Feel free to do so, but you'll be continuing to miss two important details.
First, is that as I've said before, "science" does not deal in absolute facts, it works in workable realities. So while I continue to argue that atheism is closest to the "scientific view" of things, that's completetly willing to change should any evidence to the contrary arrive.
Second is that there is an appreciable difference between saying "there is no reason to believe god exists and we can continue to act as though he doesn't just fine" (which is what I've said, and said is closer to an atheistic view then an agnostic one) and "we know for a fact that God does not exist" (which I haven't said once).
@EE: you misread me, apparently - I claimed NOTHING to be supernatural.
A good claim.
You insist that god is supernatural [...]
Since I haven't been presented yet with a concept of a God that isn't supernatural, I see no reason to change my opinion on this.
edited to add: and based on your last post, it seems you have your own definition of religion, which is neither the academic, NOR the common. (I gave you both)
As I said to TA, quite possible. Though I have no reason to believe my definition is not the common, other then the insistence of people who are trying to equate ways of life with religions.
Since I haven't been presented yet with a concept of a God that isn't supernatural, I see no reason to change my opinion on this.
Really? I can think of very few religions where god is NOT considered natural. Care to elaborate?
As I said to TA, quite possible. Though I have no reason to believe my definition is not the common, other then the insistence of people who are trying to equate ways of life with religions.
And there's the rub... When the common definition sets it as a way of life (in-line, though not exactly equivalent to the academic definition) you disregard the common. In other words, the academic is too broad for you, and the common is too academic.
Again, it's all about what one will or will not accept. It seems that you have been biased to reject all claims, which is fine.
No, you keep trying to, I keep ignoring it. Why? Because I don't know how the universe got started, and am comfortable admitting that.
Neither do I. Which is the point. No one knows how. No one has a clue. It is an utter mystery. I admit I have no certainty on how the universe begin. But I think God is a likely explanation (though far from a certain one).
Right... so you just missed the many, many times I referred to it as such...
Yes.
Of course they both matter, but that doesn't mean they both matter to me, right now. I'm not intereted in the academic defintion, and I disagree that you the common one is that broad.
Well, I am interested in the subject in general, not what interests you at any given moment. And I simply disagree with you one th common understanding of the word.
Like I agreed with TA, it's quite possible that by the definition I'm using, you just can't win.
But I showed you religions that met both of your qualifiers and don't believe in god or the supernatural. You simply rejected them because you arbitrarily decided they don't qualify.
To put it simply: going through the motions of a religion without believing is not practicing a religion, it's practicing a way of life. That may meet your definition of a religion, but it doesn't meet mine.
Well, the world doesn't use your definition of religion. And even secular buddhists believe in the Buddha's teachings, they just reject the supernatural assumptions of the text.
And I wouldn't agree those are religions, and unless you prepped most people, I don't think they'd agree either. Yes, they meet your academic definition, but as I've said, I don't care about that definition. And if you want to say that they are religions by that definition then go for it, I won't disagree. What I will disagree with is that they're religions by the commonly accepted understanding of what a religion is.
I completely disagree with your common definiton of religion. I suppose it depends on who you ask. But in my experience most people understand religion is an enormously broad term. At the very least the dictionary definition should be adequate, because they is supposed to reflect standard use.
Um... no. The crazy old cat lady does not get her own religion. Cults don't get their own religion. The GOP or DNC don't get their own religion. That's setting the bar way too low.
I never said those qualify. Those aren't deeply centered ways of life. But meditating on a daily basis to elinate ego, or suffering, reading sacred text, and believing in its value is an example of a deeply centered way of life.
And zen Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy/way of life.
No. You are just declaring that so. Most people regard it as a religion. Its practitioners regard it as one. And religious scholars regard it as one. You are just all kinds of wrong here.
As the saying goes, whatever lifts your luggage. However, I am under no obligation to concede a thing here.
No it appears you are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, or for the sake of branding all religion stupid. I am not sure which.
No it appears you are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, or for the sake of branding all religion stupid. I am not sure which.
I can't speak for EE, though I would say it is neither. His personal history has shaped his feelings on this particular subject to a strong degree. If you are burned often enough, you will begin to hate fire - regardless of how important it may be. You will stop seeing the usefulness, and see only the burning.
No it appears you are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult, or for the sake of branding all religion stupid. I am not sure which.
I can't speak for EE, though I would say it is neither. His personal history has shaped his feelings on this particular subject to a strong degree. If you are burned often enough, you will begin to hate fire - regardless of how important it may be. You will stop seeing the usefulness, and see only the burning.
I can appreciate his stance on religion in general. I just don't see why he needs to reject the common definition of the word. I don't understand the importance of doing so. I know plenty of people who are deeply, deeply reliigous, but don't believe in God or in the Supernatural. It is like people who go to AA, and accept the higher power concept without believing in God. We aren't imposing an esoteric definition here. We just pulled the first dictionary defintion out, and used that as the common one. The only other option is to poll every living human being (or at least every English speaking human being) on the meaning of the term.
Neither do I. Which is the point. No one knows how. No one has a clue. It is an utter mystery. I admit I have no certainty on how the universe begin. But I think God is a likely explanation (though far from a certain one).
Well that's not entirely true. We have quite a few clues. Dopplar effect, the observable mass of the universe, how spread out everything is... lots of clues, in fact. All of which points us towards some interesting theories. None of which require God.
And then in the other corner, you have "and then a miracle happened".
Well, I am interested in the subject in general, not what interests you at any given moment.
And as I've said, if you want to discuss the subject in general, you probably don't want to discuss it with me. Sort of like if you want to discuss the troubles of a masculine man in the modern world, you probably shouldn't talk to a radical feminist (other kinds of feminists would be fine to talk to, but not so much the radicals).
But I showed you religions that met both of your qualifiers and don't believe in god or the supernatural. You simply rejected them because you arbitrarily decided they don't qualify.
You gave me three examples of lifestyles guided by religious principles. Which, and I'm really not sure how this is still unclear, I don't consider religions.
And frankly, the day I see a LGBT rights case win in court based on the grounds that their "lifestyle" is a religion, I'll concede that's enough.
Well, the world doesn't use your definition of religion. And even secular buddhists believe in the Buddha's teachings, they just reject the supernatural assumptions of the text.
Yes, and that's Buddhism as philosophy, not Buddhism as religion. As I said earlier.
At the very least the dictionary definition should be adequate, because they is supposed to reflect standard use.
Muggle is in the Webster's dictionary now. It's reflection of common usage is suspect.
I never said those qualify. Those aren't deeply centered ways of life. But meditating on a daily basis to elinate ego, or suffering, reading sacred text, and believing in its value is an example of a deeply centered way of life.
So one way of life works, but the other doesn't? Isn't that a bit arbitrary? And it's not like all religions involve those things, so they can't be requirements. Heck, "deeply centered way of life" isn't a requirement! I've had more then enough religious folk accost me who were deeply off-balance.
You are just declaring that so.
And you're just declaring that I'm wrong.
Most people regard it as a religion.
... until they find out they don't actually believe in any of the supernatural parts, in which case they say "so whats with the robes?"
Its practitioners regard it as one.
And just as religious people everywhere feel free to call me sinner, I feel to call them hypocrites in how they label themselves. It's fun how labels are easy to apply! Though really, it's not very fair to bother the Buddhists that way, as they're one of the nicer groups. Still, I don't consider Buddhism as philosophy to be a religion, and if asked would be honest with them. And then, if they're good Buddhists, we'd have a talk about it, probably with each of us walking away agreeing to disagree. Buddhists are kinda cool that way.
And religious scholars regard it as one.
And if I were talking from a scholarly point of view, I'd care what religious scholars had to say on the matter.
[...] or for the sake of branding all religion stupid.
I've never said any such thing. Yes, I've been skeptical of certain groups, and treat a few particulars with righteous (and deserved, I can give citations on this part) scorn, but such a broad and hateful statement? Nope, sorry, never crossed my lips in my adult life2, never typed it, you're reading things into my text that isn't there again.
But hey, if you'd rather think me as a hateful bigot or an annoying ass, rather then as someone who disagrees with you, then so be it. As the saying goes, whatever lifts your luggage1.
________
1Yes, I know I'm overusing this phrase. But how else am I to spread it?
2We... won't talk... about my teen years.
It is like people who go to AA, and accept the higher power concept without believing in God.
Yes, and that's called spirituality, not religion.
It is like people who go to AA, and accept the higher power concept without believing in God.
Yes, and that's called spirituality, not religion.
Spirituality is really just an aspect religion.
Let me put it this way. There are people that claim to be rain-callers, to have working dowsing rods, to be able to predict the future, to read auras, to have telekinesis, to have telepathy, to be able to influence other people, to be "real" hypnotists, and so-on. Every single one of these people has failed to perform in a laboratory setting at above chance. And every single one turned around and given some explanation for why it didn't work, whether it's because the stars weren't right, people just weren't believeing hard enough, they're feeling poorly that day, and so-on.
Emphasis mine.
So ... uhh ... it was tested and the claims failed to pass the test? Well, sounds to me like there's plenty of reason to say it can't be as they claim.
I will admit that it's kinda difficult to test for a God. At least it is at this current moment in time. The point here is that this other stuff has been tested and that is the difference.
And you're giving the divine a free pass on that, no matter how much you want to say you aren't. You are giving that unfalsifiable supernatural claim a "well, maybe it could happen" when every other unfalsifiable supernatural claim gets a "yeah, right".
No, I'm not. In your examples above, you even stated how these other unfalsifiable claims were falsified, didn't you? That's the difference. It's really pretty obvious when you open your eyes to look.
Edit: And I haven't said a damn thing about scientific fact, I've talked repeatedly about how "science" deals with claims of the supernatural. Scientific fact? Not even a small part of my argument.
I know. That's why I said 'for funsies'. The discussion just made me feel like looking it up what with all the 'science' and 'fact' talk being bandied about by all parties involved. Anyhoo, I found it interesting.
The way science works is closer to ToastedAmphibian's suggestion than yours. So by your own statement, you should be agnostic. If there is no information on a subject and no test, then the scientific answer is "I don't know" because, they don't know.
What is the scientific answer for a question like "Is there life on other planets?" I'm pretty sure most scientists will say "I don't know" as opposed to "No" even though there is absolutely no evidence for life on other planets at this point. Also, there is no good way to test for life on other planets, so why would a scientist assume that no life exists?
Also, many concepts exist in science before evidence is found (or ways to gather evidence). Concepts such as the atom or blackholes existed long before the technology was available to provide any sort of evidence.
And for your Invisible Flying Undetectable Unicorn argument: The problem with comparing that to a divine being (I'll just say God from now on) is the amount of detail. God is an abstract concept with very little details. An Invisible Flying Undetectable Unicorn has many details which can be refused. So if you want to make an accurate comparision, you should either compare the AFUU to a very specific idea of God like Zeus OR compare a general idea of God to something like an Invisible Flying creature (which is later provable like bacteria in the air). The more detail you add, the easier it is to disregard.
For another exercise in this, take life outside the Earth.
Does life outside the Earth exist? I can say I do not know (I personally believe it does, but that's not the point).
But when we keep adding more qualifiers, the answer will tend to get closer to no. Does intelligent life exist outside of Earth? Has intelligent life visited from another planet? Do little green men fly in saucers? Do Roswell Martians constantly anal probe humans under the protection of the government?
See? The more silly qualifiers, the more insane the question becomes.
And about the metaphor with the goblins in the machine: If you think anyone is close to understanding how the universe works, you are delusional. Quantum mechanics (our best small theory) conflicts heavily with Special Relativity (our best big theory). Super String Theory requires multi-dimensions for it to work. Dimensions which are undetectable. And that's not even getting into really simple stuff like how atoms behave.
So yeah, if you can understand the machine without goblins, start telling people. Our best science has problems even properly calculate the interactions of a Helium atom (the second simplest element) because having 2 electrons adds too much problem.
(Sorry for jumping around subjects, but there were many pages of backlog.)
Bottom line is - we're still learning. What may dismiss now, may be a trivial fact tomorrow.
But hey, if you'd rather think me as a hateful bigot or an annoying ass...
Hateful bigot?
I don't see it.
Annoying ass?
...
well....
Second is that there is an appreciable difference between saying "there is no reason to believe god exists and we can continue to act as though he doesn't just fine" (which is what I've said, and said is closer to an atheistic view then an agnostic one) and "we know for a fact that God does not exist" (which I haven't said once).
Then apparantly you are using an odd definition for "agnostic"
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
This describes someone who is skeptical about the existance of god, but admits that they cannot prove it with certainty. This sounds like the appropriate scientific response.
one who believes that there is no deity
This sounds like someone beliving something not because it has been proven, but because they want to and noone has been able to prove them wrong. This is not an appropriate scientific response.
Not really. As I said you are dealing with the question of whether a sentient force caused the big bang. That isn't a violation of the laws of nature, and therefore not a miracle. In fact it it could just be an explanation for the laws of nature themselves.
If in every other case of observable phenomenon we have natural laws going about their business without any need for sentient or conscious thought, I think the beginning of the universe requiring such qualifies as a miracle as it goes directly against everything else that we know about the way the world works (which is that it doesn't require that sort of active agent of change).
Not to mention that by every scriptural accounting of the creation of the universe I've read, they all seem to agree that there was some serious supernatural mojo going around.
This conversation isn't being held only on your terms.
... who else you talking with about it? 'cause if it's just me, then yeah, I can dictate terms. So can you! And if we can't agree, then we don't talk! Wonder!
Not at all. Being a cat lady doesn't require strong beliefs about the nature of the universe, its meaning, the way religions do. Being a cat lady just involves liking cats.
See, this is one of my problems with your definition, in that going through the motions and living the life but not actually having the beliefs of a religion qualifies as it's own separate religion, but going through the motions and living the life and having the beliefs of a crazy old cat lady just makes you a crazy old cat lady.
It is unfortunate that many religious people have hurt you, that doesn't really have any bearing on this conversation though.
First, I'd thank you kindly to not speculate unnecessarily about my life, of which you have shockingly little detail. Oh, wait, you haven't done that. Please get started on it.
Second, "religious people [having] hurt [me]" is irrelevant, as I'm just generally snarky and get more snarky when I grow impatient with a conversation that is clearly going no where. That you would rather see the snarlings of a wounded tiger in lieu of mundane snark and impatience is vaguely amusing, but frankly you seeing insult and injury behind every third line is getting tiresome.
As I said we are addressing it from multiple angles.
No, we are not. You are trying to, I am stubbornly refusing to, and as far as I know there isn't a third person engaged in that part of the conversation. Heck, I'm not engaged in that part of the conversation, I just keep responding to you saying "I'm not interested in playing with that ball, if you want to play a game with me you'll need to choose a different one". How is this unclear?
I am reading between the lines here.
You might want to stop that, as you keep drawing bad conclusions after doing so.
I do think you are prejudiced against religion.
Alas, but everyone is free to their wrong opinions.
But hey, if you want to be offended by the things I haven't said and the things you think I think, then so be it.
__________
No, I'm not. In your examples above, you even stated how these other unfalsifiable claims were falsified, didn't you? That's the difference. It's really pretty obvious when you open your eyes to look.
Yes, it's pretty obvious that when you ignore the part where I explain that unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable, you can say that some claims that are unfalsifiable were falsified even though they, in fact, weren't. Very obvious.
But hey, I've tried too many times now and my patience is disastrously thin. So whatever lifts your luggage.
__________
So by your own statement, you should be agnostic.
... just where, precisely, in THIS thread, have I said a damned thing about my own personal views? Please. Tell me. Point it out. Precisely. With links, a quote, and when you can't supply as such, an apology.
Seriously, what is with you people and making claims about my person?
What is the scientific answer for a question like "Is there life on other planets?"
"I have a wonderful book on that topic".
Seriously though, that isn't a claim to the supernatural. "There is an invisible force that affects all our lives while working outside of all natural laws" is.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp? You make a claim to the supernatural? That claim gets put to the same standard as every other claim to the supernatural.
The stubborn refusal to do so is astounding.
As for the other stuff, that's irrelevant. You got into real problems and real issues, none of which required supernatural explanations. When you stop giving supernatural explanations, I stop putting your explanations to the same degree of scrutiny that I give to other supernatural explanations.
________
Bottom line is - we're still learning. What may dismiss now, may be a trivial fact tomorrow.
Which is no reason to treat supernatural claims as anything but before then. If I have someone walk into my office and claim to be a mindreader, I have no reason to say "oh, sure, that's reasonable" without some very interesting evidence.
________
Then apparantly you are using an odd definition for "agnostic"
No, I'm being consistent in how I equate scientific views to religoius views.
We treat other supernatural unfalsifiable claims as false until proven otherwise (an atheistic view), and I'm saying there's no reaosn to treat divine supernatural unfalsifiable claims differently. Just because we are, in fact, willing to change our view if provided more evidence does mean we start off by giving the idea any more credence then it's demonstrated.
To put it yet another way, when the default assumption for supernatural claims is that they're false until proven otherwise, that is an atheistic view. If the default assumption was "eh, sounds like it could be, ya never know", then that would be agnostic. And when that default assumption changes, then I'll agree that the "scientific view" would be agnostic.
As I've told you before, in this very thread.
________
Seriously folks, is the idea of putting supernatural claims of the divine to the same standard as every other supernatural claim that abhorrent? And here I thought consistency and fair treatment was a virtue.
If in every other case of observable phenomenon we have natural laws going about their business without any need for sentient or conscious thought, I think the beginning of the universe requiring such qualifies as a miracle as it goes directly against everything else that we know about the way the world works (which is that it doesn't require that sort of active agent of change).
Again, look up miracle. If the initial cause of it all was God, then it isn't a violation of natural law, becuase God put it into motion and created the rules.
Not to mention that by every scriptural accounting of the creation of the universe I've read, they all seem to agree that there was some serious supernatural mojo going around.
I am not talking about scriptural accounts of creation.
See, this is one of my problems with your definition, in that going through the motions and living the life but not actually having the beliefs of a religion qualifies as it's own separate religion, but going through the motions and living the life and having the beliefs of a crazy old cat lady just makes you a crazy old cat lady.
Secular Buddhists aren't just going through the motions, and they don't reject the beliefs of the religion. They reject specific components that are largely incidental. The core beliefs of buddhism are the mental practices, the four noble truths, the five ethical precepts, and the eightfold path. No belief in the supernatural is required to follow these. If the cat lady is a cat lady because of some profound belief about the purpose of life, then I suppose you could start talking about that as a religion. But if she just likes cat, it is a different kettle of fish than someone who practices Buddhism while rejecting the supernatural claims.
First, I'd thank you kindly to not speculate unnecessarily about my life, of which you have shockingly little detail. Oh, wait, you haven't done that. Please get started on it.
You don't need to be so rude all the time. You said that religious people called you a sinner in your post. That is what I was refrering to. I wasn't assuming anything about your personally history.
Second, "religious people [having] hurt [me]" is irrelevant, as I'm just generally snarky and get more snarky when I grow impatient with a conversation that is clearly going no where. That you would rather see the snarlings of a wounded tiger in lieu of mundane snark and impatience is vaguely amusing, but frankly you seeing insult and injury behind every third line is getting tiresome.
Well maybe that is because you are placing insults behind every third line. I will assume good will if you ask for it. But I am having trouble communicating without feeling like you are taking needless swipes at me.
No, we are not. You are trying to, I am stubbornly refusing to, and as far as I know there isn't a third person engaged in that part of the conversation. Heck, I'm not engaged in that part of the conversation, I just keep responding to you saying "I'm not interested in playing with that ball, if you want to play a game with me you'll need to choose a different one". How is this unclear?
If I remember correctly, there are at least two others involved in this aspect of the conversation. And the problem is you asking me to have a discussion with you, using a definition of religion that I don't think is correct, and I don't believe is productive.
As stated - the question is one of acceptance. The bold above can be rephrase as "without confirmation from a third party, in whom's proclamatians I accept, assuming as written I will not readily accept the claims of that person"
@7th: and in your last line you mention the key to it all, unproductive. EE is set in his beliefs. Like any other adherant, there will be no shaking him. You speak from the side of those he will not accept. (as do I, though less so than many would think)
@7th: and in your last line you mention the key to it all, unproductive. EE is set in his beliefs. Like any other adherant, there will be no shaking him. You speak from the side of those he will not accept. (as do I, though less so than many would think)
But I am not even attempting to convert him to a religious point of view. I am just asking him to accept the common definition of the word religion for the purposes of the discussion.
@7th: and in your last line you mention the key to it all, unproductive. EE is set in his beliefs. Like any other adherant, there will be no shaking him. You speak from the side of those he will not accept. (as do I, though less so than many would think)
But I am not even attempting to convert him to a religious point of view. I am just asking him to accept the common definition of the word religion for the purposes of the discussion.
I have never seen EE admit defeat or that he was wrong. He is very set in his ways and stands like a rock.
Not unlike me actually
And although he is full of snark, and quick on the draw, he generally means no harm.
Or, hell, any kind of standard definition of scientific investigation. Last I check no model I know of included making diffrent assumptions about an untested hypothesis based upon the source of the hypothesis.
He defines words in whatever form suits his needs, then acts like everyone else is being unreasonable. Not exactly uncommon.
Ex: Skeptacisim means adamantly beliving something is not possible
Adamantly beliving something is not possible is not an assertion of a fact
ect
... just where, precisely, in THIS thread, have I said a damned thing about my own personal views? Please. Tell me. Point it out. Precisely. With links, a quote, and when you can't supply as such, an apology.
You stated:
Eh, well, if/when that becomes standard for all unprovable and unverifiable claims, I'll accept that agnosticism is the "scientific view" of the divine. Until it does, then I'll stick to my path.
So if you understood how science is conducted, you'd understand that "I don't know and I can't test it" does not default to "No". And the second sentence talks about your personal views in relationship to the subject. If you can show A, then I'll change my path.
Seriously though, that isn't a claim to the supernatural. "There is an invisible force that affects all our lives while working outside of all natural laws" is.
So is Super String supernatural or natural? Its an invisible force that affects all our lives which works outside of all natural laws. It makes claims on other dimensions which are unpercievable. I'm not an expert, but it pretty much is these calculations don't work unless there are these invisible, undetectable dimensions which we have no evidence to think exist.
If you think about it for a minute, you can describe Super String Theory as wacky and supernatural as anything. Really, supernatural is just a point of view.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp? You make a claim to the supernatural? That claim gets put to the same standard as every other claim to the supernatural.
The stubborn refusal to do so is astounding.
As for the other stuff, that's irrelevant. You got into real problems and real issues, none of which required supernatural explanations. When you stop giving supernatural explanations, I stop putting your explanations to the same degree of scrutiny that I give to other supernatural explanations.
________
The thing that you aren't understanding is that supernatural is just a point of view. The Force (Star Wars version) is supernatural. But if I describe scientific theory which mirrors it, it somehow becomes non-supernatural.
The problem is that you are comparing something which is testable (some guy who says he doesn't eat) to something which we don't understand (how the universe works). And then you are saying since they both are supernatural (a term which you define only for your own use), they are comparable while in reality they are not. You are comparing "This tree fell" to some sort of theory on "Why gravity works" and you are saying they are the same. All your rejectable examples are very specific disprovable observations while the God statement is an overarching theory on the working of the universe. They are not even in the same category of knowledge.
And even if you dismiss all of this (which you probably will), just please stop using the name of science in your arguments. Coming from a scientist, you really are butchering its application. Most people just use its name and have no idea how it actually is applied.
Yes, it's pretty obvious that when you ignore the part where I explain that unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable, you can say that some claims that are unfalsifiable were falsified even though they, in fact, weren't. Very obvious.
But hey, I've tried too many times now and my patience is disastrously thin. So whatever lifts your luggage.
Umm. You also said 'here are examples of unfalsifiable claims that were falsified and then the people, once their claims were falsified, made excuses'. That's not an unfalsifiable claim remaining unfalsifiable. It was refuted - with evidence. That someone makes an excuse afterwards is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Important word, there. Facts. That's what we have in these cases, isn't it? Factually speaking, these people failed to perform. They made a claim, it was tested and found to be untrue. That's not unfalsifiable - no matter how many excuses those involved come up with. It's a wholly different situation than the God question. Once we can say with certainty that God had nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, for example, then we'll have a fact that we can use. Until we're capable of proving that, we'll have questions.
It's not a different standard - no matter how many times you say it is. For some things, we have evidence. For others, we do not. For those that we have evidence, we can speak with relative certainty in regard to those things and that evidence. For those that we do not, we cannot. Period. God, ESP, whatever. Quite simply, if you do not know, you do not know.
But whatever, you know? I mean, we're just repeating ourselves here. I think I've been clear and I think you have as well. We're just seeing things differently and neither one of us is going to budge. That's a fact. So I'm down with stopping this train. I suppose that would lift my luggage just fine.
I have never seen EE admit defeat or that he was wrong.
Lies.
Delving into politics for a second, I've admitted I was unduly optimistic about Obama and my hopes for putting on a uniform this time next year. I may yet be proven wrong again, but I refuse to be optimistic about that.
Moving to pointless stuff, I said to TA in this very thread that he was probably right about me creating an unworkable problem (asking for an example of a supernatural-free religion when I'm likely to reject any religion that lacks supernatural components as a religion).
The thing is, even when I admit I'm wrong, I do it with flair and arrogance that all-but says "I may have been wrong, but I was right to be wrong". I mean really, if I'm going to play the part of the flamboyantly snarky villain in someone else's story, it's only polite to play the part to the hilt, no?
So if you understood how science is conducted, you'd understand that "I don't know and I can't test it" does not default to "No".
For most reasonable claims? Sure. For supernatural claims? Nope.
And the second sentence talks about your personal views in relationship to the subject.
Ha! Nope. Read it again. I was talking about, and I have been talking about, what I think the "scientific view", which I never said was my view, is. In fact, I made it quite clear that I thought it perfectly acceptable to say "yes, the 'scientific view' is X, but my view is Y". I'm pretty sure I even went so far as to say that anyone that bases their personal view exclusively on the "scientific view" was a moron when it comes to this particular topic.
So I'm still waiting for you to show where I said a thing about my personal views.
Regarding super string theory... frankly, it's above my head. And I'm happy accepting "I don't know" for that, as there's actual science behind it, and not just a feeling people have.
Something that dramatically separates it from any and all claims of the supernatural, none of which have support other then "well, I like to think so".
Secular Buddhists aren't just going through the motions, and they don't reject the beliefs of the religion.
Nope, just the ones that make it a religion, and not just a philosophy and way of life. But as I said, if you want to discuss that tangent with me, you'll have to play by my rules as I have no interest in discussing it otherwise.
You don't need to be so rude all the time.
And you don't need to be making assumptions about my life or be looking for offense so often. And regardless, was I wrong?
You said that religious people called you a sinner in your post. That is what I was refrering to. I wasn't assuming anything about your personally history.
You assumed I cared, didn't you? Or did you mean "religious people have hurt you" in another way?
Well maybe that is because you are placing insults behind every third line. I will assume good will if you ask for it. But I am having trouble communicating without feeling like you are taking needless swipes at me.
The real tragedy here is that in order for me to demonstrate what an insult looks like, and how grossly you've misjudged things when you say I'm taking swips at you, I'd have to violate the CoC nine ways to Sunday.
If I remember correctly, there are at least two others involved in this aspect of the conversation.
And yet I see no discussion between you and them, even when I'm gone from this thread for a while. I find that... curious.
And the problem is you asking me to have a discussion with you, using a definition of religion that I don't think is correct, and I don't believe is productive.
Perhaps now you see my dilemma. As I said, if we can't agree on the terms, then we can't discuss.
I'm pretty sure I even went so far as to say that anyone that bases their personal view exclusively on the "scientific view" was a moron when it comes to this particular topic.
Interesting bit right there. That, in and of itself, is a timeless argument. The god of the philosophers or the god of the mystic. Of course, the other side to that argument is that the ineffable can only truly be "experienced" through revelation. The impersonal god of the hellenistic age (cf. Aristotle) and the more dogmatic religions (Literalists of all stripes - Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Sunnah, etc), or the more personal god of the "mystery" religions, the god of the prophets, of intuition? (Sufism, Kaballah, Zen Buddhism, etc)
Nope, just the ones that make it a religion, and not just a philosophy and way of life. But as I said, if you want to discuss that tangent with me, you'll have to play by my rules as I have no interest in discussing it otherwise.
A way of life can truly be a religion. You seem to misunderstand what makes Buddhism, Buddhism. The supernatural stuff in the religion isn't the core. The core is the problem of suffering. You can use all the wrong definitions of religion you want. You can demand the world operate on your terms. But none of that makes it so. And being rude and snarky doesn't improve your argument either. In fact, it just makes people not want to have discussion with you.
But to recap: I disagree on the distinction between a way of life and a religion. If you are unwilling to or unable to accommodate my definition, at least for the purposes of this conversation, then you are unwilling to or unable to have this conversation with me.
It is as simple as that.
For most reasonable claims? Sure. For supernatural claims? Nope.
Reasonable and supernatural are a matter of perspective. As science and technology advance, more things are moved from the "science fiction" and "fantasy" genre to that of "science". Stuff like invisibility cloaks, immortal jellyfish, faster than light speed, hidden multidimensions moved from supernatural to reasonable. (And that's all without me actually knowing much about advance science.)
Here's another way to look at it. Take any of our modern technology back in history. Almost all of it would be considered supernatural.
Ha! Nope. Read it again. I was talking about, and I have been talking about, what I think the "scientific view", which I never said was my view, is.
If that's the case, then you are simply wrong and misunderstand science.
Regarding super string theory... frankly, it's above my head. And I'm happy accepting "I don't know" for that, as there's actual science behind it, and not just a feeling people have.
Something that dramatically separates it from any and all claims of the supernatural, none of which have support other then "well, I like to think so".
Plenty of "one theories of the universe" were pursued because people wanted to believe the universe was simplier and more elegant. I believe someone comes out and says that in "The Elegant Universe".
I heard something very similar with the idea of subatomic particles. Some scientists thought that there were too many fundamental particles, so they pushed further.
So the "well, I like to think so" is more prevalent than you think.
Here's another way to look at it. Take any of our modern technology back in history. Almost all of it would be considered supernatural.
And it would be quite reasonable in that context for the locals to say "oh yeah? Prove it".
If that's the case, then you are simply wrong and misunderstand science.
So are you disagreeing that the "scientific view" of every other supernatural claim is "we'll assume it's false until we're given a real reason to doubt", or are you disagreeing that view is closer to an atheistic view then to an agnostic one?
So the "well, I like to think so" is more prevalent than you think.
Is there anyone here that isn't going to make assumptions about what I think, believe, my past, or how I feel?
Moving on from that, I never said that people didn't pursue thoughts or ideas because they thought it sounded right to them1, what I said was that for an idea to be accepted as serious science, it needs more then that. A nice thought is just a nice thought until you can show it has some real meat to it.
________
1Hiya Tesla!
And it would be quite reasonable in that context for the locals to say "oh yeah? Prove it".
And after you explain the technology to them, they may still think its supernatural. Try to explain NMR or MRI to someone who has no idea what atoms, electrons, magnetism, spin state, Fourier transformations, etc (heck, I forgot lots of it), and you get something like:
There are these invisible particles that make up everything. They behave in different ways. We can use an invisible force to align them all. Then we can send shots of energy and sense how the invisible particles change their behavior. And by using this, we can see through objects and detect what makes you ill.
(I used to actually know quite well how NMR works, but I forgot most of it. I think that's kind of close, but in all actuality, it doesn't matter.)
So are you disagreeing that the "scientific view" of every other supernatural claim is "we'll assume it's false until we're given a real reason to doubt", or are you disagreeing that view is closer to an atheistic view then to an agnostic one?
I disagree with the idea that science assumes non-existance as the default claim.
In my opinion, the scientific answer to "Is there a conciousness which created the universe?", "Is there an omnipotent intelligence governing nature?", or something like that should be either "I don't know", "we do not have any evidence supporting that idea", "that cannot be answered now", "that cannot be proven", etc.
Moving on from that, I never said that people didn't pursue thoughts or ideas because they thought it sounded right to them1, what I said was that for an idea to be accepted as serious science, it needs more then that. A nice thought is just a nice thought until you can show it has some real meat to it.
________
1Hiya Tesla!
I don't think anyone is saying (at least I'm not saying) that religion and spiritual beliefs are serious science. (Wait... some atheists will argue that so I shouldn't say anyone.)
And after you explain the technology to them, they may still think its supernatural.
So? Seriously, I'm not saying that people will never characterize things as supernatural or not. I'm saying that if someone makes what seems to be a supernatural claim, then it's perfectly fair to put the burden of proof on them.
I disagree with the idea that science assumes non-existance as the default claim.
Unless, of course, they happen to be dressed like a gypsy, speaking with an accent, and have a crystal ball in front of them, right?
I don't think anyone is saying (at least I'm not saying) that religion and spiritual beliefs are serious science. (Wait... some atheists will argue that so I shouldn't say anyone.)
Including me, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this; I was just responding to you pointlessly pointing out people pursue ideas for all sorts of reasons.
So? Seriously, I'm not saying that people will never characterize things as supernatural or not. I'm saying that if someone makes what seems to be a supernatural claim, then it's perfectly fair to put the burden of proof on them.
Fairness and the scientific method are separate things.
Unless, of course, they happen to be dressed like a gypsy, speaking with an accent, and have a crystal ball in front of them, right?
Your prejudice is showing. Many drugs were extracted from the practices of different people. Drug companies didn't just walk into villages saying "show me some evidence or we're leaving". They did not assume that healing properties did not exist. They took the "we don't have data" approach instead of the auto-no one.
Many drugs were extracted from the practices of different people. Drug companies didn't just walk into villages saying "show me some evidence or we're leaving". They did not assume that healing properties did not exist. They took the "we don't have data" approach instead of the auto-no one.
And those drugs and healing properties work through chemistry, not some magical spiritual rubbish.
Just because the explanation behind something is unknown does not make all possible explanations equally valid. Even before humans determined what caused thunder "Thor's anger", "clouds colliding" and "angels bowling" were not all equally as plausible explanations as the real one.
Willow bark relieve pain cos it contains erdana">salicin, not cos your neighbourhood shaman appealed to the generous nature of the Great Willow Mother.
Many drugs were extracted from the practices of different people. Drug companies didn't just walk into villages saying "show me some evidence or we're leaving". They did not assume that healing properties did not exist. They took the "we don't have data" approach instead of the auto-no one.
And those drugs and healing properties work through chemistry, not some magical spiritual rubbish.
Just because the explanation behind something is unknown does not make all possible explanations equally valid. Even before humans determined what caused thunder "Thor's anger", "clouds colliding" and "angels bowling" were not all equally as plausible explanations as the real one.
Willow bark relieve pain cos it contains erdana">salicin, not cos your neighbourhood shaman appealed to the generous nature of the Great Willow Mother.
Yes we are just boiling this down to two simplest arguments about the cause of the universe. It was either created by something intelligent, or it was not. Both explanations, in this instance, seem equally plausible to me.
SeventhSolitude, you seem really hung up on this, and for the life of me, I can't understand why.
I am hung up on it, because you are asking me to accept, for the purposes of the discussion that green is actually blue, and blue is actually green.
And those drugs and healing properties work through chemistry, not some magical spiritual rubbish.
Until we developed chemistry - it WAS some "magical spiritual rubbish".
Just because the explanation behind something is unknown does not make all possible explanations equally valid. Even before humans determined what caused thunder "Thor's anger", "clouds colliding" and "angels bowling" were not all equally as plausible explanations as the real one.
That is your bias showing. Chemistry is nothing but a refinement of alchemy, a subset that has become generally accepted. Those reactions between the particles of the atom are no more than a more educated explanation of what the alchemist wrote when he spoke of how adding some of Jupiter's tin would lend the reaction his strength and speed the process (ie. tin is a catalyst for the reaction). Nothing has essentially changed. He, however, was practicing magic.
Willow bark relieve pain cos it contains erdana">salicin, not cos your neighbourhood shaman appealed to the generous nature of the Great Willow Mother.
Correct. Thanks to experimentation we discovered this.
I am hung up on it, because you are asking me to accept, for the purposes of the discussion that green is actually blue, and blue is actually green.
I'm not asking you to accept anything. I am telling you, flat-out, in no uncertain terms, that to have that conversation with me, you need to be willing to use those terms. If that is unacceptable to you, then you can quite merrily not have that discussion with me.
It's really quite simple. To continue to rail against it is curious.
I am hung up on it, because you are asking me to accept, for the purposes of the discussion that green is actually blue, and blue is actually green.
I'm not asking you to accept anything. I am telling you, flat-out, in no uncertain terms, that to have that conversation with me, you need to be willing to use those terms. If that is unacceptable to you, then you can quite merrily not have that discussion with me.
It's really quite simple. To continue to rail against it is curious.
Then we can't have a discussion about it. And your insistence that black is white is what is baffling.
And after you explain the technology to them, they may still think its supernatural.
So? Seriously, I'm not saying that people will never characterize things as supernatural or not. I'm saying that if someone makes what seems to be a supernatural claim, then it's perfectly fair to put the burden of proof on them.
It is, but it'll take years upon years for the sayer to actually prove that he was right; that doesn't mean he was wrong all that time until then. It simply means he wasn't able to explain before.
Until someone can prove he is right, or until someone else can prove he is not, you can't be certain whether he is delusional or ahead of the curve. Some of the greatest geniusses may have been wasted because they could not explain the things they understood to others.
And your insistence that black is white is what is baffling.
Please, at best I'm saying that black is gray. What I consider to be a religion is a subset of what you consider to be a religion. That's not black v. white, that's black v. gray.
And your insistence that black is white is what is baffling.
Please, at best I'm saying that black is gray. What I consider to be a religion is a subset of what you consider to be a religion. That's not black v. white, that's black v. gray.
Okay, I concede that point. Black is white is not what you were saying. But black is gray, is still just as baffling in my opinion. Particularly when we were working with a widely accepted dictionary definition.
Okay, I concede that point. Black is white is not what you were saying. But black is gray, is still just as baffling in my opinion. Particularly when we were working with a widely accepted dictionary definition.
We never worked with that definiton. You wanted to, and I refused.
And I still contest that it's as widely accepted as you believe, as that runs directly contrary to my own experience.
All of your experience accounts for roughly "nothing" in the scale of the world and accepted definitions. It's what makes all these arguments so bloody impossible.
Every one I know (outside of this forum anyway) considers Buddhism a Religion and would call you the odd one for thinking it isn't.
Never assume "your experience" is worth more then the electrons used to build the letters on your screen (yeah "paper it is written on" is so much more elegant)
All of your experience accounts for roughly "nothing" in the scale of the world and accepted definitions. It's what makes all these arguments so bloody impossible.
Every one I know (outside of this forum anyway) considers Buddhism a Religion and would call you the odd one for thinking it isn't.
Seriously, is there going to be anyone that tries to jump in on this and tell me how very wrong I am that isn't going to misrepresent or misunderstand what I've said while making assumptions about what I think/feel/have done/had done to me? It's getting tedious. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but make sure you're at least informed about what the [MESSAGE REDACTED] you're talking about, would you?
And frankly, I'm not even going to give an indepth response to this, because it's pointless. You make an obviously true statement without writing down the proper corallary (don't assume you're necessarily wrong, either), an obviously wrong statement (if you agree on terms, you can discuss just fine, even if you don't typically use those definitions) and then a very misleading statement (I never said Buddhism as a whole wasn't a religion, and if you can't appreciate the nuances of what I have said then me saying them again won't help).
I was only responding to a very small part of your post, about your experience.
So you ignored most of what I've said on this topic and then assumed I was an idiot. But hey, clearly I need to be more careful about what I assume, right?
"Prove that there are non-supernatural religions using this definition of religion that demands a belife in the supernatural." Hows about no. Better to "Prove you have a hard head using a definition of hard that requiers it to deflect small calibur bullets at a range of 3 feet."
Now please: Escher is being stuborn and intentionally obtuse (almost to the point of trolling really) in what appears to be a desperate attempt to make his assertions true to himself. Seventh is being bizzarley obsessed with this.
Really, you should both just stop. Move on.
Esher, noone will have the conversation with you using your terms because that conversation would be incredibly pointless with the terms as you define them, and completly meaningless to everyone else as noone here seems to define them as you do.
And the sooner people figure that out, the sooner they can stop harassing me about it.
'cause frankly, I'm getting more then a wee bit tired of having to tell people to stop speculating about myself. They get it wrong. Consistently. And encourage me to prove SeventhSanctum right. Every third line.
Escher is being stuborn and intentionally obtuse (almost to the point of trolling really) in what appears to be a desperate attempt to make his assertions true to himself.
I didn't realize that sticking to your guns and being consistent was considered desperate.
Really, you should both just stop. Move on.
Yes, and people should stop making innane assumptions and conjectures about my life, but I have little hope for that happening either.
Yes, and people should stop making innane assumptions and conjectures about my life, but I have little hope for that happening either.
Tisk. I made no assumptions, I simply stated what your actions seem to be motivated by, quite distinct from declaring what they are. Atleast, thoes things seem distinct to me. I'm not sure that you would agree, as our main disagreement in this thread has, from my perspective, been your inability to distinguish between declarations of what appears to be true and what one knows to be true.
Tisk. I made no assumptions, I simply stated what your actions seem to be motivated by, quite distinct from declaring what they are.
And you seem to be unable to distinguish between a general hope for everyone's behavior changing versus a specific hope for your behavior to change, but we can't all be perfect.
Now it's down to who has the last word.
Hah, I win!
So.....
Now it's down to who has the last word.
Hah, I win!
Nay, sir! It is my great pleasure to inform you that I, in fact, have won!
Nuh uh.
Confound it! I shall convey my displeasure at this turn of events by continuing to type as though I am a well-to-do member of the gentry. OF WHICH I AM NEITHER! Well-to-do or a member of the gentry, that is.
Now it's down to who has the last word.
This is the internet. We all lose.
On the other hand, lying about the contents of the gas can when questioned by a burning man, that definately slips into the gray area.
I was only responding to a very small part of your post, about your experience.
So you ignored most of what I've said on this topic and then assumed I was an idiot. But hey, clearly I need to be more careful about what I assume, right?
I always assume people are idiots, that way I usually get it right
I am astounded that this debate/argument has continued this long. Now I have to recalibrate my calculations as I estimated you fleshlings would have agreed to disagree by now.
Until we developed chemistry - it WAS some "magical spiritual rubbish".
No, it wasn't. People believed it was because they didn't know any better but that doesn't make it so.
That is your bias showing.
And? Bias is not inherently negative. I am biased towards fact and reason. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
Chemistry is nothing but a refinement of alchemy, a subset that has become generally accepted. Those reactions between the particles of the atom are no more than a more educated explanation of what the alchemist wrote when he spoke of how adding some of Jupiter's tin would lend the reaction his strength and speed the process (ie. tin is a catalyst for the reaction). Nothing has essentially changed. He, however, was practicing magic.
No, he was doing rudimentary chemistry. That he believed it was mystical is immaterial.
Correct. Thanks to experimentation we discovered this.
Yes, and whether we discovered it or not it would still be the real reason.
No, he was doing rudimentary chemistry. That he believed it was mystical is immaterial.
That he believed it was mysticism now is immaterial, yes. That's because now we know better. Then, on the other hand, it was quite important - because it's all they knew. In every aspect of the word, considering the time the act occurred, this man's alchemy was magic. That we know - now - that it wasn't is immaterial to what he and the people around him knew then. That's the point. At one point in time, something was believed to be mystical. Over time, means were developed to determine what actually was happening. Then the answer was changed. To place people of the past under the same scrutiny we'd face with our knowledge today is unfair. The act needs to be considered along with the time it took place. It was magic. It isn't, but it was.
That he believed it was mysticism now is immaterial, yes. That's because now we know better. Then, on the other hand, it was quite important - because it's all they knew. In every aspect of the word, considering the time the act occurred, this man's alchemy was magic. That we know - now - that it wasn't is immaterial to what he and the people around him knew then. That's the point. At one point in time, something was believed to be mystical. Over time, means were developed to determine what actually was happening. Then the answer was changed. To place people of the past under the same scrutiny we'd face with our knowledge today is unfair. The act needs to be considered along with the time it took place. It was magic. It isn't, but it was.
I am not "plac(ing) people of the past under the same scrutiny we'd face with our knowledge today". My point was, and remains, simply that believing alchemy was mystical doesn't make it mystical. It was, is, and always will be chemistry and thus the purported alchemist's mystical beliefs about the processes are immaterial to the processes themselves.
I am not "plac(ing) people of the past under the same scrutiny we'd face with our knowledge today". My point was, and remains, simply that believing alchemy was mystical doesn't make it mystical. It was, is, and always will be chemistry and thus the purported alchemist's mystical beliefs about the processes are immaterial to the processes themselves.
But that's not really the case. They don't mean anything now, but they certainly did then. Let's switch to a witch doctor for a moment. Mystic, no? And they also held (hold) higher positions in their societies because of their 'magic'. Some of it can be explained by modern means - medicinal herbs and the like - and the rest can be dismissed by modern means as rubbish. But the nonsense carries at least as much weight as the things they can actually do (which are, invariably, accompanied by nonsensical (to us) ritual). So, to them, it is magic. To us, it is not. The reality of the situation means nothing to the way they treat the people that wield this 'power'.
I totally agree that it was, is and will likely always be chemistry. But that's not what the people at the time believed. So, to them, it wasn't. I know this is not coming out in a way that doesn't sound stupid, but I tried. I'm not communicating this thought very well. Nuts.
I am not "plac(ing) people of the past under the same scrutiny we'd face with our knowledge today". My point was, and remains, simply that believing alchemy was mystical doesn't make it mystical. It was, is, and always will be chemistry and thus the purported alchemist's mystical beliefs about the processes are immaterial to the processes themselves.
And by extension, if we encounter something that appears mystical, knowing what we do today, the most logical course of action would be to approach it with scepticism and look for a natural explanation, rather than accepting claim of mysticism. Am I reading your position correctly?
And by extension, if we encounter something that appears mystical, knowing what we do today, the most logical course of action would be to approach it with scepticism and look for a natural explanation, rather than accepting claim of mysticism. Am I reading your position correctly?
Almost. I contend there is nothing which which even appears mystical to any but the most credulous observer, but otherwise you've got it spot-on.
It makes no difference if an ancient alchemist believes he is doing magic or not, what he is actually doing is chemistry and his belief does not change that.
Tisk. I made no assumptions, I simply stated what your actions seem to be motivated by, quite distinct from declaring what they are.
And you seem to be unable to distinguish between a general hope for everyone's behavior changing versus a specific hope for your behavior to change, but we can't all be perfect.
Only one of us.
(me)
So, I guess the answer is: no. If you intentionally misstate your position on a topic, or many topics for that matter, a practice often named "Playing Devil's Advocate", an action that one may go so far as to equate with intentional misinformation, which further might even be called lying, then this, in itself, is not enough to label the action as unethical.
We accept your sanction and thank you for your patronage.
No, it wasn't. People believed it was because they didn't know any better but that doesn't make it so.
It truly was. People ACCEPTED that what they were witnessing should be defined that way. Two very simple analogies: Pluto is not a planet. (once upon a time, this was a FALSE statement), and a Strawberry is not a berry. We agree (as a culture) what the appropriate label is for any given item or activity.
That is your bias showing.
And? Bias is not inherently negative. I am biased towards fact and reason. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Different bias - on these lines, you refuse to admit that there can be any form of knowledge that we aren't already in possession of. It demonstrates itself in two ways - you judge what "is" and "isn't" by your own current-day standards, and, as stated, you don't allow for unknown, or worse yet, forgotten knowledge.
No, he was doing rudimentary chemistry. That he believed it was mystical is immaterial.
Not a questio of his belief. Society defines the terms - the society of TJHAT time and place.
Yes, and whether we discovered it or not it would still be the real reason.
Incorrect. The "real reason" is continually refined and refined as new knowledge comes to light. Specifically in this case how those particular chemicals affect the brain and neurological transmissions. Point is, again, until it is discovered it is an unknown. something not account for in the natural sciences - it is, supernatural.
It truly was. People ACCEPTED that what they were witnessing should be defined that way. Two very simple analogies: Pluto is not a planet. (once upon a time, this was a FALSE statement), and a Strawberry is not a berry. We agree (as a culture) what the appropriate label is for any given item or activity.
And? This is not about "labels" nor "culture". Whether you call Pluto a planet or nor doesn't change that fact that it is a ball of rock, ice and chemicals orbitting our sun. Whether you call a strawberry a fruit or a berry will not change it's taste.
And? Bias is not inherently negative.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Not a questio of his belief. Society defines the terms - the society of TJHAT time and place.
This is not about "terms" and "society", it is about fact vs. fantasy. No amount of "believing" one is doing magic will make magic real. No matter mystical mumbo-jumbo nonsense a society "believes" to be true will make it true.
Incorrect.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
it is, supernatural.
Nor that one, either. Believing something is supernatural does not make it so. That someone does not know the answer does not change what the answer is and no amount of you trying to turn this into a debate over subjectivity and semantics will make me wrong.
This is not about "terms" and "society", it is about fact vs. fantasy. No amount of "believing" one is doing magic will make magic real. No matter mystical mumbo-jumbo nonsense a society "believes" to be true will make it true.
"Magic", like "Chemistry" or "Berry" or "Planet" are just labels. It didn't change the act of what he was doing. Just what he was calling it. 10 years ago, Pluto was a planet. Today, it is not. 500 years ago, Alchemy was Magic. Today, is is chemistry.
Only the label changed
"Magic", like "Chemistry" or "Berry" or "Planet" are just labels. It didn't change the act of what he was doing. Just what he was calling it. 10 years ago, Pluto was a planet. Today, it is not. 500 years ago, Alchemy was Magic. Today, is is chemistry.
Only the label changed
Precisely. The label is immaterial. What people believe a thing to be has not bearing on what that thing actually is.
Which means that what we currently are describing as "evolution" might very well be an act of god, only our current label is "natural selection", while in 500 years we can prove it to be "divine choice".
Yep.
Which means that what we currently are describing as "evolution" might very well be an act of god, only our current label is "natural selection", while in 500 years we can prove it to be "divine choice".
Not quite, but thanks for playing.
So you're saying you won't give that gypsy fortune teller the same credence as other unfalsifiable supernatural claims?
I am saying that if you are being scientific, you have to run experiments to determine if the fortune teller's claims have merit. I think I said that very clearly.
A fortune teller say that a certain root will cure some disease. I, personally, would dismiss it. But if I were acting scientifically, I would test if it can cure the disease or not. If the tests are inconclusive, you state that they are inconclusive.
And those drugs and healing properties work through chemistry, not some magical spiritual rubbish.
For the most part, yeah. That's why you shouldn't just dismiss things as "no". If you just dismissed the healing properties because of the magical spiritual rubbish and lack of evidence, you wouldn't have many of the drugs we have.
Scientifically, you have to test and gather information before making a conclusion. If the data isn't available, you should put it in the "not sure" category.
If, in 500 years, if we relabel evolution by natural selection as divine anything, we will have to abandon all of our knowledge of how the process works, knowledge arrived at via research and experimentation, and claim that we don't know how the process occurs. This would be a lie, not a clarification.
I am saying that if you are being scientific, you have to run experiments to determine if the fortune teller's claims have merit. I think I said that very clearly.
So you're just going to blatently ignore that I've been talking, this entire time, not about falsifiable claims that can be tested, but ones that are unfalsifiable and unprovable? That can't be tested at all?
There was all kinds of stuff that was believed to exist long before the means to test for them existed and their existence was proven.
Yes.
When we labeled a process as magic, it was an admission that we did not know how it worked and had stopped trying tto discover how it worked, satisfying ourselves with a non-explanation. When we relabeled the same process as chemistry, it was by someone who had not given up on finding out how. This was a declaration for clarification.
No, people actually believed that it was magic. Or divine intervention. They didn't stop trying to discover; the were under the impression that they already knew the answer, that there was no need to think they might have it wrong and keep exploring. Just like you are now.
Why not? In 500 years our newfound understanding of the universe might very well change the label attached.
Exactly right, and thank you for understanding. (means I'm being clear enough). In the past, when touching on this subject with Boraxe, I've accused him of claiming omniscience. I think i explained it partially better below. Boraxe has accepted (and is devoted to) that there is, and can be no such a foce/intelligence/etc - and moreover, that we will NEVER discover otherwise. He cannot accept that such is in the realm of possibility - He (somehow) knows better. He knows that regardless of what discoveries we make regarding life and its workings, that can NEVER be the case.
edited to add:
No, people actually believed that it was magic. Or divine intervention. They didn't stop trying to discover; the were under the impression that they already knew the answer, that there was no need to think they might have it wrong and keep exploring. Just like you are now.
Thank you - this sums it up perfectly.
So you're just going to blatently ignore that I've been talking, this entire time, not about falsifiable claims that can be tested, but ones that are unfalsifiable and unprovable? That can't be tested at all?
If you continued reading, you'll see that I continually state if the data is inconclusive, then you state its inconclusive. If you want you can also state "there's no evidence or tests to support...", but scientifically, one would not (or should not) say "no, it doesn't exists because we cannot test for it".
The scientific method is based upon experimentation and observation. If you cannot perform a suitable experiment, you can't just assume negative results. That is very bad science.
There was all kinds of stuff that was believed to exist long before the means to test for them existed and their existence was proven.
And?
My point has never, at any point, been that people's actual beliefs are what I think the scientific view of things should be. My point, the entire time, has been that the scientific view of unfalsifiable and unprovable phonemenon is to treat it as though it's false. That says nothing about what people actually believe.
If you cannot perform a suitable experiment, you can't just assume negative results.
Right, so we should give that gypsy fortune teller, with his or her unfalsifiable claims about their ability to foretell the future, just as much credence as the existence of the divine. Neat. A gypsy fortune teller is as credible, according to Scypio, as a priest.
No, people actually believed that it was magic. Or divine intervention.
And they were wrong.
They didn't stop trying to discover; the were under the impression that they already knew the answer, that there was no need to think they might have it wrong and keep exploring. Just like you are now.
Assumptions, by definition, require no proof. Science does.
And?
My point has never, at any point, been that people's actual beliefs are what I think the scientific view of things should be. My point, the entire time, has been that the scientific view of unfalsifiable and unprovable phonemenon is to treat it as though it's false. That says nothing about what people actually believe.
Well, if that were what we did, we'd never have proven any of those things these 'crackpots' thought existed, would we? There'd be no reason to test if we just assumed everything claimed that couldn't be tested for at the time was untrue. There'd be no reason to even develop a method to test. No point. It's all crap. But that isn't what happened and it's not what happens. In other words, if science followed this script, there'd be a whole lot of missing science.
No, people actually believed that it was magic. Or divine intervention.
And they were wrong.
And we might be, too.
They didn't stop trying to discover; the were under the impression that they already knew the answer, that there was no need to think they might have it wrong and keep exploring. Just like you are now.
Assumptions, by definition, require no proof. Science does.
Proof is relative. A lot of people consider something "proven" when the priest says that it is. A lot of people consider something "proven" when a scientist says that it is. Both sources are fallible.
Well, if that were what we did, we'd never have proven any of those things these 'crackpots' thought existed, would we? There'd be no reason to test if we just assumed everything claimed that couldn't be tested for at the time was untrue. There'd be no reason to even develop a method to test. No point. It's all crap. But that isn't what happened and it's not what happens. In other words, if science followed this script, there'd be a whole lot of missing science.
There's a difference between "unfalsifiable and unprovable" and "we don't have the tools yet".
Not to mention that in all the cases that people have tried to bring up, the claims weren't unfalsifiable and unprovable. Willow bark? People might not have been able to understand why it worked, but it worked. Alchemy? Same story. Every friggin' case where something real was going on and it wasn't just superstition? Same story.
None of those fall under the "unfalsifiable and unprovable" category.
Why not?
Because it assumes we are always acting in a state of ignorance. Ancient alchemists didn't actually know how or why things worked they way they did so they made up fantastic explanations for it. With evolution, for example, we are well aware of precisely how it works right down to the micro-cellular level.
The reason Darwin's Origin of Species was so groundbreaking and so controversial was that, rather than trying to simple explain away evolution in terms of existing world-views and dogma (such as was the case with alchemy and religion), it looked at the proceses involved and discovered the actual mechanisms at work which, it turned out, were in opposition to accepted dogma.
In 500 years our newfound understanding of the universe might very well change the label attached.
Again, it is not simply a question of labels.
Science is alway open to the possibility an existing theory is wrong and should be revised or discarded (it is one of the major distinctions between it and religion) but such a revelation would not require simply a "new found understanding of the universe" but rather the complete nulification and overturning of every single thing we currently know. Science admits it doesn't know everything (this admission being another of the major distinctions between it and religion) but that is not the same thing is knowing nothing.
We know how evolution works because it has been tested, observed and proven. Alchemists thought they knew how alchemy worked cos they made it all up.
If it does turn out in 500 years that the universe is fundamentally different than everything described in the history of science and human you can gloat about it then.
Right, so we should give that gypsy fortune teller, with his or her unfalsifiable claims about their ability to foretell the future, just as much credence as the existence of the divine. Neat. A gypsy fortune teller is as credible, according to Scypio, as a priest.
If a gypsy fortune teller made claims that were untestable (although future telling can kind of be tested), scientifically, I'd say "I don't know".
Assumptions, by definition, require no proof. Science does.
Science draws conclusions based on observations and experiments. Many times proof turns into misconceptions. Things are often times shown to be wrong because of new information.
Well, if that were what we did, we'd never have proven any of those things these 'crackpots' thought existed, would we? There'd be no reason to test if we just assumed everything claimed that couldn't be tested for at the time was untrue. There'd be no reason to even develop a method to test. No point. It's all crap. But that isn't what happened and it's not what happens. In other words, if science followed this script, there'd be a whole lot of missing science.
Word.
There's a difference between "unfalsifiable and unprovable" and "we don't have the tools yet".
Umm. Bacteria's existance was an unfalsifiable, unprovable claim for a time. We just didn't have the tools. So they can certainly go hand in hand.
Not to mention that in all the cases that people have tried to bring up, the claims weren't unfalsifiable and unprovable. Willow bark? People might not have been able to understand why it worked, but it worked. Alchemy? Same story. Every friggin' case where something real was going on and it wasn't just superstition? Same story.
None of those fall under the "unfalsifiable and unprovable" category.
Bacteria? Viruses? Movement of electrons in an atom? Particles smaller than an atom? For a time, both unfalsifiable and unprovable. The reason? We simply didn't have the ability to find out - either way.
And we might be, too.
We're not.
Proof is relative. A lot of people consider something "proven" when the priest says that it is. A lot of people consider something "proven" when a scientist says that it is. Both sources are fallible.
No, proof it not relative. Simply accepting something as true "cos he said so" is not a matter of a fallible source, it is one of an indiscriminate audience. They key difference is that scientific proof entails careful observation, peer review, experiementation, etc. Any scientifc claim which cannot be independently verified and tested is not considered valid. There is no such burden of proof on relgious claims, which is why none of them stand up to testing or scrutiny.
If a gypsy fortune teller made claims that were untestable (although future telling can kind of be tested), scientifically, I'd say "I don't know".
Then I think you're abusing reasonable doubt. Just because you don't actually know something is no reason to not say "Look, sure, it's completetly untestable, but that's because this charlatan is good at their gig. The point is, there is no reason to give them any sort of credibility, they've done nothing to back up any of their claims, there is no support for it. The only thing stopping us from nailing this coffin shut is that we can't actually test it. But seriously, we have more support for the connection between hot summer days and crime rates then for this. There is zero reason to treat this as anything more then the snake-oil it is."
Because it assumes we are always acting in a state of ignorance. Ancient alchemists didn't actually know how or why things worked they way they did so they made up fantastic explanations for it. With evolution, for example, we are well aware of precisely how it works right down to the micro-cellular level.
Nah, we still know hardly a thing. We know enough to make some educated guesses and to make some interesting things happen, but we're not there yet.
In 500 years our newfound understanding of the universe might very well change the label attached.
Again, it is not simply a question of labels.
Science is alway open to the possibility an existing theory is wrong and should be revised or discarded (it is one of the major distinctions between it and religion) but such a revelation would not require simply a "new found understanding of the universe" but rather the complete nulification and overturning of every single thing we currently know.
Yeah, that happens every few hundred years. From spirits to gods to elements to molecules to atoms to protons to quantum physics to string theory, things keep getting more complicated. We make a lot of wrong assumptions.
Science admits it doesn't know everything (this admission being another of the major distinctions between it and religion) but that is not the same thing is knowing nothing.
I'm not saying we know nothing. I'm saying we don't know a whole lot, or possibly even hardly anything at all. And I'm saying we should never stop doubting ourselves.
We know how evolution works because it has been tested, observed and proven. Alchemists thought they knew how alchemy worked cos they made it all up.
Alchemists also used basic scientific principles. They tested stuff and noted the results, so they could reuse them later. That's basically the same thing we do now, only more primitive.
If it does turn out in 500 years that the universe is fundamentally different than everything described in the history of science and human you can gloat about it then.
If peope don't think they might be wrong now then we'll never reach that point. I doubt today, because without doubt, there is no reason to improve. When you think you are done, you stop improving.
And we might be, too.
We're not.
Tell that to Einstein. He figured out that we were, in fact, wrong. And later we figured out that he was, in fact, also wrong. We still get it wrong. Thinking that we're not wrong would be the end of progress.
Proof is relative. A lot of people consider something "proven" when the priest says that it is. A lot of people consider something "proven" when a scientist says that it is. Both sources are fallible.
No, proof it not relative. Simply accepting something as true "cos he said so" is not a matter of a fallible source, it is one of an indiscriminate audience. They key difference is that scientific proof entails careful observation, peer review, experiementation, etc. Any scientifc claim which cannot be independently verified and tested is not considered valid. There is no such burden of proof on relgious claims, which is why none of them stand up to testing or scrutiny.
If that were so, then there would be never be the ability to disprove a proven scientific research. Yet they are disproved all the time, and improved in the process.
Bacteria? If the idea had been wrong then once they had good enough microscopes they could have nailed that coffin shut. Same with viruses. If relativity had been wrong, then then when they put that atomic clock in a jet plane and sent it around the world it would have been in sync with the one on the ground.
Because they can be disproven, eventually, they are not, now, in the past, or ever, unprovable and unfalsifiable.
Zombie Babies, I think you're fundamentally failing to understand just what "unprovable and unfalsifiable" means. It doesn't mean "we can't test it now". It means that, by the nature of the claim, it can never be falsified or proven.
Bacteria? If the idea had been wrong then once they had good enough microscopes they could have nailed that coffin shut. Same with viruses. If relativity had been wrong, then then when they put that atomic clock in a jet plane and sent it around the world it would have been in sync with the one on the ground.
Because they can be disproven, eventually, they are not, now, in the past, or ever, unprovable and unfalsifiable.
That's just silly - and I'm pretty damned sure you know it, too. When the claims were first made, the ability to test was not there. At that moment in time, the claims were unprovable and unfalsifiable and they remained so until the means to test them became available. Guess what? God could very well fall into that category right now. Unless you somehow know that there's no way we'll ever be able to make that determination (which would be pretty damned arrogant), you can't know that the claim will remain unprovable and unfalsifiable. Stop playing games.
Then I think you're abusing reasonable doubt. Just because you don't actually know something is no reason to not say "Look, sure, it's completetly untestable, but that's because this charlatan is good at their gig. The point is, there is no reason to give them any sort of credibility, they've done nothing to back up any of their claims, there is no support for it. The only thing stopping us from nailing this coffin shut is that we can't actually test it. But seriously, we have more support for the connection between hot summer days and crime rates then for this. There is zero reason to treat this as anything more then the snake-oil it is."
That's a fine and logical way to think. I would handle it like that. But scientifically, you need to verify or test things before making conclusions. If you don't believe me, read the scientific method. It also does not mean you accept what they are saying.
We're not.
That's extremely arrogant and most likely wrong. We are wrong all the time when it comes to science. If you think otherwise, you really haven't been looking at much history.
Now take the claim that no such thing as a god exists. This can be falsified by providing a single god, for which their must be a concrete definition to allow for its discovery. But there are no definitions for a god that include a means by which we may detect them. Often, undetectibility is given as one of the hallmarks of a god. Therefore, there is no way to find a god. And no reason to accept the claim that even one exists.
That's just silly
No, that's you not accepting the definition as I've been using it since the beginning.
That's a fine and logical way to think. I would handle it like that.
Wait, what? Didn't you say, earlier, that...
So are you disagreeing that the "scientific view" of every other supernatural claim is "we'll assume it's false until we're given a real reason to doubt", or are you disagreeing that view is closer to an atheistic view then to an agnostic one?
I disagree with the idea that science assumes non-existance as the default claim.
... so what's the "fine and logical" way to treat an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim that lacks support? To treat it as snake oil, or to treat it as a maybe?
That's just silly
No, that's you not accepting the definition as I've been using it since the beginning.That's a fine and logical way to think. I would handle it like that.
Wait, what? Didn't you say, earlier, that...So are you disagreeing that the "scientific view" of every other supernatural claim is "we'll assume it's false until we're given a real reason to doubt", or are you disagreeing that view is closer to an atheistic view then to an agnostic one?
I disagree with the idea that science assumes non-existance as the default claim.
... so what's the "fine and logical" way to treat an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim that lacks support? To treat it as snake oil, or to treat it as a maybe?
First off, why are you doing to Scypio exactly what you where sulking about others doing to you the other day? At no point untill now did he say how he would treat a fortune tellers claims, but what he thought the scientific way to treat them should be. He even made that very clear. You went and said he claimed he would belive a fortune teller, he is now agreeing with you that no, not taking the fortune tellers word is probably a good course of action. But that such a course of action is not scientifically correct. "People making outlandish claims without proof are probably lieing" is common sense, it is not science.
You went and said he claimed he would belive a fortune teller
No, I said that by Scypio's reasoning a fortune teller was as credible as a priest. I never said 'e believed anything.
A gypsy fortune teller is as credible, according to Scypio, as a priest.
Which, if you care to claim is somehow different from what you claim was done to you, is close enough to be worthy of mention and any attempts to distinguish the two likely to be seen as hair splitting.
He said that "according to x, in his mind, y": and you decided to pretend that he said "according to me, y" and then patronize him for the belief that only you claimed him to hold.
So, any response to my comment that you appear to be confusing Wit with Reason? Wisdom with Intelligence? Common Sense with Scientific Investigation? ect.
Which, if you care to claim is somehow different from what you claim was done to you, is close enough to be worthy of mention and any attempts to distinguish the two likely to be seen as hair splitting.
Door #1
Lets see... how about that I was clearly being sarcastic at poking fun at his stance by taking it to a silly extreme, whereas by all appearances he was telling me what I should believe in all seriousness?
Door #1Lets see... how about that I was clearly being sarcastic at poking fun at his stance by taking it to a silly extreme, whereas by all appearances he was telling me what I should believe in all seriousness?
No, that's you not accepting the definition as I've been using it since the beginning.
Yeah, because it's silly. I thought I was pretty clear about that. Anyhoo, I think I'll quit with this. Talking to walls never really resolves anything. Especially walls that just make stuff up and refuse to use anything for the purpose of discussion that they didn't personally craft to strengthen their case at the cost of actual, you know, discussion. I think there's a word for that ... what was it? Oh yeah: Silly.
tl;dr: Since you refuse to quit playing games, I see no use in continuing this.
But for specific comments:
EscherEnigma:
It helps if you quote entire sections in your responses. I stated that its fine and logical to not trust the (outlandish) claims of someone you don't trust. But then I stated that if you wanted to go about it scientifically, you wouldn't just dismiss the claim. If you are using scientific view (or the scientific method), you use experiments and observations to verify or falsify claims.
So basically the full statement was: I, personally, agree with the course of action, but the scientific course of action is not to dismiss without observations/experiments. So yes, its something like common sense v science. I explained in the very next sentance what the scientific view should be.
FFF:
What about multi-dimensional space? There's no way to detect them so Super String Theory should just be trashed right? Its the idea of this invisible, unperceivable part of the universe that exists outside of our understanding.
FFF:
What about multi-dimensional space? There's no way to detect them so Super String Theory should just be trashed right? Its the idea of this invisible, unperceivable part of the universe that exists outside of our understanding.
I was wondering if that would come up. The string theories that include those tiny rolled dimensions do set the size of the dimension at larger than the Plank length. As such, even given the difficulty of measuring such tiny dimensions, as evidenced in the Uncertainty Theory, we know that if we can supply sufficiently large energy, we can detect those dimensions. That energy is greater than even what is predicted to be available in the Hadron, so the wait for technology powerful enough to provide the required energy continues.
So, while the math based on ten dimensions continues to refine the theory and the theory to refine the math, the evidence for tiny dimensions is still missing.
Yeah, because it's silly. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
Whether it's silly or not, that's how I've been using it all along, and I don't think I've ever been unclear on this. That you're suddenly, just now, deciding it's what makes the conversation untenable is... curious.
So I misunderstood you.
So then you're still saying that the "scientific view" of gypsy fortune tellers is the same as that of the divine, and that they deserve the same "scientific" credibility. Well, at least you're consistent.
Yeah, because it's silly. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
Whether it's silly or not, that's how I've been using it all along, and I don't think I've ever been unclear on this. That you're suddenly, just now, deciding it's what makes the conversation untenable is... curious.
Escher, I think we all pretty much think this is rather silly, if not downright childish of you.
Yeah, because it's silly. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
Whether it's silly or not, that's how I've been using it all along, and I don't think I've ever been unclear on this. That you're suddenly, just now, deciding it's what makes the conversation untenable is... curious.
I think the scientitific view would be "there is no evidence to support the fortune teller's claim of supernatural divining abilities" and I expect the scientist would then conduct a study to see if a gypsy fortuneteller is in fact better able to uncover information about people during sessions than a control group. Probably would look very similar to the studies they've done on things like accupuncture and my guess is they would be more converned about efficacy than explanation.
I think the scientitific view would be "there is no evidence to support the fortune teller's claim of supernatural divining abilities" and I expect the scientist would then conduct a study to see if a gypsy fortuneteller is in fact better able to uncover information about people during sessions than a control group. Probably would look very similar to the studies they've done on things like accupuncture and my guess is they would be more converned about efficacy than explanation.
... you're really having trouble with this whole "unfalsifiable and unprovable" part of the statement, aren't you?
Escher, I think we all pretty much think this is rather silly, if not downright childish of you.
Well, you're certainly free to insult me if you choose to do so, and I'm certainly free to think it's rather odd to spontaneously generate an objection to how I've been using the term all along.
I think the scientitific view would be "there is no evidence to support the fortune teller's claim of supernatural divining abilities" and I expect the scientist would then conduct a study to see if a gypsy fortuneteller is in fact better able to uncover information about people during sessions than a control group. Probably would look very similar to the studies they've done on things like accupuncture and my guess is they would be more converned about efficacy than explanation.
... you're really having trouble with this whole "unfalsifiable and unprovable" part of the statement, aren't you?
No I am not actually. But you can assume that if it makes you feel intellectually superior. My point is they have done studies on similar things that are rooted in supernatural and unscientific assumptions. But researchers care about whether things like this are effective, and less concerned about how they work. Finding out how they actually work and bringing them inline with current scientific knowledge is the next step. I am pretty sure they haven't pin pointed the reason something like accupuncture appears to work, but they do know it is more effective than a placebo. The point is, scientists don't discount something just because it comes with unscientific baggage.
Escher, I think we all pretty much think this is rather silly, if not downright childish of you.
Well, you're certainly free to insult me if you choose to do so, and I'm certainly free to think it's rather odd to spontaneously generate an objection to how I've been using the term all along.
I figured I owed you an insult at this poitn. Your use of the term isn't just becoming an issue. We've been disputing your definition of religion from the get-go.
Whether it's silly or not, that's how I've been using it all along, and I don't think I've ever been unclear on this. That you're suddenly, just now, deciding it's what makes the conversation untenable is... curious.
I suppose it is. And it was silly of me to have faith that you would eventually begin to discuss in good faith. I should have known better, I guess. Anyhoo, silliness over, eh?
No I am not actually.
Then why did you suggest that the "right" course of action was to try and test an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim? That sort of claim, by it's very nature, doesn't test.
An unfalsifiable and unprovable claim isn't one that can be tested and falsified. It's not "does willow bark help pain?" as regardless of the method it's a very testable and falsifiable claim. It's not "does acupuncture do anything" since you can test it. It's "prayer can speed surgery recovery times when God wills it" or "I can make accurate predictions of the future, but they're symbolic and vague and fuzzy and dont' have expiration dates so you can never say that one of them hasn't come true" and "there's a completetly undetectable unicorn next to me".
That is an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim, in that there is nothing you can do to prove it's right or wrong, nothing you can do to put doubt on it since, by their nature, whatever the result of any test supports them.
The point is, scientists don't discount something just because it comes with unscientific baggage.
And when I start talking about discounting falsifiable and provable supernatural claims, you'll have a point that is at all relevant to what I've been saying.
I figured I owed you an insult at this poitn.
I didn't realize two wrongs made a right.
Your use of the term isn't just becoming an issue.
Since it's just now being brought up as a reason to abandon the conversation, yeah, it kinda is.
We've been disputing your definition of religion from the get-go.
Which was a different discussion and a different issue and irrelevant.
But hey, whatever lifts your luggage.
Edit: typo.
I suppose it is. And it was silly of me to have faith that you would eventually begin to discuss in good faith. I should have known better, I guess. Anyhoo, silliness over, eh?
"Eventually begin to discuss in good faith"? What the **** dude. When have I been unclear? When have I been deceptive about just what I meant? If you had a beef with the way I was using the phrase then you should have raised it a week ago so I could either explain just what I meant so you could understand me or found a different way to phrase it.
To suddenly pretend that I've been playing a shell game just because you haven't liked the term all along and only brought it up now is BS.
No I am not actually.
Then why did you suggest that the "right" course of action was to try and test an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim? That sort of claim, by it's very nature, doesn't test.
I never said that was the right course of action. All I said was a scientist would test the efficacy of a fortune tellers abilities (not test her claims to supernatural powers).
An unfalsifiable and unprovable claim isn't one that can be tested and falsified. It's not "does willow bark help pain?" as regardless of the method it's a very testable and falsifiable claim. It's not "does acupuncture do anything" since you can test it. It's "prayer can speed surgery recovery times when God wills it" or "I can make accurate predictions of the future, but they're symbolic and vague and fuzzy and dont' have expiration dates so you can never say that one of them hasn't come true" and "there's a completetly undetectable unicorn next to me".
thank you, but I know what an unfalisifiable and unprovable claim is. And I never suggested we should try to prove any of those things in the last part of your paragraph. As you will recall, in the unicorn example, I didn't realize "undetectable/invisible" was one of its characteristics. What I did say, is we can't know for sure, whether god does or does not exist. We can say, there is no proof god exists. Or reason and logic suggest God does or does not exist, but we can't prove either of those assertions.
And when I start talking about discounting falsifiable and provable supernatural claims, you'll have a point that is at all relevant to what I've been saying.
I could be wrong, but I believe you began the discussion by asserting that "God does not exist" is the scientific position. Whereas others were stating "There is not proof of God's existence" is the scientific position. Because, at least from what I remember, the original thing being argued (by me at least) was agnosticism is the more scientific position to take.
I didn't realize two wrongs made a right.
They don't. They establish balance.
thank you, but I know what an unfalisifiable and unprovable claim is.
Ya certainly don't act like it, what with suggesting that anything useful will come out of testing one. Whatever other merits the test would have, it would ultimately have no effect on the claim itself, which would be supported by whatever the results are.
So either you were saying something irrelevant to the discussion, or you were missing the point.
I could be wrong, but I believe you began the discussion by asserting that "God does not exist" is the scientific position.
You're wrong.
What I said was that given skepticism, reasonable doubt, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, and the precedent of how unfalsifiable and unprovable claims of other supernatural claims were handled, that the closest religious position was an atheistic one.
They don't. They establish balance.
Hah! I suppose that's appropriate. You're going for balance in the discussion while arguing that I should be arguing that something should be agnostic (the "balanced" religious belief). Heh. Funny.
I mean, it's still petty and rude, but so long as you're not deceiving yourself about any presumed moral high-ground.
Heh. Balance. That was funny.
"Eventually begin to discuss in good faith"? What the **** dude. When have I been unclear? When have I been deceptive about just what I meant? If you had a beef with the way I was using the phrase then you should have raised it a week ago so I could either explain just what I meant so you could understand me or found a different way to phrase it.
To suddenly pretend that I've been playing a shell game just because you haven't liked the term all along and only brought it up now is BS.
You've not been deceptive about what you meant. You've been deceptive about having a discussion. You set your own terms and then refuse to see anything anyone brings up that is outside of your own fabricated parameters. That's just crap. I had hoped you may begin to actually listen to what I, and others, were saying instead of constantly doing what amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'nanner, nanner, nanner' as loudly as you could.
I'm not pretending you've been playing a shell game. You have been. That you have been from the start doesn't excuse it. And I find it interesting that you think I'm saying this now because I haven't liked the term when your entire involvement in this thread is based upon definitions you've fabricated precisely because you didn't like the ones everyone else was using.
So, uhh ... that's 'what the ****'.
Ya certainly don't act like it, what with suggesting that anything useful will come out of testing one. Whatever other merits the test would have, it would ultimately have no effect on the claim itself, which would be supported by whatever the results are.
No I don't act like it. We test these sorts of things all the time, because we assume the belief could be rooted in some other more reasonable explantion. You aren't testing to prove the claim that the gypsy fortune teller can read minds by supernatural means. But you are testing because your curious if she is at least reading people succesfully.
[
So either you were saying something irrelevant to the discussion, or you were missing the point.
I don't see how it is irrelevant.
You're wrong.
What I said was that given skepticism, reasonable doubt, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, and the precedent of how unfalsifiable and unprovable claims of other supernatural claims were handled, that the closest religious position was an atheistic one.
And antheism is the "God does not exist" claim. I am merely pointing out that agnosticism is the more scientific position. And I am basing that on the fact that that's what I've been told by most of the scientists I've met. Agnostics have no dog in the fight, neither do scientists.
Hah! I suppose that's appropriate. You're going for balance in the discussion while arguing that I should be arguing that something should be agnostic (the "balanced" religious belief). Heh. Funny.
I mean, it's still petty and rude, but so long as you're not deceiving yourself about any presumed moral high-ground.
Heh. Balance. That was funny.
Oh no, I think I stand on much higher ground than you. If only because I insulted you as a response to you streaming insults at me. You were basically just insulting anyone who disagreed with you (in fact it appeared to be part of your rhetorical technique to undermine the credibility of others). I think that is much worse than insulting someone because they've provoked you.
"Eventually begin to discuss in good faith"? What the **** dude. When have I been unclear? When have I been deceptive about just what I meant? If you had a beef with the way I was using the phrase then you should have raised it a week ago so I could either explain just what I meant so you could understand me or found a different way to phrase it.
To suddenly pretend that I've been playing a shell game just because you haven't liked the term all along and only brought it up now is BS.
You've not been deceptive about what you meant. You've been deceptive about having a discussion. You set your own terms and then refuse to see anything anyone brings up that is outside of your own fabricated parameters. That's just crap. I had hoped you may begin to actually listen to what I, and others, were saying instead of constantly doing what amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling 'nanner, nanner, nanner' as loudly as you could.
I'm not pretending you've been playing a shell game. You have been. That you have been from the start doesn't excuse it. And I find it interesting that you think I'm saying this now because I haven't liked the term when your entire involvement in this thread is based upon definitions you've fabricated precisely because you didn't like the ones everyone else was using.
So, uhh ... that's 'what the ****'.
Zombie, just for the purpose of clarity, since I seem to have mixed up threads here, what term are you talking about here?
Zombie, just for the purpose of clarity, since I seem to have mixed up threads here, what term are you talking about here?
You know, I almost answered this. Let me just say that there comes a time in any lively discussion to just stop talking. I have never been able to successfully determine when that point happens to be. This is a waste of time (IMO - it may not be to anyone else and that's perfectly ok by me) and I think I just need to stop. Answering this would just perpetuate the type of conversation that's been going on and I just don't feel like playing anymore. So I'm takin' my ball an' headin' home. If anyone's got a problem with it, tough noogies.
You've not been deceptive about what you meant.
... then why didn't you say something? No, seriously? My claim is and has been:
- Unfalsifiable and unprovable claims of the supernatural are treated as "false until given reason to doubt" routinely.
- (1) is closer to atheism then agnosticism
I mean really, it's like I told SeventhSanctum, if you don't agree on the basic terms, then you aren't having a discussion. So if that was your problem with my argument, that very basic problem of terms... why didn't you just say something?
I don't see how it is irrelevant.
Because no matter the results, an unfalsifiable and unprovable claim won't gain or lose any support. Whatever else you may gain, it doesn't really have any effect either way with my argument. I mean, yeah, go for an experiment to see if there's something to it, that's how we find new things, but that still leaves the unfalsifiable and unprovable part of the original claim, which is the part I've been talking about.
And antheism is the "God does not exist" claim.
Ya know, I thought I was clear on this, but clearly not clear enough.
There is a difference between asserting "God does not exist" and saying "we have no support or evidence to support this claim and as such we will act as though it's false". I have said that the second statement is closer in to an atheistic view then to an agnostic one, but I have never said that anything is asserted as a fact. In fact, I directly said the opposite a few times when someone (can't remember who) said that someone asserted that the scientific view was that it was a fact that God did not exist.
If only because I insulted you as a response to you streaming insults at me.
So you've claimed several times.
You were basically just insulting anyone who disagreed with you (in fact it appeared to be part of your rhetorical technique to undermine the credibility of others).
Nah, just Scypio, but that's 'cause he pissed me off with his first post and still hasn't apologized. And anyway, if someone's credibility is undermined my casual sarcasm and snark, I have to wonder just how credible they were to begin with. I mean, that's kinda one of the big logical fallacies. So if anyone reads this thread and thinks "wow, this guy is snarky. This other dude must be an idiot" then that's kinda shame on them, ya know?
... then why didn't you say something? No, seriously? My claim is and has been:And if your disagreement is the definition of "unfalsifiable and unprovable", then why didn't you just say something? We could have figured out if I could either explain in another way such that you were satisfied with what I mean, you could accept for the purposes of the argument the term as I was using it, or we could agree that we couldn't find common ground and that the discussion was over between us.
- Unfalsifiable and unprovable claims of the supernatural are treated as "false until given reason to doubt" routinely.
- (1) is closer to atheism then agnosticism
I mean really, it's like I told SeventhSanctum, if you don't agree on the basic terms, then you aren't having a discussion. So if that was your problem with my argument, that very basic problem of terms... why didn't you just say something?
I did. I tried to show why I felt that definition was wrong through example. Admittedly not a direct approach and, likely, not one that was going to work given your written in stone position. The rest was agreeing - in not the nicest way, sure (but with no actual hard feelings - I have too much respect for you for any one silly argument to change that) - that we were at an impasse.
At any rate, I should have just come out and said it instead of trying to change your position on the terms through conversation. That was rather circuitous. But this is where we be: I do not feel that we can find common ground in order to continue this particular discussion and, therefore, am taking my ball and going home. Sorry for the wasted words/time. I hope this is more satisfactory.
I figured I owed you an insult at this poitn.
I didn't realize two wrongs made a right.
Really? 'Cause that was kind of the reasoning you gave for why it was cool for you to do to scypio what you claimed he did to you. You know, the he posted something based off of what I implied instead of what I straight out said so now it is right for me to treat him unfairly.
Since it's just now being brought up as a reason to abandon the conversation, yeah, it kinda is.
"Just now" as in "pretty much continuously for the past 4 days".
My claim is and has been:
- Unfalsifiable and unprovable claims of the supernatural are treated as "false until given reason to doubt" routinely.
- (1) is closer to atheism then agnosticism
Which is wrong acording to any definition of atheism and agnosticism other than your own.
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Lets take a quick guess about what term this falls under in the dictionary.
Scientific View: The existance of god is "unknown and unknowable" (aka, unprovable). This, according to the dictionary, makes science agnostic. I'm going to go with the dictionaries definition over your own, 'cause thats kind of what they do.
and as for 1: An unfalsiafible and unprovable claim, according to how you insist on using the term, is not treated as false. It is ignored as it cannot affect whatever it is you are trying to test. If it has any measurable effect, it is not unproveable. They are not tested because by definition noone knows how, because no how exists. You get the same net result, without requiering you to form a belife system in a vacume.
So you've claimed several times.
Nah, just Scypio, but that's 'cause he pissed me off with his first post and still hasn't apologized. And anyway, if someone's credibility is undermined my casual sarcasm and snark, I have to wonder just how credible they were to begin with. I mean, that's kinda one of the big logical fallacies. So if anyone reads this thread and thinks "wow, this guy is snarky. This other dude must be an idiot" then that's kinda shame on them, ya know?
You know what Escher, you are an incredibly rude person. You are basically the bully of off topic, and you shift responsibility from yourself onto your victimes they weren't "credibible to begin with". I don't mind having disagreements. There are many posters here I disagree with strongly, who make points I have to really think about. But you honestly make me uncomforttable as a poster. I really do dread reading your responses, because they are not just designed to undermine my ideas, but to attack my intellect or ability to understand things. Frankly I don't understand why others haven't called you out, and why you haven't been banned already.
Which is wrong acording to any definition of atheism and agnosticism other than your own.
o.
The same problem we encountered with his definition of religion.
Really? 'Cause that was kind of the reasoning you gave for why it was cool for you to do to scypio what you claimed he did to you.
I've never claimed I was right. ;)
"Just now" as in "pretty much continuously for the past 4 days".
Nah, ZB didn't make it clear to me that he was having a particular issue with how I was using "unfalsifiable and unprovable" until yesterday. Lots of discussion before then.
You know what Escher, you are an incredibly rude person. You are basically the bully of off topic, and you shift responsibility from yourself onto your victimes they weren't "credibible to begin with".
I'm not shifting responsiblity anywhere. If I'm rude, sarcastic, caustic, insulting, whatever, then I am, I know it and I own it. But frankly, that shouldn't have any effect on the credibility of anyone's argument. Ad hominem attacks are bad logic. I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone into thinking that because I'm sarcastic that means my arguments are somehow better, and frankly anyone that does so is an idiot that needs a refresher on logical fallacies.
Me being a snarky ass reflects only on me. Well, it also shows that I think someone else is good snark-bait, but lots of things are good snark-bait so that's not saying much really.
But you honestly make me uncomforttable as a poster.
Door #1
If you'd like, I can just stop responding to you all together, but you'll have to do the same as otherwise I'd feel obligated to return the favor.
Which is wrong acording to any definition of atheism and agnosticism other than your own.
And I disagree as I feel that, in practice, the way such claims are normally treated is closer to atheism: that is, treated as though they're wrong.
and as for 1: An unfalsiafible and unprovable claim, according to how you insist on using the term, is not treated as false.
But they are. Faith healers, dowsers, fortune tellers and palm readers... they're all treated by the scientific community and what-not as though they're shams, even though, strictly speaking, they can't disprove the claims.
But they are. Faith healers, dowsers, fortune tellers and palm readers... they're all treated by the scientific community and what-not as though they're shams, even though, strictly speaking, they can't disprove the claims.
Hmm, I've never read any scientific text, report, article, lab report, what have you where they go out of their way to call any of thoes topics a sham (even though I do not see why you are suddenly talking about those things. You already called all of them irrelevant, except for a certain very small subset of fortune teller: all of them are testable) unless they where specifically testing a claim.
The scientific communit? In their off time? Sure, scientists can use intuition and arrive at belifes and opinions about these people just like anyone who is not involved in a field of science can. Just like they can belive in god. However, nothing about science suggests that they should belive these things to be shams. Thoes belifes are arrived at by their personal bull**** detectors, not any kind of scientific evaluation.
You cannot scientifically evaluate things you cannot scientifically evaluate so claiming a scientific evaluation of something you cannot scientifically evaluate lead you to belive something about that thing is absurd, unless what it lead you to belive is that you cannot evaluate it with science.
You know what Escher, you are an incredibly rude person. You are basically the bully of off topic, and you shift responsibility from yourself onto your victimes they weren't "credibible to begin with".
I'm not shifting responsiblity anywhere. If I'm rude, sarcastic, caustic, insulting, whatever, then I am, I know it and I own it. But frankly, that shouldn't have any effect on the credibility of anyone's argument. Ad hominem attacks are bad logic. I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone into thinking that because I'm sarcastic that means my arguments are somehow better, and frankly anyone that does so is an idiot that needs a refresher on logical fallacies.
Admitting your a jerk, doesn't make it any better. In fact, if you didn't know you could be excused becuase of your ignorance. But if you are actually making a point of being a nasty poster, I really don't know what else to say.
But if you are actually making a point of being a nasty poster, I really don't know what else to say.
You have an interesting view of the world. When someone acts just like they always do, they aren't really "making a point" of anything. They're just being normal. It's not like I'm sitting in my chair while twisting my vaudeville mustache and cakling to myself thinking in cartoonish thought bubbles "my my my, how can I mistreat SeventhSolitude today? What wickedness shall I bespell them with?"
I'm just being... me. That's not "making a point" of anything.
That said, I outlined several options for you to pursue if you really find me so detestable. I suggest that if you find it so hard to deal with me, you choose one.
But if you are actually making a point of being a nasty poster, I really don't know what else to say.
You have an interesting view of the world. When someone acts just like they always do, they aren't really "making a point" of anything. They're just being normal. It's not like I'm sitting in my chair while twisting my vaudeville mustache and cakling to myself thinking in cartoonish thought bubbles "my my my, how can I mistreat SeventhSolitude today? What wickedness shall I bespell them with?"
I'm just being... me. That's not "making a point" of anything.
That said, I outlined several options for you to pursue if you really find me so detestable. I suggest that if you find it so hard to deal with me, you choose one.
Well, being you is apparenlty being a ****ing prick. You can spin it anyway you want to. But at the end of the day you are an ****.
Well, being you is apparenlty being a ****ing prick. You can spin it anyway you want to. But at the end of the day you are an ****.
So I take it you're not interested in doors 1 or 2 then? Should I be on the lookout for 4?
Well, being you is apparenlty being a ****ing prick. You can spin it anyway you want to. But at the end of the day you are an ****.
So I take it you're not interested in doors 1 or 2 then? Should I be on the lookout for 4?
Sorry I don't report people. But that doesn't mean I am not going to say anything to you when you are being rude.
It's not like I'm sitting in my chair while twisting my vaudeville mustache and cakling to myself thinking in cartoonish thought bubbles "... What wickedness shall I bespell them with?"
No? But that's how I've always pictured you.
Or at least how I will from now on.
Whatever lifts your luggage I suppose.
Go **** yourself.